Mary Rose Le Hegarat

Voting Pour delivers this

Composition of Rent Tribunal amendment (Part 1) concerns the governance of rent regulation, relevant to supporting rent control as part of affordable housing initiatives.

Voting Pour delivers this

Composition of Rent Tribunal amendment (Parts 2-4) further addresses rent regulation governance supporting affordable housing.

Voting Contre delivers this

Moving to next item on Andium Homes rent increases would avoid debating measures to help social housing tenants; voting contre keeps the debate alive, supporting affordable housing initiatives.

Voting Pour delivers this

The proposition on cost of living measures affecting Andium Homes rent increases directly concerns affordable social housing, a core part of the affordable housing promise.

Voting Pour delivers this

Rent-a-room tax relief (Government Plan amendment 26) would incentivise homeowners to offer affordable accommodation, supporting the affordable housing promise.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise concerns affordable housing and shared-ownership schemes, while this motion is specifically about rent-a-room tax relief — a different mechanism that may or may not advance affordable housing, requiring an inferential step to connect the two.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Jersey Homes Trust rent increase assistance scheme directly concerns affordability of social housing, bearing on the promise to support affordable housing initiatives.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The motion concerned a specific rent-assistance scheme following a Jersey Homes Trust rent increase, which is related to affordable housing but is a distinct mechanism from the shared-ownership schemes the member specifically endorsed, so voting against this particular assistance arrangement does not plainly contradict the promise.

Voting Pour delivers this

Rent Control Measures paragraph (a)(i) concerns controlling rents to maintain affordability, directly relating to the affordable housing promise.

Voting Pour delivers this

Rent Control Measures paragraph (a)(ii) is another element of rent control directly bearing on housing affordability.

Voting Pour delivers this

Rent Control Measures paragraph (a)(iii) concerns further rent control mechanisms relevant to affordable housing.

Voting Pour delivers this

Rent Control Measures paragraph (b)(i) relates to enforcement of rent controls, supporting affordable housing for all islanders.

Voting Pour delivers this

Rent Control Measures paragraph (b)(ii) is part of the rent control package directly bearing on housing affordability.

Voting Pour delivers this

Minimum Residential Space Standards paragraph (c) further addresses housing standards directly relevant to the affordable housing promise.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise concerns affordable housing and shared-ownership schemes, while paragraph (c) of P.87/2023 addresses minimum residential space standards — a related but distinct housing-quality mechanism whose rejection does not clearly contradict a commitment to affordable housing initiatives.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Licensing Regulations for rented dwellings set minimum standards, supporting quality and affordability in the private rented sector relevant to the housing promise.

Considered and set aside: this motion does not bear on the promise. The promise concerns affordable housing and shared-ownership schemes, while the motion relates to licensing regulations for rented dwellings under public health and safety law — a different policy area that does not bear on affordability or ownership schemes.

Voting Pour delivers this

Mortgage repayment assistance directly relates to housing affordability for islanders, a key component of the affordable housing promise.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise supports affordable housing initiatives generally, but mortgage repayment assistance is one specific mechanism, and a member could vote against this particular scheme while still supporting affordable housing through other routes such as shared-ownership schemes as explicitly named in the promise.

Voting Pour delivers this

Amendment 11 to the Government Plan 2024-2027 concerned the Affordable Homes Programme scheme, directly bearing on shared-ownership and affordable housing initiatives.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise supports affordable housing initiatives and shared-ownership schemes "where suitable," and voting against one specific AHP amendment could reflect a judgement about this particular mechanism's suitability rather than opposition to the principle of affordable housing or shared ownership.

Voting Pour delivers this

Third Reading of the Public Health and Safety (Rented Dwellings) Licensing Regulations supports improved standards in rental housing, relevant to the affordable/quality housing promise.

Considered and set aside: this motion does not bear on the promise. The promise concerns affordable housing and shared-ownership schemes, while the motion deals with licensing regulations for rented dwellings under public health and safety legislation — a different policy area that does not bear on affordability or ownership schemes.

Voting Pour delivers this

Minimum Residential Space Standards paragraph (b) sets minimum space requirements for homes, directly bearing on housing quality for all islanders.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise concerns affordable housing initiatives and shared-ownership schemes, while this motion concerns minimum residential space standards — a related but distinct policy instrument, and voting against it could reflect concerns about implementation, cost, or adequacy rather than opposition to affordable housing itself.

Voting Pour delivers this

Investing stamp duty uplift from second homes into first-time buyer funds is a direct affordable housing initiative supporting first-time buyers.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise supports affordable housing initiatives generally, but voting against this specific amendment about redirecting stamp duty revenue into first-time buyer funds could reflect disagreement with the mechanism or funding approach rather than opposition to affordable housing itself.

Voting Pour delivers this

Minimum Residential Space Standards paragraph (a) is a direct vote on housing space standards relevant to the quality and affordability of housing.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise concerns affordable housing initiatives and shared-ownership schemes, while this motion is about minimum residential space standards — a related but distinct housing policy mechanism whose rejection does not straightforwardly contradict a commitment to affordable housing schemes.

Voting Pour delivers this

Increasing stamp duty for properties not used as principal residences would discourage buy-to-let/second homes, potentially freeing up housing supply for owner-occupiers and renters.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise supports affordable housing initiatives and shared-ownership schemes, while the motion concerns a specific stamp duty increase on non-principal residences — a related but distinct fiscal mechanism whose rejection does not straightforwardly contradict a general commitment to affordable housing.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Social Rents Plan to Reduce Rental Stress for Tenants is a direct vote on reducing rental costs for social housing tenants, directly delivering the affordable housing promise.

Voting Pour delivers this

Social Rental Plan to Reduce Rental Stress for Tenants (as amended) is a direct vote on the affordable social rents policy, the core of the affordable housing promise.

Voting Pour delivers this

Increasing the assets and savings threshold for the Affordable Housing Gateway directly affects access to affordable housing schemes for islanders.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a general commitment to support affordable housing initiatives, and voting against one specific mechanism—raising the assets and savings threshold for the Affordable Housing Gateway—does not plainly contradict that general support, as a member could oppose this particular measure while still pursuing affordable housing through other means.

Voting Pour delivers this

The amendment on empty residential properties bears on affordable housing supply, which relates to the candidate's support for affordable housing initiatives.

Voting Pour delivers this

Reinstating mortgage interest tax relief would assist homeowners and bears on affordability for islanders purchasing homes.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise concerns affordable housing and shared-ownership schemes, while the motion specifically addressed reinstating mortgage interest tax relief — a different, optional mechanism that a member could reasonably oppose while still genuinely supporting affordable housing initiatives.

Voting Contre delivers this

Removing interest tax relief for buy-to-let mortgages could reduce housing costs for tenants by discouraging investor landlords, bearing on affordable housing for all islanders.

Voting Pour delivers this

Affordable Housing Provision at the Waterfront directly concerns delivering affordable housing supply, the core of the candidate's housing promise.

Voting Contre delivers this

Removing the stamp duty surcharge on second homes would reduce revenue available for first-time buyer support, working against affordable housing initiatives the candidate supports.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise concerns supporting affordable housing and shared-ownership schemes, while this motion decided a specific tax measure (stamp duty surcharge on second homes) that is at most indirectly related to affordable housing, requiring an inferential chain to connect the vote to the promise.

Voting Contre delivers this

This amendment sought to weaken the empty residential properties amendment; voting against it preserves the housing supply measure that advances affordable housing.

Considered and set aside: this motion does not bear on the promise. The motion concerned empty residential properties, which is not the subject of the member's promise about affordable housing shared-ownership schemes, and no clear link exists between voting on this amendment and delivering or undermining that specific commitment.

Voting Contre delivers this

Removing the stamp duty surcharge on buy-to-let and second homes would reduce a lever that suppresses investor demand and could reduce revenue for affordable housing schemes.

Voting Pour delivers this

Second amendment to the empty residential properties amendment relates to housing supply policy that bears on affordable housing initiatives.

Voting Pour delivers this

The 'Our Hospital Project: Reporting' proposition directly concerns progress reporting on the new hospital project, and the candidate's promise is about progressing completion of the new hospital.

Considered and set aside: this motion does not bear on the promise. The promise concerns progressing completion of the new hospital once planning is resolved, while the motion was about reporting arrangements for the hospital project — a procedural matter distinct from the substantive commitment to advance the hospital's construction.

Voting Pour delivers this

Government Plan amendment 20 on 'Hospital funding' directly concerns funding for the new healthcare facilities, the core of the promise to progress the new hospital.

Voting Pour delivers this

New Healthcare Facilities Programme paragraph (a) is a direct vote on the new hospital programme, central to the candidate's promise to progress hospital completion.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is to support progressing the hospital once planning is resolved, but it is not clear from the information given what paragraph (a) of the New Healthcare Facilities Programme specifically decided, making it impossible to confirm that voting against it plainly contradicts the promise rather than reflecting a judgement about the particular mechanism or timing.

Voting Pour delivers this

New Healthcare Facilities Programme paragraph (b) is a direct vote on progressing the new hospital programme, the subject of the candidate's conditional promise.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise supports progressing the new hospital generally, but voting against a specific numbered paragraph of a programme could reflect concerns about that particular element rather than opposition to the hospital project as a whole, making it impossible to conclude without further context that this vote straightforwardly contradicts the promise.

Voting Pour delivers this

Government Plan 2025-2028 amendment on New Healthcare Facilities Programme expenditure directly concerns funding the hospital programme, bearing on the promise to progress completion.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is to support progressing the new hospital once planning is resolved, but voting against a specific budget amendment concerning healthcare facilities expenditure levels could reflect concerns about funding mechanisms, amounts, or other bundled matters rather than opposition to the hospital project itself.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Skills Development Fund proposition directly addresses funding for skills development, which is the core mechanism for addressing skills gaps through education and development.

Voting Pour delivers this

Updating higher education student funding directly supports incentivising students through education funding, bearing on the promise to address skills gaps.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Higher Education Student Funding amendment directly concerns support for students, relevant to the promise to address skills gaps through education incentives.

Voting Pour delivers this

Fully funded education or training for 16-18 year olds (paragraph c) bears directly on the promise to support education and development to address skills gaps.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a general directional commitment to address skills gaps through education and incentives, while the motion concerns a specific funding mechanism for 16–18 year olds, and voting against one particular implementation route does not plainly contradict a broad aspiration that could be pursued through other means.

Voting Pour delivers this

Fully funded education or training for 16-18 year olds (paragraph a) is a direct vote on providing fully funded education, central to addressing skills gaps through education.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a general directional commitment to address skills gaps through education and incentives, while the motion concerns one specific funding mechanism (fully funded education/training for 16–18 year olds), and a member could oppose this particular measure on grounds of cost, design, or preference for an alternative approach while still honestly pursuing the broader promise.

Voting Pour delivers this

Free GP visits for full-time students is an incentive/support measure for students that bears on addressing skills gaps by supporting students remaining in or returning to Jersey.

Voting Pour delivers this

Additional funding for education directly advances the promise to support addressing skills gaps through education and development.

Voting Pour delivers this

Adjusting apprenticeship grants for inflation directly supports skills development incentives for students, which is central to the candidate's promise.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a general directional commitment to address skills gaps through education and incentives, and voting against one specific amendment about inflation-adjusting apprenticeship grants is not plainly the same as opposing that goal, as the member could have preferred a different mechanism or level of adjustment.

Voting Pour delivers this

Adding sport and physical activity funding to the Jersey Premium scheme for primary schools bears on supporting education and development of young islanders.

Considered and set aside: this motion does not bear on the promise. The promise concerns addressing skills gaps and incentivising students to return to Jersey, whereas the motion specifically allocates funding for sport and physical activity in primary schools — a different subject that does not bear on the promised policy area.

Voting Pour delivers this

Mini-Budget third amendment relates to fiscal measures; supporting firm expenditure control is part of the Mini-Budget debate.

Voting Pour delivers this

Reporting of headcount and vacancies supports visibility of public sector staffing costs and management layers, relevant to controlling expenditure.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise concerns firm control of expenditure and reducing management layers, while the motion concerns a specific reporting mechanism for headcount and vacancies — voting against one particular reporting procedure does not straightforwardly contradict a general commitment to leaner government structures.

Voting Pour delivers this

Audit of Government Department Vacancies directly addresses unnecessary management layers and public sector headcount, supporting the promise to reduce waste.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. An audit of vacancies is a procedural/investigatory step that could support expenditure control, but voting against it does not plainly contradict a general promise about lean structures, since a member could reasonably oppose this specific mechanism while still pursuing the broader goal through other means.

Voting Pour delivers this

Freeze on Public Health Staff Appointments directly addresses controlling headcount growth in government, consistent with reducing unnecessary management layers.

Voting Pour delivers this

Cabinet Office Expenditure Savings directly concerns controlling central government costs, a core element of the promise on firm control of public expenditure.

Voting Pour delivers this

Jersey Business and Digital Jersey Savings amendment concerns reducing government-funded organisational expenditure, relevant to firm control of public spending.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise supports firm expenditure control generally, but voting against one specific amendment to the Budget concerning Jersey Business and Digital Jersey savings does not plainly contradict that commitment, as the member may have opposed this particular savings measure for reasons unrelated to the broader principle (e.g., preferring different savings, judging the cut harmful to economic development) while still genuinely supporting expenditure control overall.

Voting Contre delivers this

New Office (Government Plan amendment 16) concerns additional government office expenditure; voting contre would reduce unnecessary public spending consistent with the promise.

Voting Contre delivers this

The Transform Project amendment concerns a major government IT/transformation programme spend; voting contre could reflect concern about unnecessary management expenditure.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Council of Ministers' amendment to reduce net revenue expenditure across departmental heads directly advances firm control of public expenditure.

Voting Pour delivers this

Curbing Growth of Public Sector - End-to-End Review of Government Processes is a direct vote on reviewing and reducing public sector management, the core of the expenditure control promise.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. While the promise supports lean government structures, voting against this specific motion could reflect disagreement with the particular review mechanism, its scope, or implementation approach rather than rejection of the underlying principle of controlling public expenditure and reducing management layers.

Voting Pour delivers this

Freeze on Public Health Staff Appointments (Government Plan 2024-2027 amendment) is another direct vote on controlling public sector headcount growth.

Voting Pour delivers this

Freezing government spending at 2025 levels is a direct measure to control public expenditure, bearing on the candidate's promise of firm expenditure control.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise calls for firm control of expenditure and lean structures, but voting against one specific amendment to freeze spending at 2025 levels does not plainly contradict that general commitment, as the member could reasonably prefer a different mechanism for expenditure control rather than this particular real-terms freeze.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Mini-Budget 2022 included tax and social security measures bearing on Jersey's fiscal position; supporting the overall package is broadly consistent with maintaining a low-tax economy.

Voting Contre delivers this

Removing GST from food would reduce government revenue and alter Jersey's low-flat-rate tax structure, so voting against this amendment is more consistent with maintaining the low-tax economy promise.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. Removing GST from food could be seen as consistent with a low-tax economy, so voting in favour of a tax reduction does not plainly contradict a promise to maintain low taxes, even though the member was recorded as voting the opposite way to what the scorecard designates as delivering the promise.

Voting Pour delivers this

Amending income tax rules for High Value Residents directly concerns Jersey's low-tax economy and its ability to attract high-net-worth individuals who underpin tax revenues.

Voting Pour delivers this

Third Reading of the High Value Residents income tax amendment is a direct vote on a key pillar of Jersey's low-tax regime for wealthy residents.

Voting Contre delivers this

Paragraph (c) of the Taxation of High Value Residents proposition sought further increases to HVR tax obligations, contrary to maintaining the low-tax economy.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise to maintain a "low-tax economy" is a general directional commitment, and whether a specific change to the taxation of High Value Residents advances or contradicts that goal requires inference about the policy's overall effect on Jersey's tax environment rather than being self-evidently a breach.

Voting Contre delivers this

Paragraph (a) of the Taxation of High Value Residents proposition sought to increase tax burdens on HVRs, working against Jersey's low-tax competitive position.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Multinational Taxation (Global Anti-Base Erosion - IIR Tax) Law implements Pillar 2 global minimum tax rules, directly affecting Jersey's low-tax regime for multinationals.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Multinational Corporate Income Tax Law is a direct vote on implementing a new corporate tax layer in Jersey, bearing on the low-tax economy promise.

Voting Pour delivers this

Third Reading of the Multinational Corporate Income Tax Law finalises a major change to Jersey's corporate tax landscape relevant to the low-tax economy.

Voting Contre delivers this

Removing the upper earnings limit on Social Security contributions would substantially increase the tax burden on higher earners, bearing on maintaining Jersey's low-tax economy.

Voting Contre delivers this

Removing the upper earnings limit on Long-Term Care contributions similarly increases the overall fiscal burden and bears on the low-tax economy commitment.

Voting Pour delivers this

The double taxation agreement with Bahrain is a direct mechanism for maintaining Jersey's competitive low-tax international position.

Voting Contre delivers this

Suspending the High Value Residents regime would reduce tax revenue from wealthy contributors to Jersey's economy, so voting against suspension supports maintaining the low-tax economic model.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a general directional commitment to a low-tax economy, and this motion concerns a specific procedural or policy amendment about High Value Residents within the Government Plan, so voting for it does not straightforwardly contradict maintaining a low-tax economy without additional reasoning about whether suspending HVR status raises or lowers the overall tax burden.

Voting Contre delivers this

Capping the number of High Net Worth Individuals granted entitled status would restrict a key element of Jersey's low-tax economy model, so voting against supports the promise.

Voting Contre delivers this

Raising the standard rate of personal income tax from 20% to 25% would directly undermine Jersey's low-tax economy, which the candidate commits to maintaining.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Sea Fisheries (TCA – Licensing of Fishing Boats) Regulations directly implement UK-Jersey post-Brexit Trade and Cooperation Agreement fishing arrangements, central to close UK cooperation on post-Brexit transition.

Voting Pour delivers this

Third Reading of the TCA fishing boat licensing regulations finalises post-Brexit UK-Jersey cooperation on fisheries access.

Voting Pour delivers this

Third Reading of the TCA Sea Fisheries regulations implements a key post-Brexit transitional arrangement with the UK under the Trade and Cooperation Agreement.

Voting Pour delivers this

Assembly consideration of the Bilateral Treaty with the UAE (paragraph a) concerns Jersey's international treaty-making capacity, tangentially related to post-Brexit cooperation frameworks.

Considered and set aside: this motion does not bear on the promise. The promise specifically concerns post-Brexit transition arrangements with the UK, whereas the motion concerns a bilateral treaty with the UAE — a completely different subject and counterparty.

Voting Pour delivers this

Nationality Acts extension to Jersey concerns UK-Jersey legal alignment on nationality, directly relevant to close UK cooperation post-Brexit.

Voting Pour delivers this

Sea Fisheries Vessel Monitoring Systems Regulations implement EU/UK fisheries monitoring requirements under post-Brexit arrangements, relevant to UK cooperation.

Voting Pour delivers this

Third Reading of Sea Fisheries Vessel Monitoring regulations finalises post-Brexit fisheries monitoring obligations under the TCA.

Voting Pour delivers this

French National Identity cards as valid travel documentation for French Citizens concerns post-Brexit border arrangements, relevant to the close cooperation promise in a Brexit transition context.

Voting Pour delivers this

States Employment Board Annual Reporting directly advances transparency and accountability of a major government body, the core of the promise.

Voting Pour delivers this

Whistleblowing legislation introduction supports accountability mechanisms within government, relevant to the transparency promise.

Voting Pour delivers this

Reporting of headcount and vacancies (paragraph a as amended) requires the government to publicly report staffing data, directly advancing transparency across departments.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise calls for "genuine transparency and clear accountability" across government generally, while the motion concerns a specific reporting mechanism for headcount and vacancies — voting against one particular reporting measure does not plainly contradict a broad transparency commitment, as the member could prefer a different mechanism or scope.

Voting Pour delivers this

Audit of Government Department Vacancies is a direct vote on holding government to account on staffing, supporting genuine transparency and accountability.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. While the promise calls for transparency and accountability across government, voting against one specific audit motion does not plainly contradict that general commitment, as the member could reasonably have opposed this particular audit mechanism while still pursuing transparency through other means.

Voting Pour delivers this

Amendment to Standing Orders on the States Decision Tracker supports transparency by making government decisions more traceable to the public.

Voting Pour delivers this

Cabinet Office Expenditure Savings bears on government accountability by scrutinising central government spending and management structures.

Voting Pour delivers this

Statistics Jersey Funding (Government Plan amendment 3 as amended) supports an independent statistics body that underpins government transparency and accountability.

Voting Contre delivers this

Moving to the next item on reporting of ministerial activities would avoid debating ministerial accountability reporting, so voting contre supports the transparency promise.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise calls for transparency and accountability across government generally, but whether voting to move to the next item (a procedural step) on a motion about reporting on Ministerial activities constitutes a breach requires inference about what that procedural vote meant for the underlying transparency goal, rather than being self-evident.

Voting Pour delivers this

Continuation of the Annual Jersey Opinions and Lifestyle Survey supports evidence-based government and public accountability, relevant to genuine transparency.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise concerns transparency and accountability across government departments, while the motion concerns whether to continue a specific public-opinion survey; voting against the survey's continuation could reflect a judgment about its value or cost rather than opposition to transparency itself.

Voting Pour delivers this

Funding Statistics Jersey's administrative support relates to maintaining independent statistical reporting, which underpins transparency and accountability in government.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a general commitment to transparency and accountability across government, while the motion concerned a specific funding decision for administrative support for Statistics Jersey, meaning voting against it could reflect concerns about the mechanism, cost, or approach rather than opposition to transparency itself.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Draft Control of Housing and Work (Residential and Employment Status) Amendment Regulations directly concern work permit and employment status rules, bearing on immigration control through work permits.

Voting Contre delivers this

Reducing the residency requirement for entitlement to work is directly contrary to work permit-based immigration control, as it loosens rather than tightens the conditions.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Draft Control of Housing and Work Amendment Commencement Act implements the amended work and housing control framework, directly related to work permit-based immigration control.