Andrea Howell

Voting Pour delivers this

Measures affecting Andium Homes rent increases bear on affordability for key workers and those seeking subsidised homes.

Voting Pour delivers this

Mortgage repayment assistance directly bears on affordability for first-time buyers, which is central to the housing promise.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise focused on subsidised homes and shared equity schemes for first-time buyers and key workers, while mortgage repayment assistance is a related but distinct mechanism, and rejecting this particular scheme does not necessarily contradict a general commitment to housing affordability through other means.

Voting Pour delivers this

The AHP (Affordable Housing Programme) scheme amendment directly advances subsidised homes for first-time buyers and key workers.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. While the member promised to support subsidised homes and shared equity schemes, voting against one specific amendment to the Affordable Housing Programme within a broader Government Plan could reflect concerns about the particular mechanism, funding approach, or other bundled details rather than a rejection of the underlying commitment to affordable housing for first-time buyers and key workers.

Voting Pour delivers this

This amendment directly invests stamp duty uplift revenue into first-time buyer funds, directly advancing the promise to pursue subsidised homes for first-time buyers.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. While the promise commits to subsidised homes and shared equity for first-time buyers, voting against this specific funding mechanism (redirecting stamp duty revenue) does not unambiguously contradict that commitment, as the member could oppose this particular route while still pursuing the general goal through other means.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Social Rents Plan amendment to reduce rental stress for tenants directly advances the promise to pursue subsidised homes for key workers and first-time buyers.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Social Rental Plan to Reduce Rental Stress for Tenants as amended directly advances affordable housing for those the promise targets.

Voting Pour delivers this

Increasing the assets and savings threshold for the Affordable Housing Gateway bears directly on access to subsidised homes for first-time buyers.

Voting Pour delivers this

Addressing empty residential properties can help bring more homes onto the market for first-time buyers and key workers, supporting the housing promise.

Voting Pour delivers this

Reinstating mortgage interest tax relief would provide financial support to first-time buyers and key workers with mortgages, bearing directly on the promise to support home ownership for these groups.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is about subsidised homes and shared equity schemes for first-time buyers and key workers, while this motion concerned reinstating mortgage interest tax relief — a different mechanism in the same broad area of housing affordability — and a member could reasonably oppose this specific measure while still pursuing their stated housing commitments through other means.

Voting Contre delivers this

This amendment to the mortgage interest tax relief amendment could alter or undermine the first-time buyer support mechanism, so voting against it preserves the original first-time buyer-focused proposal.

Voting Pour delivers this

Affordable Housing Provision at the Waterfront directly advances the promise to pursue subsidised homes for first-time buyers and key workers.

Voting Contre delivers this

Removing the stamp duty surcharge on second homes would reduce the financial disincentive for purchasing investment properties, working against efforts to prioritise first-time buyers in the housing market.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise concerns subsidised homes and shared equity schemes for first-time buyers and key workers, while the motion concerned removing a stamp duty surcharge on second homes — a related but distinct housing affordability mechanism where a reasonable member could support removal while still genuinely pursuing their stated goals through other means.

Voting Contre delivers this

An amendment weakening the empty residential properties measure would reduce its effectiveness in freeing up homes for first-time buyers.

Voting Contre delivers this

Removing the stamp duty surcharge on buy-to-let and second homes would reduce funds available for first-time buyer support and tilt the market away from owner-occupiers.

Voting Pour delivers this

The second amendment to the empty residential properties motion shapes how that policy works, with the adopted version supporting efforts to bring empty homes into use for buyers.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Play.com site amendment concerns development of a government-owned brownfield site for housing, directly bearing on the promise to prioritise such sites.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Gas Place Primary School Site amendment concerns the use of a government-owned site, directly advancing the promise to prioritise government-owned sites for housing development.

Voting Contre delivers this

The Meanwhile Use of the Former Gas Place Site proposition, if adopted, would delay or redirect a government-owned brownfield site away from housing; voting Contre advances the promise to prioritise such sites for housing.

Voting Contre delivers this

The proposition requesting reconsideration of the proposed use of the former Jersey Gas site bears directly on prioritising a government-owned brownfield site for appropriate (potentially housing) development.

Voting Pour delivers this

The amendment to Meanwhile Use of the Former Gas Place Site bears on how a government-owned brownfield site is developed, relevant to the promise to prioritise such sites for housing.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is to prioritise brownfield sites for housing, but this motion concerns a "meanwhile use" amendment for the Gas Place site — a procedural or interim-use question rather than a direct vote on whether to develop the site for housing, so voting against it does not plainly contradict the promise without further inference about what the amendment actually proposed.

Voting Pour delivers this

Development levies on new development can incentivise use of brownfield and government-owned sites by adjusting the economics of greenfield development, directly relating to the promise to prioritise brownfield sites.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise concerns prioritising brownfield and government-owned sites for housing, while the motion is a budget amendment on development levies — a financial mechanism that may relate to land use incentives but is not a direct vote on whether to prioritise brownfield or government-owned sites, so voting against it does not plainly contradict the promise without inferring a chain of reasoning about how levies affect site selection.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Our Hospital Project Reporting proposition directly advances the promise to have hospital plans revisited and properly scrutinised.

Considered and set aside: this motion does not bear on the promise. The promise concerns revisiting hospital plans to ensure future-proofing, while the motion was about reporting arrangements for the hospital project — a procedural matter that does not directly advance or undermine the substantive planning commitment made in the manifesto.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Hospital Funding amendment to the Government Plan bears directly on future-proofing the hospital project.

Voting Pour delivers this

The New Healthcare Facilities Programme paragraph (a) vote directly bears on the hospital plans, touching on the promise to revisit hospital planning.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise calls generally for hospital plans to be "revisited" and "future-proofed," but the motion concerns a specific programmatic paragraph within the New Healthcare Facilities Programme, and voting against it could reflect concerns about the particular approach, costs, or details rather than opposition to revisiting or future-proofing the hospital plans themselves.

Voting Pour delivers this

The New Healthcare Facilities Programme paragraph (b) vote directly bears on the hospital plans, touching on the promise to revisit and future-proof hospital planning.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise calls for hospital plans to be "revisited" and "future-proofed," but the motion concerns a specific programme decision, and voting against it could reflect a judgement that this particular programme still fails to meet future-proofing requirements rather than opposition to revisiting the plans.

Voting Pour delivers this

The New Healthcare Facilities Programme expenditure amendment bears on funding and future-proofing of the hospital project.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise calls for hospital plans to be "revisited" and "future-proofed," but voting against a specific budget amendment concerning healthcare facilities expenditure could reflect concerns about the particular funding mechanism, level, or approach rather than opposition to the underlying goal of improving hospital plans.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Skills Development Fund directly advances lifelong learning and training opportunities for Islanders.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Update of Higher Education Student Funding directly bears on lifelong learning opportunities for Islanders.

Voting Pour delivers this

Youth Service Statutory Provision as amended bears on training and development opportunities for young Islanders.

Voting Pour delivers this

Fully funded education or training for 16-18 year olds directly advances lifelong learning and training opportunities for Islanders.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a general directional commitment to lifelong learning for Islanders, and voting against one specific funding mechanism for 16–18 year olds does not straightforwardly contradict it, as the member could oppose this particular measure while pursuing the broader goal through other means or on affordability grounds.

Voting Pour delivers this

Fully funded education or training for 16-18 year olds paragraph (a) directly advances the promise to advocate for learning and training opportunities.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a broad directional commitment to lifelong learning for all Islanders, while the motion concerned one specific funding mechanism for a particular age group (16–18 year olds), so voting against it does not plainly contradict the general promise without inferring that this specific measure was the only or necessary way to honour it.

Voting Pour delivers this

Additional funding for education directly supports lifelong learning and training opportunities for Islanders.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a general directional commitment to lifelong learning and training, while the motion concerns one specific funding amendment to the Government Plan, and voting against a particular budget amendment does not necessarily contradict a broad advocacy commitment, especially when the member may have had concerns about the mechanism, amount, or source of funding.

Voting Pour delivers this

Adjusting apprenticeship grants for inflation directly supports lifelong learning and training opportunities for Islanders by maintaining the real value of apprenticeship funding.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise supports lifelong learning broadly, but voting against one specific inflation-adjustment mechanism for apprenticeship grants does not plainly contradict that general commitment, as the member may have had fiscal or technical objections to this particular amendment while still supporting apprenticeships through other means.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Skills Development Fund directly advances developing local talent, which is central to the promise to strengthen school-employer links and reduce reliance on inward migration.

Voting Contre delivers this

Reducing residency requirements for entitlement to work would increase reliance on inward migration, working against the promise to reduce such reliance.

Voting Pour delivers this

Adjusting apprenticeship grants for inflation directly supports the development of local talent through employer-linked training, advancing the promise to strengthen school-employer links and reduce reliance on inward migration.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. While apprenticeship grants relate broadly to developing local talent, the promise concerned strengthening school-employer links specifically, and voting against one particular inflation-adjustment mechanism for apprenticeship grants does not straightforwardly contradict that general directional commitment, as the member could oppose this specific funding mechanism while pursuing the promise through other means.

Voting Pour delivers this

Additional education funding supports developing local talent, which is central to the promise to strengthen school-employer links and reduce reliance on inward migration.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise concerned strengthening school-employer links to develop local talent, while the motion was a specific funding amendment to the Government Plan for education generally, and voting against one particular funding mechanism does not straightforwardly contradict a broad directional commitment to school-employer partnerships.

Voting Pour delivers this

This amendment concerned savings from Jersey Business and Digital Jersey; voting Pour to reject those savings would preserve support for local businesses.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise to support local businesses and reduce red tape is a general directional commitment, and voting against one specific budget amendment affecting Jersey Business and Digital Jersey funding is not the same as opposing the goal itself, as the member could have had reasons (affordability, alternative approach, broader budget concerns) unrelated to the principle.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Enhanced Capital Allowance amendment reduces the tax burden on businesses investing in capital, directly bearing on reducing regulatory/financial burdens on local businesses.

Voting Pour delivers this

Adopting the Enhanced Capital Allowance amendment supports local businesses by easing their tax burden on capital investment.

Voting Pour delivers this

The motion concerns funding for Jersey Business, which directly supports local businesses; voting Pour would advance the promise to support local businesses.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a general directional commitment to support local businesses and reduce red tape, and voting against one specific amendment relating to Jersey Business funding or governance cannot straightforwardly be equated to opposing the general goal, as the member could have had reasons unrelated to the principle (e.g., disagreeing with the mechanism, funding level, or other bundled elements) while still pursuing the broader promise.

Voting Pour delivers this

This amendment concerned Jersey Business revenue expenditure; voting Pour would maintain funding that supports local businesses.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a general directional commitment to support local businesses and reduce red tape, while the motion is a specific budget amendment about Jersey Business revenue expenditure, and voting against one particular funding mechanism does not straightforwardly contradict a broad manifesto goal without knowing what the amendment specifically proposed and whether the member had other reasons or alternative routes in mind.

Voting Pour delivers this

Development levies could represent a regulatory/financial burden on businesses involved in construction and development, and voting on this amendment directly touches on regulatory costs for developers.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise to reduce regulatory burdens on local businesses is a general directional commitment, and whether a specific amendment about development levies in the 2026-2029 Budget was the right mechanism to honour that commitment requires an inference about whether such levies constitute "red tape" and whether this particular amendment was the appropriate route.

Voting Pour delivers this

Increased revenue expenditure for agriculture and fisheries directly supports the farming community and food sustainability.

Voting Pour delivers this

This amendment directly increases revenue expenditure on agriculture and fisheries, materially advancing the promise to support the local farming community.

Voting Pour delivers this

Agriculture Loans Regulations directly support the local farming community through targeted financial assistance.

Voting Pour delivers this

Third Reading of Agriculture Loans Regulations is a direct vote to enact financial support for the farming community.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Principles vote on Agriculture Loans Regulations directly supports the farming community.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Agricultural Loan Restrictions amendment to the Government Plan bears on support for the farming community.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Agricultural Loan Restriction amendment as amended relates directly to financial support for the farming community.

Voting Pour delivers this

Barring agricultural loans for cannabis-based products relates to the direction of agricultural loan policy and touches on what farming activities are supported, relevant to the farming community promise.

Voting Contre delivers this

The amendment to Continuation of Rural and Marine Support, if adopted, would alter support for rural farming; voting Contre preserves the original support for the farming community.

Voting Pour delivers this

Continuation of Rural and Marine Support directly advances the promise to support the farming community for food sustainability.

Voting Contre delivers this

The amendment to the agricultural loans ban could alter how the bar on cannabis-based agricultural loans operates; voting against preserves the original amendment's intent to direct loans toward traditional farming.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise concerns supporting local farming and organic farming for food sustainability, but this motion specifically concerns agricultural loans for cannabis-based products, which is a distinct and tangential policy question that requires an inferential chain to connect to the general farming-support promise.

Voting Contre delivers this

This amendment to the Climate Council proposition, if adopted, would weaken or alter the climate body; voting Contre preserves a stronger Climate Council to combat climate change.

Voting Pour delivers this

Establishing a Climate Council directly advances the promise to combat climate change through institutional action.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Walking and Cycling Routes amendment to the Government Plan directly advances the promise to promote sustainable transport.

Voting Pour delivers this

The La Collette Waste Management Site Development Plan bears on sustainable waste management, which is part of combating climate change.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a broad directional commitment to renewable energy and sustainable transport, and the motion concerns a development plan for a waste management site — the connection between this specific planning decision and the climate promise requires inference about how the site's development relates to renewable energy or fossil fuel reduction, rather than being self-evident.

Voting Contre delivers this

The Supplementary Planning Guidance on Parking Strategy, if rejected, could favour active and sustainable transport over car-centred planning, advancing the promise on sustainable transport.

Considered and set aside: this motion does not bear on the promise. A parking strategy supplementary planning guidance vote is not directly about renewable energy, sustainable transport promotion, or fossil fuel reduction in any specific enough way to clearly connect it to the promise, and the link between opposing a parking strategy and delivering a climate/transport promise requires significant inferential steps about what the strategy actually contained.

Voting Contre delivers this

The amendment to the Offshore Wind proposition could weaken or alter the offshore wind policy; voting Contre preserves the main offshore wind motion advancing renewable energy.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Offshore Wind proposition directly advances the promise to promote renewable energy.

Voting Pour delivers this

An Evidence-based Energy Strategy directly advances the promise to combat climate change by promoting renewable energy.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Supplementary Planning Guidance on parking as amended bears on sustainable transport planning.

Voting Pour delivers this

Restoring £656,000 to the Environment department's budget supports the agency responsible for renewable energy and environmental policy, advancing the promise to combat climate change.

Voting Pour delivers this

A subsidised annual bus pass directly promotes sustainable transport, which is an explicit part of the promise to combat climate change through sustainable transport.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. While subsidised bus passes could promote sustainable transport, voting against one specific funding mechanism for bus passes does not clearly contradict a general manifesto commitment to promote sustainable transport, as the member could oppose this particular measure on cost, design, or effectiveness grounds while still pursuing the broader goal.

Voting Pour delivers this

The States Employment Board Annual Reporting motion directly advances transparency and accountability in the Assembly's financial decisions.

Voting Pour delivers this

A vote of no confidence in the Chair of the Health and Social Security Scrutiny Panel is a direct accountability mechanism within the Assembly.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Our Hospital Project Reporting proposition directly advances transparency and accountability by requiring reporting on a major financially significant project.

Considered and set aside: this motion does not bear on the promise. The promise is a broad commitment to transparency and financial soundness in the Assembly generally, while the motion concerns a specific reporting mechanism for the hospital project, making the link between the vote and the promise too indirect to constitute a clear breach.

Voting Pour delivers this

Amendments to Standing Orders relating to various procedural matters bear on making the Assembly more open and accountable.

Voting Pour delivers this

Introduction of whistleblowing legislation supports transparency and accountability within government and public bodies.

Voting Pour delivers this

Reporting on headcount and vacancies advances transparency in government financial decisions and public sector management.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. While the promise includes commitments to transparency and accountability, voting against one specific reporting mechanism for headcount and vacancies does not plainly contradict those general commitments, as the member could have opposed this particular measure on grounds of detail, format, or alternative reporting approaches while still genuinely pursuing transparency overall.

Voting Pour delivers this

A vote of no confidence in the Chief Minister is a direct accountability mechanism within the States Assembly.

Voting Pour delivers this

The States Decision Tracker amendment to Standing Orders directly advances accountability and transparency in the Assembly.

Voting Pour delivers this

Funding for Statistics Jersey supports the independent statistical capacity needed for transparent, financially sound government decision-making.

Voting Contre delivers this

The motion to move to next item on reporting of ministerial activities would reduce transparency; voting Contre (against the move to next item) would advance accountability.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise concerns general principles of transparency and financial soundness, and voting to move to the next item (a procedural motion) cannot be clearly identified as a breach of those broad commitments without inferring that this specific procedural step was the one necessary means of fulfilling them.

Voting Pour delivers this

Funding for Statistics Jersey's administrative support directly enables the production of independent statistics, supporting transparent and evidence-based financial decision-making in the Assembly.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a broad directional commitment to financial soundness and accountability, and voting against one specific amendment on administrative support funding for Statistics Jersey cannot straightforwardly be equated with opposing that general principle, as the member could plausibly judge this particular measure unnecessary or insufficiently justified while still pursuing the broader goal.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Council of Ministers' amendment to reduce net revenue expenditure to balance the Budget directly relates to making financially sound decisions.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Performance Framework amendment concerns accountability in government spending decisions within the Government Plan.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise calls for a transparent and accountable Assembly making financially sound decisions, but whether voting against a specific Performance Framework amendment to the 2025–2028 Budget contradicts that general commitment depends on inferences about whether this particular mechanism was the right or necessary means to achieve transparency and accountability, which is not self-evident.

Voting Pour delivers this

Freezing government spending at 2025 levels directly bears on the promise to make financially sound decisions by constraining expenditure growth.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise commits to "financially sound decisions" and "living within our means," but whether freezing government spending at 2025 levels was the right mechanism to fulfil that general commitment involves a policy judgement—a member could reasonably vote against this specific freeze while still pursuing fiscal responsibility through other means.