Malcolm Ross Ferey

Voting Pour delivers this

Extending the temporary Social Security contribution reduction directly concerns measures affecting the Social Security Fund, bearing on whether such measures are necessary and realistic.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a general, evaluative commitment about ensuring Social Security Fund measures are "necessary and realistic," not a specific pledge to support or oppose any particular extension of contribution reductions; voting against the amendment could reflect a judgement that the three-month extension was unnecessary or unrealistic, which is consistent with the promise rather than a breach of it.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Draft Social Security (Amendment - Temporary Reduction of Contribution Rates) Regulations directly concerns measures affecting the Social Security Fund, testing whether such changes are necessary and realistic.

Voting Contre delivers this

The amendment on Health Insurance Fund Transfer concerns moving funds between public funds including Social Security-related funds, bearing on the promise to ensure fund measures are realistic.

Voting Pour delivers this

The fourth amendment on HIF Transfers concerns transfers from the Health Insurance Fund, related to the broader Social Security fund management the promise addresses.

Voting Contre delivers this

The twenty-third amendment proposed removing the upper earnings cap for Social Security contributions, a significant change to the Social Security Fund; the promise requires such measures to be necessary and realistic.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Draft Social Security (Amendment of Law No.18) Regulations principles vote concerns changes to Social Security law, directly relevant to Fund preservation measures.

Voting Contre delivers this

The Amendment 3 on removal of earnings cap for Social Security directly tests whether removing the upper earnings cap is a necessary and realistic measure to preserve the Social Security Fund.

Voting Pour delivers this

This amendment on the States grant to the Social Security Fund directly concerns measures taken to manage the Fund, testing whether those measures are calibrated appropriately.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a general, evaluative commitment to ensuring measures are "necessary and realistic," and voting against one specific amendment to the States grant could reflect a judgement that this particular measure was not the right or realistic remedy, rather than a rejection of the underlying goal.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Draft Social Security (Amendment of Law No. 17) Regulations principles vote bears on changes to Social Security law, directly relevant to ensuring fund measures are necessary and realistic.

Voting Pour delivers this

The regulations of the Draft Social Security (Amendment of Law No. 17) directly implement changes to Social Security, relevant to the promise about fund preservation measures.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Third Reading of Social Security (Amendment of Law No. 17) is a direct vote on changes to Social Security law affecting the Fund.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Draft Social Security Law (Payments into the Social Security Funds Regulations) directly concerns funding and payments into the Social Security Fund, a core test of whether fund preservation measures are necessary and realistic.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Draft Social Security Law (Payments into Social Security Fund) Amendment Regulations directly governs payments into the fund, central to the promise on preserving it through necessary and realistic measures.

Voting Pour delivers this

The treatment of overpayments of Social Security contributions directly relates to management of the Social Security Fund and whether corrective measures are necessary and realistic.

Voting Contre delivers this

Removing the upper earnings limit on Social Security contributions is a significant measure affecting the Social Security Fund's sustainability, directly bearing on whether such measures are necessary and realistic.

Voting Contre delivers this

Removing the upper earnings limit on Long-Term Care contributions is a structural change to social security funding, bearing on whether measures to preserve the Fund are necessary and realistic.

Voting Pour delivers this

Raising the share of Social Security contributions to the Health Insurance Fund is a direct measure affecting Social Security Fund allocation, bearing on whether such measures are necessary and realistic.

Voting Pour delivers this

This amendment directly concerns the scale of reduction in the States grant to the Social Security Fund, bearing squarely on whether measures to preserve the Fund are necessary and realistic.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Youth Service Statutory Provision motion directly bears on statutory support for young people's services, which encompasses mental health and engagement for youth.

Voting Contre delivers this

The amendment to Youth Services Statutory Provision, if rejected, protects a stronger statutory commitment to youth services including mental health support.

Voting Pour delivers this

The motion concerns the twentieth amendment about Jersey Business and Digital Jersey Savings, bearing on support for small businesses by preserving or cutting their key support organisation's funding.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a general directional commitment to support initiatives helping new and growing businesses, while the motion is a specific budget amendment about savings (cuts) to Jersey Business and Digital Jersey, making it plausible a member could vote against this particular amendment while still genuinely pursuing the broader promise through other means or on other grounds.

Voting Pour delivers this

The motion concerns Enhanced Capital Allowance (amendment to amendment), which benefits businesses investing in capital, directly supporting growing small businesses.

Voting Pour delivers this

The motion adopts the Enhanced Capital Allowance as amended, a tax relief measure that directly supports businesses investing in growth.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Skills Development Fund vote directly supports workforce training and development for small and growing businesses.

Voting Pour delivers this

The motion concerns the twelfth amendment to the Government Plan specifically about Jersey Business, a key support body for small businesses, directly bearing on the promise to support small business initiatives.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a general directional commitment to support initiatives helping new and growing businesses, and voting against one specific amendment to the Government Plan concerning Jersey Business could reflect concerns about the mechanism, funding approach, or other bundled elements rather than opposition to the underlying goal of supporting small businesses.

Voting Pour delivers this

The motion concerns Amendment 27 about Jersey Business Revenue Expenditure, directly relating to funding for Jersey Business which supports small and growing businesses.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise to support initiatives helping new and growing small businesses is general and directional, while the motion concerns a specific revenue expenditure amendment to Jersey Business within the Government Plan, and voting against one particular funding mechanism does not clearly contradict a broad commitment to support such businesses, as the member may have had reasons unrelated to the principle (e.g., preferring a different funding route or level).

Voting Pour delivers this

Adjusting apprenticeship grants for inflation supports growing small businesses by maintaining access to trained workers, directly aiding small business development.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. While apprenticeship grants could benefit small businesses, voting against an inflation adjustment to those grants does not straightforwardly contradict a general promise to support initiatives helping new and growing businesses, as the member may have opposed this specific mechanism or funding approach while still supporting the broader goal by other means.

Voting Contre delivers this

The motion to remove 5% GST from food would reduce revenue and effectively work against balanced public finances, but the promise is to shield against increases; voting contre keeps GST on food as-is and avoids this particular change.

Voting Contre delivers this

The motion to increase stamp duty on buy-to-let investments and second homes is a tax increase; the promise to shield taxpayers from tax increases suggests voting contre if such increases are not warranted.

Voting Contre delivers this

Part 1 of the stamp duty increase on buy-to-let/second homes directly tests the promise to shield taxpayers from tax increases.

Voting Contre delivers this

Part 2 of the stamp duty increase on buy-to-let/second homes directly tests the promise to shield taxpayers from tax increases.

Voting Contre delivers this

The eighth amendment on Stamp Duty on Wills of Immovable Estate represents a tax increase directly bearing on the promise to shield taxpayers from such increases.

Voting Contre delivers this

The Amendment 7 on Marginal Relief concerns income tax relief thresholds; removing or reducing marginal relief could effectively increase tax burden on lower-income taxpayers, bearing on the promise to shield taxpayers.

Voting Contre delivers this

The motion on waste charges (Amendment 14) represents a new charge on taxpayers/residents, directly bearing on the promise to shield Jersey taxpayers from increases once finances are balanced.

Voting Contre delivers this

The motion to increase stamp duty for properties not principal residences to 5% is a direct tax increase bearing on the promise to shield taxpayers from tax rises.

Voting Contre delivers this

This amendment conditions the Fort Regent redevelopment on a temporary 1% GST rise, making it a direct vote on whether to impose a new tax increase, bearing on the promise to shield taxpayers from tax increases.

Voting Contre delivers this

Removing the upper earnings limit on Social Security contributions effectively raises taxes on higher earners, bearing on the promise to shield taxpayers from tax increases.

Voting Contre delivers this

Removing the upper earnings limit on Long-Term Care contributions raises the effective tax burden on higher earners, bearing on the commitment to shield taxpayers from tax increases.

Voting Contre delivers this

The motion on removal of interest tax relief for buy-to-let mortgages represents a tax change directly bearing on the promise to shield taxpayers from increases.

Voting Contre delivers this

This amendment proposes raising the standard income tax rate from 20% to 25%, a direct tax increase that the promise explicitly commits to shielding taxpayers from.

Voting Pour delivers this

Introducing a new personal tax allowance would reduce the tax burden on individuals, consistent with shielding taxpayers from increased taxation.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise concerns shielding taxpayers from tax increases once public finances are balanced, but the motion is a specific amendment to introduce a new personal tax allowance at a particular time (2022, when public finances may not yet have been considered balanced), making it unclear whether voting against this specific allowance measure contradicts the promise or simply reflects a judgement about timing or mechanism.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Control of Housing and Work (Residential and Employment Status) Amendment Regulations directly relate to Jersey's immigration and work permission policy.

Voting Pour delivers this

The motion on reducing the residency requirement for entitlement to work directly bears on immigration policy and how strictly it is enforced.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise calls for a "clear and enforceable immigration policy" in general terms, and this specific motion on reducing residency requirements for work entitlement is one particular policy measure that could be seen as consistent or inconsistent with that goal depending on one's interpretation—a member could reasonably vote against a specific residency reduction while still pursuing a clear and robust immigration framework through other means.

Voting Contre delivers this

The Reform of the composition of the States Assembly proposition could affect the Connétables' seats, and voting against proposals to remove them is consistent with the promise to retain them.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. Without knowing the specific content of the "Reform of the composition of the States Assembly" motion, it cannot be determined with certainty that voting Pour necessarily meant supporting removal of the Connétables' seats, as compositional reform could encompass many changes that leave Connétable seats intact.

Voting Contre delivers this

The Reform of the composition of the States Assembly proposition, if it alters or removes senatorial seats, works against the promise to retain them; voting contre would protect that commitment.

Voting Pour delivers this

The amendment to the Re-instatement of Senators proposition directly tests the commitment to restore the Island-wide mandate and senatorial posts.

Voting Pour delivers this

The second amendment (para a) to Re-instatement of Senators directly tests the commitment to restore the senatorial post.

Voting Pour delivers this

The second amendment (para b) to Re-instatement of Senators directly tests the commitment to restore the senatorial post.

Voting Pour delivers this

The second amendment (para c) to Re-instatement of Senators directly tests the commitment to restore the senatorial post.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise supports retaining Senators in principle, but this motion concerns a specific amendment (paragraph (c)) to a reinstatement proposal, and voting against one particular amendment to a reinstatement motion is not necessarily the same as opposing reinstatement of Senators overall — the member could have supported the broader goal while objecting to this specific procedural or substantive sub-clause.

Voting Pour delivers this

The main Re-instatement of Senators proposition is a direct test of whether the member supports restoring the Island-wide mandate and senatorial posts.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Amendment to Re-instatement of Senators (amendment to the amendment, 2025) directly tests the commitment to restore the senatorial post.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The member promised to support retaining the senatorial post, but the motion was an amendment to an amendment on reinstatement of senators, and without knowing the specific effect of this amendment-to-an-amendment on the overall outcome, voting contre could reflect opposition to the particular amendment's mechanism or wording rather than opposition to the reinstatement of senators itself.

Voting Pour delivers this

The main Re-instatement of Senators proposition (2025) is a direct test of the commitment to restore the Island-wide mandate and senatorial posts.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Amendment to the Draft Elections (Appointed Day) Act bears on when the restored senatorial elections would come into force, materially relevant to the promise to restore senators.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The motion is an amendment to an Appointed Day Act, which concerns the timing or commencement of elections legislation rather than directly deciding whether to retain the senatorial post, so voting against it need not contradict a promise to support retaining that post.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Draft Elections (Appointed Day) Act implements the commencement of the restored senatorial election framework.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Fourth Amendment to the Draft Elections (Senators) Law directly tests the specific electoral architecture relating to the senatorial post.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. Without knowing the specific content of the Fourth Amendment to P.56-2025, it cannot be determined whether voting against it contradicts support for retaining senators, as the amendment may modify, limit, or alter the restoration of senators in a way the member found objectionable while still supporting the underlying principle.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Amendment to the Draft Elections (Senators) Law directly shapes the reinstatement of the senatorial post.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is to support retaining senators and the island-wide mandate as a principle, but without knowing the content of this specific amendment to the Draft Elections (Senators) Law, a vote against it cannot straightforwardly be characterised as a breach — the amendment could have modified, weakened, or altered the senators system in a way the member judged contrary to their goal, making a "contre" vote consistent with the underlying promise.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Second Amendment to the Draft Elections (Senators) Law directly shapes the reinstatement of the senatorial post.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Third Amendment (as amended) to the Draft Elections (Senators) Law directly tests the specific electoral architecture relating to the senatorial post.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. Without knowing the specific content of the Third Amendment as amended, it is impossible to determine whether voting against it contradicts a promise to retain the senatorial post, as the amendment could have modified the reinstatement proposal in ways that made supporting it inconsistent with the underlying promise.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Articles of the Draft Elections (Senators) Amendment Law directly implement the restoration of the senatorial post.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Third Reading of the Draft Elections (Senators) Amendment Law is a direct vote on restoring the senatorial post and Island-wide mandate.

Voting Pour delivers this

The third amendment (as amended) to the Draft Elections (Senators) Law bears on the specific design of the restored senatorial elections.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The motion is an amendment to an amendment of the senators law, meaning a vote against it could reflect disagreement with the specific drafting or mechanism rather than opposition to retaining the senatorial post itself, which the member promised to support.