Rosemary Esther Binet

Voting Pour delivers this

A proposition on cost of living measures affecting Andium Homes rent increases directly relates to the promise to work with Andium Homes on housing matters.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise concerns releasing sites and investigating empty properties, while the motion addressed rent increases for Andium Homes tenants — a related but distinct policy matter that the member could reasonably oppose without contradicting their commitment to work with Andium on housing supply.

Voting Pour delivers this

A vote on Andium Homes Limited Articles of Association relates to the governance framework of the entity the member committed to working with to release housing sites.

Voting Pour delivers this

Affordable Housing Provision at the Waterfront relates to the promise to release sites for housing, as it concerns making public land available for affordable homes.

Voting Pour delivers this

A vote on deferring approval of the sale of an Andium Homes site at Kensington Place relates to the promise to work with Andium to release sites for housing.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise was to work with Andium Homes to release sites for housing, but this motion concerned a deferral of approval for a specific land transaction at Kensington Place, and voting against deferral (i.e. proceeding with the sale) could itself be consistent with releasing sites for housing, making it unclear whether voting contre the deferral works against or in favour of the underlying promise.

Voting Contre delivers this

The motion to move to the next item on measures affecting Andium Homes rent increases, if adopted, would prevent discussion of Andium-related housing measures bearing on the promise.

Considered and set aside: this motion does not bear on the promise. The promise concerns working with Andium Homes to release sites for housing and investigating empty state-owned properties, while the motion was a procedural "move to next item" vote on cost-of-living measures affecting Andium Homes rent increases — a distinct subject (rent policy) addressed through a procedural mechanism that has no clear bearing on site release or empty properties.

Voting Pour delivers this

The amendment on empty residential properties bears on the promise to investigate long-empty state-owned properties and release sites for housing.

Voting Contre delivers this

The amendment to the thirty-first amendment on empty residential properties, if it would weaken the empty properties measure, voting contre advances the promise to address long-empty properties.

Voting Pour delivers this

The second amendment to the thirty-first amendment on empty residential properties also bears on the promise to investigate long-empty state-owned properties.

Voting Pour delivers this

The twentieth amendment on hospital funding in the 2023-2026 Government Plan bears on how the hospital project is funded and could relate to exploring cheaper alternatives.

Voting Contre delivers this

Paragraph (b) of New Healthcare Facilities Programme bears on the hospital project and whether to proceed with current plans versus alternatives.

Voting Contre delivers this

Paragraph (a) of New Healthcare Facilities Programme directly bears on whether to proceed with the current hospital project as planned.

Voting Contre delivers this

The amendment on New Healthcare Facilities Programme expenditure in the Government Plan relates to hospital project funding and exploring cheaper alternatives.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Our Hospital Project Reporting proposition directly advances the promise to investigate the Overdale hospital project by requiring public reporting on it.

Considered and set aside: this motion does not bear on the promise. The motion concerned reporting arrangements for the hospital project, which is a procedural/administrative matter, not a vote on whether to investigate Overdale or consider cheaper alternatives, so the vote does not bear meaningfully on the substance of the promise.

Voting Pour delivers this

Free GP visits for children and young people relates to measures attracting and retaining healthcare through improved access, touching on healthcare workforce and patient care improvements.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise concerns attracting and retaining healthcare workers through housing and pay improvements, whereas the motion concerned free GP visits for children and young people — a patient-access measure rather than a workforce recruitment or remuneration measure, so the connection requires an inferential leap rather than being direct.

Voting Pour delivers this

Paragraph (a) of the Assisted Dying vote is a direct substantive vote on assisted dying legislation, testing the promise to support completing its passage.

Voting Pour delivers this

Paragraph (b) of the Assisted Dying vote is a direct vote on the assisted dying proposition, testing the promise to support completing its passage.

Voting Pour delivers this

Paragraph (c) of the Assisted Dying vote is a direct vote on a component of the assisted dying proposition, testing the promise to support completing its passage.

Voting Pour delivers this

Paragraph (d) of the Assisted Dying vote is a direct vote on the assisted dying proposition, testing the promise to support completing its passage.

Voting Pour delivers this

Paragraph (e) of the Assisted Dying vote as amended is a direct vote on the assisted dying proposition, testing the promise to support completing its passage.

Voting Contre delivers this

Redirecting the £2.6 million set aside for the assisted dying service into palliative and respite care (Part 2) would defund the assisted dying service, directly working against supporting assisted dying legislation.

Voting Pour delivers this

Section D of the Draft Assisted Dying Law is a direct vote on the legislation the promise commits to completing.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Fourth Amendment to the Assisted Dying Law bears on the shape of the legislation the promise commits to supporting.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is to support completing assisted dying legislation, but voting against a specific amendment to that legislation does not necessarily contradict that goal, as the member could oppose a particular amendment while still supporting passage of the overall law.

Voting Pour delivers this

Sections A and B of the Draft Assisted Dying Law are direct votes on the legislation the promise commits to completing.

Voting Contre delivers this

The Third Amendment to the Assisted Dying Law, if it would weaken or alter key provisions, could affect the passage of the legislation the promise supports.

Voting Pour delivers this

Section C of the Draft Assisted Dying Law is a direct vote on the legislation the promise commits to completing.

Voting Contre delivers this

An amendment to the Draft Assisted Dying Law could modify provisions of the legislation; the direction depends on whether the amendment advances or obstructs the bill's passage.

Voting Pour delivers this

Section E of the Draft Assisted Dying Law is a direct vote on the legislation the promise commits to completing.

Voting Pour delivers this

Part (a) of the Assisted Dying Law vote advances completing passage of the assisted dying legislation.

Voting Pour delivers this

Part (b) of the Assisted Dying Law vote advances completing passage of the assisted dying legislation.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Sixth Amendment to the Assisted Dying Law bears on the shape of the legislation the promise commits to supporting.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Ninth Amendment to the Assisted Dying Law bears on the content of the legislation the promise commits to supporting.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Eighth Amendment to the Assisted Dying Law bears on the content of the legislation the promise commits to supporting.

Voting Pour delivers this

Second Amendment Part H of the Assisted Dying Law bears on the content of the legislation the promise commits to supporting.

Voting Pour delivers this

Second Amendment Part I of the Assisted Dying Law bears on the content of the legislation the promise commits to supporting.

Voting Pour delivers this

Articles vote for the Draft Assisted Dying Law is a direct vote on completing passage of the legislation the promise commits to.

Voting Pour delivers this

Third Reading of the Draft Assisted Dying Law is a direct vote on completing passage of the legislation the promise commits to.

Voting Pour delivers this

Articles as amended of the Assisted Dying Law is a direct vote on completing passage of the legislation the promise commits to.

Voting Pour delivers this

Third Reading of the Assisted Dying Law is a direct vote on completing passage of the legislation the promise commits to.

Voting Pour delivers this

Second Amendment Part G of the Assisted Dying Law bears on the content of the legislation the promise commits to supporting.

Voting Pour delivers this

Second Amendment Part F of the Assisted Dying Law bears on the content of the legislation the promise commits to supporting.

Voting Contre delivers this

A proposition on Assisted Dying - Unbearable Suffering that modifies a key eligibility criterion could alter the legislation the promise commits to completing; the direction depends on whether the amendment would undermine or strengthen the bill.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Seventh Amendment to the Assisted Dying Law bears on the content of the legislation the promise commits to supporting.

Voting Contre delivers this

Redirecting the £2.6 million set aside for the assisted dying service into palliative care (Part 1) would defund the assisted dying service, directly working against completing the passage of assisted dying legislation.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Mini-Budget 2022 bears on fiscal responsibility and government spending, though the direction depends on the specific measures included.

Voting Pour delivers this

Reporting of headcount and vacancies in government departments directly supports fiscal accountability and awareness of government size.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a general commitment to fiscal responsibility, and voting against a specific reporting mechanism for headcount and vacancies is a procedural/transparency measure that could plausibly be opposed for reasons unrelated to opposing fiscal restraint itself.

Voting Pour delivers this

An audit of government department vacancies would support the promise to curb excessive government spending and improve fiscal responsibility.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. While auditing government vacancies could relate to fiscal oversight, voting against this specific procedural audit motion does not plainly contradict a general promise about curbing excessive spending, as a member could reasonably oppose this particular mechanism while still pursuing the broader goal of fiscal responsibility through other means.

Voting Pour delivers this

A vote specifically on Cabinet Office expenditure savings directly advances the promise to curb excessive government spending.

Voting Pour delivers this

Transferring departmental underspend into the Stabilisation Fund reflects fiscal discipline and responsible management of public finances.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. Transferring a departmental underspend into a Stabilisation Fund is a specific fiscal mechanism, and a member could reasonably vote against it while still pursuing fiscal responsibility — for instance preferring the underspend be returned directly to taxpayers, used to reduce debt, or allocated differently — rather than rejecting the goal of curbing excessive spending.

Voting Contre delivers this

Opposing the New Healthcare Facilities Programme expenditure amendment could reflect curbing excessive government spending on a major capital project.

Voting Contre delivers this

Opposing a sixteenth amendment for a New Office in the Government Plan relates to curbing excessive government spending.

Voting Contre delivers this

Halting the £110 million Fort Regent redevelopment unless funded by a GST rise relates to curbing large government capital expenditure commitments, bearing on fiscal responsibility.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Council of Ministers' amendment to reduce net revenue expenditure across departmental heads to balance the Budget directly bears on curbing excessive government spending.

Voting Pour delivers this

This motion on curbing growth of the public sector through end-to-end review of government processes directly advances the promise to curb excessive government spending and improve fiscal responsibility.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. While the promise aligns directionally with curbing government spending, voting against this specific procedural motion for an end-to-end review of government processes could reflect a preference for a different mechanism to achieve fiscal responsibility rather than opposition to the goal itself.

Voting Pour delivers this

The motion to freeze government spending at 2025 levels directly tests the promise to curb excessive government spending and improve fiscal responsibility.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise to curb excessive spending is a general directional commitment, and voting against one specific mechanism (a freeze at 2025 levels) does not straightforwardly contradict it, as the member could reasonably prefer a different approach to fiscal responsibility without abandoning the underlying goal.

Voting Contre delivers this

A vote to defer approval of the sale of an Andium Homes site to the public touches on the promise to oppose privatisation of state-owned assets, as selling a site could amount to privatisation.

Voting Pour delivers this

Revoking the Aviemore sale directly advances the promise to oppose privatisation of state-owned assets by seeking to undo a sale of public property.

Voting Pour delivers this

Deferring a land transaction involving Philip Le Feuvre House and Huguenot House relates to the promise to oppose privatisation of state-owned assets by pausing a public property disposal.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The motion concerns deferring (delaying) a land transaction rather than directly deciding whether to transfer state assets to private ownership, so voting against deferral does not straightforwardly equate to supporting privatisation — the member may have preferred outright rejection over procedural delay.

Voting Pour delivers this

Voting for Cabinet Office expenditure savings directly advances reducing the size of government and refocusing on core public services.

Voting Pour delivers this

Reporting on headcount and vacancies supports the commitment to reduce government size by improving visibility of staffing levels.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a broad directional commitment to reduce government size, while the motion concerns a specific reporting mechanism for headcount and vacancies—a procedural transparency measure that is at best one indirect means of pursuing that goal, not the goal itself.

Voting Pour delivers this

This motion on curbing growth of the public sector directly advances the promise to reduce the size of government.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a general directional commitment to reduce government size, while the motion concerns one specific mechanism (an end-to-end review of government processes), and a member could vote against this particular review while still honestly pursuing the broader goal through different means.

Voting Pour delivers this

A freeze on public health staff appointments relates to reducing or limiting government headcount, advancing the promise to reduce government size.

Voting Pour delivers this

Auditing government department vacancies supports the promise to reduce government size by identifying unnecessary posts.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. An audit of vacancies is a procedural/information-gathering measure, and voting against it does not straightforwardly contradict a general promise to reduce the size of government, since a member could reasonably oppose this specific mechanism while still pursuing that broader goal through other means.

Voting Pour delivers this

Freezing government spending at 2025 levels is a direct mechanism for reducing the size of government and refocusing on core public services.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise to "reduce the size of top-heavy government" is a general directional commitment, and voting against one specific amendment to freeze spending at 2025 levels does not plainly contradict it, since the member could oppose this particular mechanism while still pursuing the broader goal through other means or on different grounds (e.g., judging a blanket freeze too blunt or harmful to core public services the member also promised to protect).

Voting Pour delivers this

States Employment Board Annual Reporting directly advances government accountability and transparency in public communications about employment matters.

Voting Pour delivers this

Amending Standing Orders to establish a States Decision Tracker improves government accountability and transparency in decision-making.

Voting Contre delivers this

A motion to move to next item on reporting on ministerial activities would avoid advancing transparency in ministerial accountability if adopted.

Voting Pour delivers this

Requiring reporting of headcount and vacancies advances government accountability and transparency in public communications.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. While the promise concerns government accountability and transparency, voting against one specific reporting mechanism for headcount and vacancies requires an inference that this particular measure was the right or necessary way to honour a general commitment to accountability, and the member could have had reasons unrelated to opposing transparency itself (e.g., preferring a different reporting format or scope).

Voting Pour delivers this

A proposition requiring reporting on the Our Hospital Project advances accountability and transparency about a major government project.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. While the promise concerns government accountability and transparency, the motion is a specific procedural reporting arrangement for the Our Hospital Project, and voting against one particular reporting mechanism does not straightforwardly contradict a general commitment to accountability, as the member may have objected to the specific mechanism rather than the principle of transparency.

Voting Pour delivers this

A States Decision Tracker amendment to Standing Orders directly advances openness and transparency in government decision-making.

Voting Pour delivers this

Annual reporting by the States Employment Board advances openness and transparency in government decision-making on employment matters.

Voting Pour delivers this

Reporting on the Our Hospital Project directly advances openness and transparency in government decision-making on a major public project.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a general directional commitment to openness and transparency, and whether this specific hospital project reporting motion was the right mechanism to deliver that goal requires an inference about whether the particular reporting arrangements proposed actually advanced transparency, rather than being a plain case of voting against openness itself.

Voting Pour delivers this

Whistleblowing legislation advances openness and transparency in government decision-making by protecting those who reveal wrongdoing.

Voting Pour delivers this

Establishing a Climate Council as an expert advisory body directly advances the promise to push for expert advisory bodies to inform government policy.

Voting Contre delivers this

An amendment to the Climate Council proposition, if it would weaken or alter the expert advisory structure, could work against the promise to establish expert advisory bodies.

Voting Pour delivers this

An amendment to the Health and Community Services Interim Board proposition relates to the structure of an expert advisory body for health services.

Voting Contre delivers this

An amendment to the Health and Care Jersey Advisory Board and Partnership Board proposition bears on the structure of expert advisory bodies for health policy.

Voting Pour delivers this

Paragraph (a) of the Health and Care Jersey Advisory Board vote advances the establishment of expert advisory bodies for health policy.

Voting Pour delivers this

Paragraph (b) of the Health and Care Jersey Advisory Board vote advances the establishment of expert advisory bodies for health policy.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Health and Community Services Interim Board directly establishes an expert advisory/oversight body to inform health policy, advancing the promise to push for expert advisory bodies.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise calls for expert advisory bodies in general, but the motion concerns one specific interim board for Health and Community Services, and the member could have voted against this particular body's composition, remit, or governance arrangements while still genuinely supporting the broader goal of establishing expert advisory bodies.

Voting Pour delivers this

This vote on reform of the composition of the States Assembly could bear on the Senator question as part of broader electoral reform discussions.

Voting Pour delivers this

This vote is directly on an amendment to the Re-instatement of Senators proposition, which is the exact policy the promise commits to supporting.

Voting Pour delivers this

This vote is on a second amendment (para a) to the Re-instatement of Senators proposition, directly bearing on the promise to restore the Senator position.

Voting Pour delivers this

This vote is on the second amendment (para b) to the Re-instatement of Senators proposition, directly bearing on the promise to restore the Senator position.

Voting Pour delivers this

This vote is on the second amendment (para c) to the Re-instatement of Senators proposition, directly bearing on the promise to restore the Senator position.

Voting Pour delivers this

This is the substantive vote on Re-instatement of Senators, directly testing the promise to restore the Senator position.

Voting Pour delivers this

This is a second amendment to the 2025 Re-instatement of Senators proposition, directly testing the promise to restore the Senator position.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise was to restore the position of Senator, but the member voted against a specific amendment to a reinstatement proposal, and opposing one particular amendment does not necessarily mean opposing the overall goal of reinstating Senators, as the member may have preferred a different mechanism or version of the reform.

Voting Pour delivers this

Paragraph (a) of the Re-instatement of Senators debate directly tests the promise to restore Senators.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is to restore the position of Senator, but the member voted against one specific amendment (paragraph (a) of the fourth amendment) to a reinstatement proposition, and without knowing what that particular amendment contained, a vote against it could reflect disagreement with the specific mechanism or wording rather than opposition to the broader goal of reinstating Senators.

Voting Pour delivers this

Paragraph (c) of the Re-instatement of Senators debate directly tests the promise to restore Senators.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise was to restore the Senator position, and the member voted against one specific amendment (paragraph (c)) to a reinstatement proposition, but voting against a particular amendment to a bill does not necessarily mean opposing the bill's overall aim, as the member may have supported reinstatement while objecting to the specific details in that amendment.

Voting Pour delivers this

This fifth amendment to the Re-instatement of Senators proposition directly tests the promise to restore the Senator position.

Voting Pour delivers this

Third amendment to the Re-instatement of Senators proposition directly tests the promise to restore the Senator position.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is to restore the position of Senator, but the member voted against a specific amendment to the reinstatement proposition, and opposing one particular amendment's approach to reinstatement is not the same as opposing reinstatement itself — a member could reject this specific amendment while still supporting the broader goal through a different formulation.

Voting Pour delivers this

Amendment to the Re-instatement of Senators proposition, directly bearing on the promise to restore the Senator position.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is to restore the position of Senator, but the vote was on a specific amendment to an amendment of the reinstatement proposition, and voting against this particular amendment does not necessarily mean voting against the reinstatement of Senators overall, as the member may have preferred a different version of the mechanism.

Voting Pour delivers this

Amendment to the Re-instatement of Senators proposition, directly bearing on the promise to restore the Senator position.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise was to restore the position of Senator, but the member voted against a specific amendment to the reinstatement proposal rather than against reinstatement itself, and voting against one particular amendment's version of reinstatement does not necessarily contradict a general commitment to restoring Senators.

Voting Pour delivers this

This is the substantive 2025 vote on Re-instatement of Senators, directly testing the promise to restore the Senator position.

Voting Pour delivers this

Fourth Amendment to the Draft Elections (Senators) Law directly bears on the promise to reinstate Senators.

Voting Pour delivers this

Amendment to the Draft Elections (Senators) Law directly bears on the promise to reinstate Senators.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The motion is an amendment to the draft law restoring Senators, not the main proposition itself, so voting against a specific amendment to the restoration mechanism is not the same as voting against restoring the position of Senator.

Voting Pour delivers this

Second Amendment to the Draft Elections (Senators) Law directly bears on the promise to reinstate Senators.

Voting Pour delivers this

Third Amendment to the Draft Elections (Senators) Law directly bears on the promise to reinstate Senators.

Voting Pour delivers this

Articles vote for the Draft Elections (Senators) Law directly tests the promise to reinstate Senators.

Voting Pour delivers this

Third Reading of the Draft Elections (Senators) Law directly tests the promise to reinstate Senators.

Voting Pour delivers this

Amendment to the Draft Elections (Senators) Law directly bears on the promise to reinstate Senators.

Voting Pour delivers this

The States Employment Board Annual Reporting proposition directly advances reform of the SEB by imposing transparency and accountability requirements on it.