Sir Philip Martin Bailhache

Voting Pour delivers this

The composition of the Rent Tribunal amendment relates to the promise to manage housing and raise awareness of tenancy rights.

Voting Pour delivers this

Composition of Rent Tribunal amendments relate to supporting tenancy rights mechanisms.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Rent Control Tribunal proposition relates to raising awareness and enforcement of tenancy rights.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise to raise awareness of tenancy rights is general and directional, and a vote on the composition of a Rent Tribunal is a specific procedural/structural mechanism that may or may not be the right means of honouring that commitment, leaving room for the member to have preferred a different approach.

Voting Pour delivers this

Measures affecting Andium Homes rent increases relate to helping residents with housing costs and protecting tenants.

Voting Pour delivers this

Reference back of Rent Control Tribunal Chair and Member nominations relates to ensuring proper governance of the body protecting tenancy rights.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise mentioned raising awareness of tenancy rights generally, but this motion concerned a procedural reference-back on nominations to a Rent Control Tribunal, which is a specific governance/appointment mechanism rather than the substance of tenancy rights policy, so voting against it does not plainly contradict the promise without inferential steps.

Voting Pour delivers this

Rent-a-room tax relief relates to helping more residents access housing affordably.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a general commitment to housing affordability and tenancy awareness, while this motion concerns one specific tax mechanism (rent-a-room relief) that is, at most, one optional route toward those goals, and rejecting it does not plainly contradict the broader promise.

Voting Pour delivers this

Rent-a-room tax relief part 2 relates to helping more residents access housing affordably.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise concerned managing population growth, getting residents onto the housing ladder, and raising tenancy rights awareness, while this motion concerned a specific tax relief mechanism (rent-a-room relief), which is one optional fiscal instrument among many that could relate to housing—rejecting this particular measure does not plainly contradict the general housing commitment.

Voting Pour delivers this

Rent-a-room tax relief directly relates to helping residents access housing more affordably.

Voting Pour delivers this

Stamp duty on buy-to-let investments relates to managing the housing market and helping residents onto the housing ladder.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise to "get more residents on the housing ladder" is a general directional commitment, and voting against a specific stamp-duty amendment on buy-to-let and second homes is one particular fiscal mechanism that could serve that goal, but rejecting it does not necessarily contradict the broader promise, as the member may have preferred alternative routes to the same end.

Voting Pour delivers this

Stamp duty on buy-to-let investments relates to managing the housing market and helping residents onto the housing ladder.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise to "get more residents on the housing ladder" is a general goal, and voting against this specific stamp duty amendment on buy-to-let and second homes is one of several possible approaches to that goal; the member could reasonably have opposed this particular fiscal mechanism while still pursuing home ownership through other means.

Voting Pour delivers this

Ringfenced stamp duty relates to managing housing costs and helping residents onto the housing ladder.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise concerns managing population growth, helping residents onto the housing ladder, and raising tenancy rights awareness, while this motion concerns ringfencing stamp duty — a specific fiscal mechanism that could plausibly relate to housing but requires an inferential chain to connect to the promise, and a member could reasonably oppose this particular mechanism while still pursuing the broader housing goal.

Voting Pour delivers this

Regulation of estate agents directly relates to helping residents with housing access and protecting those on the housing ladder.

Voting Pour delivers this

Development levies (parts a and b) relate to managing population growth and housing development.

Voting Pour delivers this

Jersey Homes Trust rent increase assistance scheme directly relates to helping residents with housing costs.

Voting Pour delivers this

Rent control measures directly relate to the promise to manage housing costs and raise awareness of tenancy rights.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise to raise awareness of tenancy rights is general and directional, and while rent control measures are related to tenants' rights, voting against one specific rent control mechanism does not plainly contradict a promise about awareness and housing ladder access, as the member could reasonably hold different views on whether rent control is the right instrument.

Voting Pour delivers this

Rent control measures directly relate to the promise to manage housing and protect tenants.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise to raise awareness of tenancy rights is a general directional commitment, and voting against a specific rent control measure is not plainly the same as voting against tenancy-rights awareness; a member could oppose this particular mechanism while still pursuing the broader housing and tenancy goals by other means.

Voting Pour delivers this

Rent control measures directly relate to the promise to manage housing and raise awareness of tenancy rights.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise mentions raising awareness of tenancy rights, not necessarily imposing rent control measures, so voting against a specific rent control mechanism is not a plain contradiction of a general commitment to tenancy rights awareness and housing solutions.

Voting Pour delivers this

Rent control measures directly relate to protecting tenants and raising awareness of tenancy rights.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise mentions raising awareness of tenancy rights but does not specifically commit to rent control measures, so voting against a particular rent control mechanism is not a plain contradiction of a promise that was primarily about awareness and housing ladder access rather than price regulation.

Voting Pour delivers this

Rent control measures directly relate to protecting tenants and raising awareness of tenancy rights.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise to raise awareness of tenancy rights is general and directional, and voting against one specific rent control measure does not straightforwardly contradict it, as a member could oppose that particular mechanism while still pursuing the broader housing and tenancy commitments through other means.

Voting Pour delivers this

Rent control measures paragraph (c) relates to the promise to manage population growth and help residents with housing.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise mentions raising awareness of tenancy rights, not implementing rent control, and while rent control measures relate broadly to housing, voting against this specific mechanism does not plainly contradict a general commitment to tenant awareness and housing ladder access, as a member could reasonably oppose rent control while still pursuing those goals by other means.

Voting Contre delivers this

A reference back of rented dwellings licensing regulations would delay protections for tenants, working against the promise on tenancy rights.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise to raise awareness of tenancy rights is general, and the motion concerns referring back licensing regulations for rented dwellings—a procedural step that does not straightforwardly contradict or confirm the broader commitment to tenancy rights awareness, since a member could support referral back to improve rather than abandon such regulations.

Voting Pour delivers this

Minimum residential space standards (paragraph c) relate to protecting tenants' rights to adequate housing.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise concerns managing population growth, homeownership, and tenancy rights awareness, while minimum residential space standards are a specific regulatory mechanism for housing quality that is only indirectly related to those commitments, and voting against one particular housing standard does not clearly contradict the general promise.

Voting Pour delivers this

Draft Public Health and Safety (Rented Dwellings) Licensing Regulations principles relate to raising awareness of tenancy rights and improving rental conditions.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise broadly references raising awareness of tenancy rights and obligations, while the motion concerns a specific licensing regime for rented dwellings, which is a related but distinct regulatory mechanism; voting against it could reflect concerns about the particular approach rather than opposition to the general goal of improving tenants' protections.

Voting Pour delivers this

Mortgage repayment assistance directly relates to the promise to help more residents onto the housing ladder.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise to "get more residents on the housing ladder" is a general directional commitment, and voting against one specific mortgage repayment assistance scheme does not plainly contradict it, as the member could have opposed this particular mechanism while still pursuing the broader goal through different means.

Voting Pour delivers this

Reduction in residency requirement for entitlement to work relates to managing population growth.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is to "manage population growth" (not necessarily reduce it) and to help residents onto the housing ladder, while the motion concerns reducing residency requirements for work entitlement—a specific immigration/labour mechanism whose connection to either housing-ladder access or population management requires inference about whether more or fewer restrictions best serves the promise's general direction.

Voting Pour delivers this

Rent-a-room amendment in Government Plan relates to helping residents access affordable housing.

Voting Pour delivers this

Abolition of interest relief for landlords amendment relates to managing the housing market and helping residents onto the housing ladder.

Voting Pour delivers this

Abolition of interest relief for landlords (as amended) relates to managing the housing market.

Voting Pour delivers this

Rented dwellings licensing regulations relate to improving housing standards and protecting tenants.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise to raise awareness of tenancy rights is broad and directional, while this motion concerns a specific amendment to licensing regulations for rented dwellings, meaning a vote against it does not straightforwardly contradict the promise since the member could support tenancy rights awareness through other mechanisms.

Voting Pour delivers this

Rented dwellings licensing regulations relate to improving housing standards and protecting tenants.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise to raise awareness of tenancy rights is general and directional, and voting against one specific licensing regulation for rented dwellings could reflect concerns about the mechanism, scope, or drafting rather than opposition to the broader goal of improving tenants' protections.

Voting Pour delivers this

Rented dwellings licensing regulations relate to improving housing standards and protecting tenants.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise to raise awareness of tenancy rights is general and directional, and voting against specific licensing regulations for rented dwellings could reflect a preference for a different regulatory mechanism rather than opposition to the underlying goal of improving tenant protections.

Voting Pour delivers this

Third reading of rented dwellings licensing regulations directly relates to improving housing standards and tenancy rights.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. While the motion on licensing rented dwellings relates broadly to tenants' rights, the promise specifically mentioned "awareness of tenancy rights and obligations," and voting against one particular licensing mechanism does not plainly contradict that directional commitment, as the member could support tenant awareness through other means.

Voting Pour delivers this

Minimum residential space standards (paragraph b) relate to protecting tenants' rights to adequate housing.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise focused on managing population growth, homeownership, and tenancy rights awareness, while this motion concerns minimum residential space standards—a related but distinct housing quality mechanism that is not directly named in the promise, making it unclear that voting against it contradicts the promise rather than reflecting a different view on the appropriate regulatory approach.

Voting Pour delivers this

Investing stamp duty uplift from second homes into first-time buyer funds directly advances helping more residents onto the housing ladder.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise to help more residents onto the housing ladder is a general directional commitment, and voting against one specific funding mechanism (redirecting stamp duty revenue into first-time buyer funds) does not plainly contradict it, as the member could prefer different routes to achieve the same goal.

Voting Pour delivers this

Minimum residential space standards (paragraph a) relate to protecting tenants' rights to adequate housing.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise focused on managing population growth, expanding home ownership, and raising awareness of tenancy rights, while the motion concerned minimum residential space standards — a related but distinct housing measure that the member could reasonably oppose without abandoning the broader promise.

Voting Pour delivers this

Pets in rental properties as amended relates to raising awareness of tenancy rights and improving conditions for tenants.

Voting Pour delivers this

Pets in rental properties amendment relates to improving tenancy rights for renters.

Voting Contre delivers this

Removal of stamp duty surcharge on second homes would affect housing market dynamics in a way that could disadvantage first-time buyers, working against helping residents onto the housing ladder.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise broadly concerns managing population growth and helping residents onto the housing ladder, while the motion specifically concerns removing a stamp duty surcharge on second homes — a particular fiscal mechanism whose relationship to the promise requires inferential reasoning about whether the surcharge helps or hinders first-time buyers relative to second-home purchasers.

Voting Contre delivers this

Stamp duty exemption amendment relates to housing market management and helping residents onto the housing ladder.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise to help more residents onto the housing ladder is a general directional commitment, and whether a specific stamp duty exemption amendment to the 2025–2028 budget was the right mechanism to honour it requires a policy judgement that cannot be read directly from the manifesto text.

Voting Pour delivers this

Increasing stamp duty for properties that are not principal residences relates to helping residents onto the housing ladder by deterring investment purchases.

Voting Pour delivers this

Social Rents Plan to Reduce Rental Stress for Tenants directly relates to the promise to help residents and raise awareness of tenancy rights.

Voting Pour delivers this

Social Rental Plan to Reduce Rental Stress for Tenants as amended directly relates to the promise on housing and tenancy rights.

Voting Pour delivers this

Increasing assets and savings threshold for the Affordable Housing Gateway directly relates to helping more residents access the housing ladder.

Voting Pour delivers this

Residential Tenancy Amendment Law amendment 3 relates to improving tenancy rights.

Voting Pour delivers this

Further parts of the Residential Tenancy Amendment Law relate to improving tenancy rights.

Voting Pour delivers this

Residential Tenancy Amendment Law principles relate to improving tenancy rights.

Voting Pour delivers this

Residential Tenancy Amendment Law third reading relates to improving tenancy rights.

Considered and set aside: this motion does not bear on the promise. The motion concerns police detention arrangements for children and young people, which has no discernible connection to the promise about managing population growth, housing, or tenancy rights.

Voting Pour delivers this

Residential Tenancy Amendment Law amendment relates to improving tenancy rights protections.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise to raise awareness of tenancy rights is general and directional, and voting against one specific amendment to tenancy legislation does not straightforwardly contradict it, as the member could oppose this particular amendment's mechanism while still pursuing the broader goal of improving tenancy rights awareness by other means.

Voting Pour delivers this

Residential Tenancy Amendment Law part 1 relates to improving tenancy rights and conditions.

Voting Pour delivers this

Residential Tenancy Amendment Law part 2 relates to improving tenancy rights and conditions.

Voting Pour delivers this

Residential Tenancy Amendment Law part 3 relates to improving tenancy rights and conditions.

Voting Pour delivers this

Residential Tenancy Amendment Law part 1 (adopted) relates to improving tenancy rights.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise to raise awareness of tenancy rights is general and directional, and voting against one specific amendment to tenancy legislation could reflect concerns about the particular mechanism or drafting rather than opposition to the broader goal of improving tenants' awareness of their rights and obligations.

Voting Pour delivers this

Residential Tenancy Amendment Law part 2 (adopted) relates to improving tenancy rights.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise was a general directional commitment to raise awareness of tenancy rights, while the motion concerned a specific amendment to tenancy law whose details are not provided, and voting against one particular legislative amendment does not straightforwardly contradict a broad manifesto aspiration without knowing whether the member objected to the mechanism, scope, or drafting rather than the underlying goal.

Voting Pour delivers this

Residential Tenancy Amendment Law part 3 (adopted) relates to improving tenancy rights.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise to raise awareness of tenancy rights is a general directional commitment, and voting against one specific amendment to tenancy law could reflect objections to the particular mechanism, drafting, or bundled provisions rather than opposition to the underlying goal of improving tenants' awareness of their rights.

Voting Pour delivers this

Residential Tenancy Amendment Law part 3 relates to improving tenancy rights.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise to raise awareness of tenancy rights is general and directional, and voting against one specific amendment to tenancy law could reflect concerns about the particular mechanism rather than opposition to the broader goal of improving tenancy rights awareness.

Voting Pour delivers this

Residential Tenancy Amendment Law part 4 relates to improving tenancy rights.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise broadly favours raising awareness of tenancy rights, but this motion concerns a specific paragraph of an amendment to tenancy law, and voting against one particular provision does not straightforwardly contradict a general manifesto commitment to tenancy-rights awareness without knowing what that paragraph specifically decided.

Voting Pour delivers this

The amendment on empty residential properties bears on managing housing supply and helping residents access housing.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise speaks broadly to managing population growth and housing ladder access, while this motion concerns a specific budget amendment on empty residential properties—a related but distinct mechanism whose rejection does not straightforwardly contradict the general housing commitment.

Voting Pour delivers this

Reinstating mortgage interest tax relief would directly help more residents afford home ownership, advancing the promise to help more onto the housing ladder.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise to help more residents onto the housing ladder is a general directional commitment, and voting against one specific tax-relief mechanism (mortgage interest relief) does not plainly contradict it, since a member could oppose this particular measure while pursuing the same goal through other routes.

Voting Contre delivers this

This amendment to the mortgage interest tax relief amendment, if adopted, would have altered or weakened that relief measure, so voting against it supports preserving the relief that helps buyers.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise to help more residents onto the housing ladder is a broad directional commitment, and reinstating mortgage interest tax relief is one specific, debatable mechanism for achieving it — voting against this particular amendment does not straightforwardly contradict the general aim, as a member could reasonably prefer alternative measures or judge this route ineffective or unaffordable.

Voting Pour delivers this

Rent Tribunal appointment of Chair, Deputy Chair and Members relates to the promise to raise awareness of tenancy rights and protect tenants.

Voting Pour delivers this

Control of Housing and Work residential and employment status regulations relate to managing population growth.

Voting Pour delivers this

Affordable housing provision at the Waterfront directly relates to helping more residents onto the housing ladder.

Voting Pour delivers this

The amendment to remove the stamp duty surcharge on second homes was itself what was being amended; voting for this counter-amendment preserved the surcharge that supports first-time buyer policy.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise to help more residents onto the housing ladder is a general directional commitment, and whether removing a stamp duty surcharge on second homes is the right specific mechanism to advance that goal requires an inference about policy design that the promise itself does not specify.

Voting Contre delivers this

This amendment to the empty residential properties amendment, if adopted, would have altered or weakened the empty properties measure, so voting against it advances the housing promise.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a broad, multi-part directional commitment to population management and housing access, while the motion concerns a specific amendment about empty residential properties within a wider budget document, and voting for or against it cannot straightforwardly be equated with supporting or opposing the general housing ladder and tenancy-rights goals.

Voting Contre delivers this

Removing the stamp duty surcharge on buy-to-let and second homes would reduce a policy designed to help first-time buyers access housing, working against the promise to help more residents onto the housing ladder.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise to help more residents onto the housing ladder is a general directional commitment, and whether removing a stamp duty surcharge on buy-to-let and second homes advances or hinders that goal requires a policy inference rather than being self-evident from the promise's text.

Voting Pour delivers this

The second amendment to the thirty-first amendment on empty residential properties also bears on increasing housing availability.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a broad, multi-part commitment to manage population growth and housing access, while the motion concerns a specific amendment about empty residential properties within a larger budget document, making it impossible to say that voting against this one mechanism directly contradicts the general promise without inferring that this particular measure was the right or necessary route to honouring it.

Voting Contre delivers this

The amendment regarding Health Insurance Fund Transfer relates to funding for GP access and health services, bearing on the promise to make GP access more affordable.

Voting Pour delivers this

Health Insurance Fund Transfers relate to funding for GP services and making them more affordable.

Voting Pour delivers this

Multi-morbidity GP consultations amendment directly relates to the promise to make GP access more affordable.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. While the promise includes making GP access more affordable, the motion concerns a specific funding mechanism for multi-morbidity GP consultations, and voting against one particular amendment does not straightforwardly contradict a general directional commitment, as the member could have opposed this specific measure while supporting the broader goal through other means.

Voting Pour delivers this

Free GP visits for children and young people directly relates to the promise to make GP access more affordable.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. While the promise included making GP access more affordable, voting against this specific amendment (free GP visits for children and young people) could reflect concerns about the particular mechanism, cost, or scope rather than opposition to the broader principle of affordability, so the breach requires an inference rather than being self-evident.

Voting Pour delivers this

Health and Community Services Interim Board relates to restructuring health services management, bearing on the promise to reduce health service managers.

Voting Pour delivers this

Health and Community Services Interim Board amendment relates to restructuring health service management.

Voting Pour delivers this

Funding of Acute Cardiac Nursing relates to investing in frontline health staff rather than managers.

Voting Pour delivers this

Vaccination Service amendment relates to funding frontline health services.

Voting Pour delivers this

Vaccination Service amendment relates to funding frontline health services.

Voting Pour delivers this

Medical hosiery and wound dressing funding relates to investing in frontline health services.

Voting Pour delivers this

Funding of Acute Cardiac Nursing relates to investing in frontline health staff.

Voting Pour delivers this

IVF Funding relates to expanding health service access for patients.

Voting Pour delivers this

IVF Funding amendment relates to expanding health service access.

Voting Contre delivers this

Health and Care Jersey Advisory Board and Partnership Board amendment relates to restructuring health service governance and management.

Considered and set aside: this motion does not bear on the promise. The promise concerns GP affordability and reducing health service managers in favour of frontline staff, while the motion concerns the establishment or amendment of Health and Care Jersey Advisory and Partnership Boards — a governance/structural matter that does not directly bear on either of those specific commitments.

Voting Pour delivers this

Paragraph (a) of Health and Care Jersey Advisory Board relates to restructuring health service management.

Voting Pour delivers this

Paragraph (b) of Health and Care Jersey Advisory Board relates to restructuring health service management.

Considered and set aside: this motion does not bear on the promise. The promise concerns GP affordability and reducing health service managers in favour of frontline staff, while the motion concerns the establishment or governance of an Advisory Board and Partnership Board for Health and Care Jersey — a structural/governance matter that does not directly bear on either of those specific commitments.

Voting Pour delivers this

Medical hosiery and wound dressing funding relates to investing in frontline health services.

Voting Pour delivers this

Bailhache's own amendment to raise the share of Social Security contributions allocated to the Health Insurance Fund directly aims to make GP access more affordable by increasing the fund that subsidises GP visits.

Voting Pour delivers this

Funding free GP visits for all full-time students advances making GP access more affordable, directly in line with the promise.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a general directional commitment to make GP access more affordable, while this motion is one specific funding mechanism (free GP visits for full-time students only), and the member could reasonably oppose this particular measure on grounds of scope, cost, or preferred alternative approach without abandoning the broader goal.

Voting Pour delivers this

Hospital funding amendment in the Government Plan directly relates to the promise to build a new hospital at the right cost.

Voting Pour delivers this

New Healthcare Facilities Programme paragraph (a) directly relates to the promise to build a new hospital for Jersey.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a general aspiration about hospital location and cost, while the motion concerned a specific programme paragraph whose content is not described in sufficient detail to determine whether voting against it plainly contradicts building a hospital "in the right place at the right cost," as a member could oppose a specific programme element while still pursuing the broader goal.

Voting Pour delivers this

New Healthcare Facilities Programme expenditure amendment directly relates to the promise to build a new hospital at the right cost.

Voting Pour delivers this

Our Hospital Project Reporting directly relates to the promise to build a new hospital and ensure transparency on its progress and cost.

Considered and set aside: this motion does not bear on the promise. The motion concerned reporting arrangements for the hospital project, not the location or cost of the hospital itself, so voting against a reporting mechanism does not contradict a promise about building a hospital in the right place at the right cost.

Voting Pour delivers this

New Healthcare Facilities Programme paragraph (b) directly relates to the promise to build a new hospital.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a general directional commitment about building a hospital in the right place at the right cost, while the motion concerns a specific programme paragraph whose precise content is not given, meaning a vote against it could reflect disagreement about location, cost, mechanism, or other details without necessarily contradicting the underlying commitment to build a new hospital.

Voting Pour delivers this

Gas Place Primary School Site amendment relates to investing in educational infrastructure.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Skills Development Fund directly relates to the promise to increase investment in education and ensure young people can develop their talents.

Voting Pour delivers this

Update of Higher Education Student Funding directly relates to the promise to increase investment in education for young people regardless of background.

Voting Pour delivers this

Update of Higher Education Student Funding amendment directly relates to the promise to increase investment in education.

Voting Pour delivers this

Youth Service Statutory Provision relates to ensuring young people can access services to develop their talents.

Voting Pour delivers this

Youth Services Statutory Provision amendment relates to ensuring young people can access development services.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise commits to greater investment in education broadly, but whether this specific amendment to Youth Services Statutory Provision was the appropriate or necessary mechanism to deliver that general commitment requires inference rather than being self-evident from the promise's wording.

Voting Pour delivers this

Fully funded education or training for 16-18 year olds paragraph (c) directly relates to the promise to ensure all young people can develop their talents.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a broad directional commitment to greater investment in education for all young people, while this motion concerns one specific funding mechanism for 16-18 year olds, and voting against it could reflect concerns about implementation, cost, or a preference for a different approach rather than opposition to the underlying goal.

Voting Pour delivers this

Fully funded education or training for 16-18 year olds paragraph (a) directly relates to the promise to ensure all young people can develop their talents.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. While the promise supports greater investment in education for young people regardless of background, voting against this specific motion on fully funded education or training for 16-18 year olds could reflect disagreement with the particular mechanism, funding arrangement, or scope rather than rejection of the underlying commitment to educational investment.

Voting Pour delivers this

Delivery of Three Bilingual Primary Schools paragraph (c) relates to increasing investment in education.

Voting Pour delivers this

Delivery of Three Bilingual Primary Schools paragraph (b) relates to increasing investment in education.

Voting Pour delivers this

Modern Languages in Schools amendment relates to the promise to increase investment in education for young people.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a general commitment to increased investment in education, while the motion concerns a specific amendment about modern languages in schools; voting against one particular curricular measure does not straightforwardly contradict a broad educational investment pledge, as the member could support the general aim while opposing this specific mechanism or approach.

Voting Pour delivers this

Delivery of Three Bilingual Primary Schools paragraph (a) relates to increasing investment in education.

Voting Pour delivers this

Adding funding to the Jersey Premium scheme for sport and physical activity in primary schools supports ensuring young people can develop their talents regardless of background.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise to increase investment in education is general and directional, while this motion concerns one specific funding mechanism (a £350,000 sports pilot via the Jersey Premium scheme), meaning a member could vote against this particular measure while still genuinely pursuing broader educational investment through other means.

Voting Pour delivers this

Adjusting apprenticeship grants for inflation supports investment in education and helping young people develop their talents.

Voting Pour delivers this

The amendment for additional funding for education directly advances the promise to increase investment in education.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. While the promise calls for greater investment in education, voting against one specific funding amendment does not clearly contradict that general commitment, as the member may have opposed this particular mechanism, amount, or funding source while still supporting education investment overall.

Voting Pour delivers this

Jersey Business amendment directly relates to the promise to reinvigorate the economy by supporting business.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a general directional commitment to support business and economic growth, and voting against one specific amendment concerning Jersey Business funding/arrangements does not clearly contradict that goal, as the member could have had reasons unrelated to the promise's substance—such as preferring a different mechanism or level of funding—while still genuinely pursuing support for business.

Voting Pour delivers this

Enhanced Capital Allowance relates to supporting business investment and economic growth.

Voting Pour delivers this

Income Tax High Value Residents Amendment relates to maintaining Jersey's attractive tax environment for economic growth.

Voting Pour delivers this

Third reading of Income Tax High Value Residents Amendment relates to Jersey's economic attractiveness.

Voting Pour delivers this

Regtech amendment relates directly to the promise to reinvigorate the economy through innovation and digital enterprises.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise to support innovation and digital enterprises is a general directional commitment, and whether this specific Regtech amendment to the Government Plan was the right or necessary mechanism to honour that commitment requires an inference that the member could reasonably dispute.

Voting Pour delivers this

Economy Strategy amendment directly relates to the promise to reinvigorate the economy by supporting business and sustainable growth.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a general directional commitment to support business and economic growth, and voting against one specific amendment to the Economy Strategy within the Government Plan does not plainly contradict that goal, as the member could have opposed this particular amendment while still genuinely pursuing the broader promise through other means or preferring a different approach.

Voting Pour delivers this

Jersey Business Revenue Expenditure amendment directly relates to the promise to reinvigorate the economy by supporting business.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a general directional commitment to support business and economic growth, and voting against one specific budget amendment to Jersey Business's revenue expenditure could reflect a preference for a different funding level or mechanism rather than opposition to the underlying goal.

Voting Pour delivers this

Skills Development Fund relates to supporting innovation and ensuring skilled workforce for economic growth.

Voting Pour delivers this

Enhanced Capital Allowance as amended relates to supporting business investment and sustainable growth.

Voting Pour delivers this

Global Anti-Base Erosion IIR Tax Law relates to Jersey's international tax position and economic sustainability.

Voting Pour delivers this

Multinational Corporate Income Tax relates to Jersey's international tax competitiveness and sustainable economic growth.

Voting Pour delivers this

Third reading of Multinational Corporate Income Tax relates to Jersey's economic competitiveness.

Voting Pour delivers this

Jersey Business and Digital Jersey Savings amendment directly relates to the promise to support business and digital enterprises.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise supports business and digital enterprise in general terms, but voting against one specific budget amendment concerning Jersey Business and Digital Jersey savings could reflect a judgement about the particular mechanism, funding level, or alternative approach rather than a rejection of the underlying goal.

Voting Pour delivers this

Digital Services Platform amendment relates to the promise to support digital enterprises and innovation.

Voting Contre delivers this

The amendment to the Climate Council proposition was rejected; voting against it (which the member may have done) relates to how Jersey addresses climate change through governance structures, bearing on the promise to address climate change sensibly.

Voting Pour delivers this

Establishing a Climate Council (as amended) directly relates to the promise to address climate change sensibly and restore biodiversity.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Marine Spatial Plan directly relates to protecting Jersey's marine environment and restoring biodiversity.

Voting Pour delivers this

The fifth amendment for a St Helier Country Park relates to protecting Jersey's environment and restoring biodiversity.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise to "protect Jersey's environment" and "restore biodiversity" is a general directional commitment, and voting against this specific amendment to the Government Plan regarding a St Helier Country Park could reflect a judgement about the particular mechanism, funding, timing, or implementation details rather than a rejection of the environmental goal itself.

Voting Pour delivers this

Vessel monitoring systems for sea fisheries relate to protecting Jersey's marine environment and biodiversity.

Voting Pour delivers this

Third reading of sea fisheries vessel monitoring systems regulations relates to protecting Jersey's marine environment.

Voting Pour delivers this

Increased revenue expenditure for agriculture and fisheries relates to supporting environmental stewardship and biodiversity.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Draft Endangered Species (CITES) Amendment Law directly relates to protecting Jersey's environment and restoring biodiversity.

Voting Pour delivers this

The La Collette Waste Management Site Development Plan (as amended) directly relates to environmental protection and managing waste in Jersey.

Voting Pour delivers this

Reinstating the re-use centre at La Collette advances environmental protection and waste reduction, bearing on the promise to protect Jersey's environment.

Voting Pour delivers this

Draft Planning and Building (Conservation Areas) Regulations directly relate to protecting Jersey's environment and built heritage.

Voting Pour delivers this

Principles of Conservation Areas regulations directly relate to protecting Jersey's environment.

Voting Pour delivers this

Conservation Areas regulations directly relate to protecting Jersey's environment.

Voting Pour delivers this

Increasing revenue expenditure on agriculture and fisheries supports environmental stewardship and biodiversity goals.

Voting Contre delivers this

The amendment to Offshore Wind was rejected; voting against the amendment and for offshore wind advances the promise to address climate change sensibly.

Voting Pour delivers this

Voting for Offshore Wind directly advances the promise to address climate change sensibly and protect Jersey's environment.

Voting Contre delivers this

Rejecting amendments to the Marine Spatial Plan (if they weakened it) would advance the promise to protect Jersey's environment; the relevance depends on the direction of the amendment.

Voting Contre delivers this

Rejecting amendments to the Marine Spatial Plan relates to protecting Jersey's marine environment if the amendments weakened environmental protections.

Voting Contre delivers this

Rejecting amendments to the Marine Spatial Plan relates to protecting Jersey's marine environment.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a broad directional commitment to environmental protection and biodiversity, and whether voting for or against a specific amendment to a Marine Spatial Plan best delivers that goal requires a judgement about the amendment's content and merits that is not self-evident from the promise alone.

Voting Contre delivers this

Rejecting amendments to the Marine Spatial Plan relates to protecting Jersey's marine environment.

Voting Contre delivers this

Rejecting the second amendment to the Marine Spatial Plan relates to protecting Jersey's marine environment.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise to "address climate change sensibly and restore biodiversity" is a general directional commitment, and whether voting for or against a specific amendment to a Marine Spatial Plan better delivers that aim requires inference about the amendment's content and effect rather than being self-evident from the promise itself.

Voting Pour delivers this

Minimum size limits for sea fisheries relate to protecting Jersey's marine environment and biodiversity.

Voting Pour delivers this

An evidence-based energy strategy directly addresses the promise to address climate change sensibly.

Voting Pour delivers this

Restoring £656,000 to the Environment department's budget directly supports protecting Jersey's environment and biodiversity.

Voting Pour delivers this

A statutory duty to future generations directly relates to addressing climate change sensibly and protecting the environment for future generations.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise to address climate change and restore biodiversity is a broad directional commitment, and voting against a statutory duty to future generations could reflect a judgement about the mechanism rather than a rejection of the underlying environmental goals.

Voting Contre delivers this

Rejecting an amendment to continuation of rural and marine support relates to protecting Jersey's rural environment and marine biodiversity.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise commits to protecting the environment and restoring biodiversity in general terms, but without knowing the specific content of the Rural and Marine Support amendment, it cannot be determined that voting Pour rather than Contre plainly contradicts that broad commitment, as a member could reasonably support the amended motion while still honestly pursuing environmental and biodiversity goals.

Voting Pour delivers this

Continuation of rural and marine support directly relates to protecting Jersey's environment and restoring biodiversity.

Voting Pour delivers this

States Employment Board Annual Reporting directly relates to greater accountability and transparency of civil service management to elected members.

Voting Pour delivers this

Reporting of headcount and vacancies in government departments relates to the promise of greater financial care and accountability over civil service numbers.

Voting Pour delivers this

An audit of government department vacancies directly relates to exercising greater financial care over civil service expenditure.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. An audit of government department vacancies is one specific procedural measure that could relate to financial care and civil service accountability, but voting against it does not plainly contradict a general manifesto commitment to those principles, as the member could reasonably prefer alternative mechanisms to achieve the same goals.

Voting Pour delivers this

A freeze on public health staff appointments relates to exercising greater financial care and managing civil service headcount.

Voting Pour delivers this

Cabinet Office Expenditure Savings directly relates to exercising greater financial care in government.

Voting Pour delivers this

The amendment regarding a new office relates to exercising greater financial care in government spending.

Voting Pour delivers this

Curbing growth of public sector through an end-to-end review of government processes directly relates to exercising greater financial care and accountability.

Voting Pour delivers this

A freeze on public health staff appointments relates to exercising greater financial care over the civil service.

Voting Pour delivers this

Bailhache's own amendment to halve the reduction in the States grant to the Social Security Fund reflects exercising financial care by protecting the Fund's sustainability.

Voting Pour delivers this

States Employment Board Annual Reporting directly relates to making government more open and transparent.

Voting Pour delivers this

The States Decision Tracker amendment to Standing Orders directly advances the promise to make government more open, transparent and responsive.

Voting Pour delivers this

Whistleblowing legislation introduction relates to making government more open and transparent.

Voting Contre delivers this

Reporting on Ministerial activities - moving to next item would prevent debate on ministerial accountability, working against the promise of open and responsive government.

Voting Pour delivers this

Draft Financial Services (Disclosure and Provision of Information) Amendment Regulations relate to transparency and open government.

Voting Pour delivers this

A performance framework for government directly relates to making government more open and responsive through measurable accountability.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a general directional commitment to open and transparent government, while the motion concerns a specific performance framework amendment within a budget document, and rejecting one particular mechanism for accountability does not necessarily contradict a broader commitment to transparency when alternative means may be preferred.

Voting Pour delivers this

Reporting on the Our Hospital Project relates to making government more transparent and responsive on major public expenditure.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a broad directional commitment to open and transparent government, and voting against one specific hospital project reporting arrangement does not straightforwardly contradict it, as the member may have opposed the particular mechanism or details of that reporting motion while still genuinely pursuing transparency through other means.