Samuel Yves Mézec

Voting Pour delivers this

The Composition of Rent Tribunal amendment Part 1 concerns the institutional structure for rent regulation, bearing on the promise to implement rent regulation.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise commits to "proper rent regulation" broadly, but the motion concerns the specific composition of the Rent Tribunal—a procedural/structural detail—rather than the principle of rent regulation itself, so voting against one particular configuration of the tribunal does not clearly contradict the commitment to implement rent regulation.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Composition of Rent Tribunal amendment Parts 2-4 further shapes the rent regulation body, bearing on the promise of rent regulation.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise commits to "proper rent regulation" generally, but the motion concerns the specific composition of the Rent Tribunal, a procedural/structural detail about how a regulatory body is constituted rather than the principle of rent regulation itself, so voting against one particular composition arrangement does not clearly contradict the broader commitment.

Voting Pour delivers this

The vote on Composition of Rent Tribunal as amended is a direct test of whether a functioning rent regulation tribunal is established, central to the rent regulation commitment.

Voting Contre delivers this

Moving to the next item on Andium Homes rent increases would have avoided addressing the cost-of-living housing issue; voting Contre keeps the debate alive, consistent with the housing promise.

Voting Pour delivers this

Measures affecting Andium Homes rent increases directly bear on the promise to support renters and implement housing crisis action, including rent regulation.

Voting Contre delivers this

Referring back the Rent Control Tribunal Chair nominations could delay the rent regulation body; voting Contre would advance implementation, but the motion passed so reference back was supported - this is adverse to the promise.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise commits to implementing rent regulation, but this motion concerns a procedural "Reference Back" of nominations to the Rent Control Tribunal, and voting Pour (against the reference back, i.e. in favour of proceeding with the nominations) could plausibly be seen as advancing rent regulation rather than obstructing it, making it unclear that this vote contradicts the promise.

Voting Pour delivers this

An assistance scheme for Jersey Homes Trust rent increases directly touches the promise to support renters as part of the housing crisis action plan.

Voting Pour delivers this

Rent Control Measures paragraph (a)(i) is a direct vote on implementing rent controls, the central commitment of the housing crisis action plan promise.

Voting Pour delivers this

Rent Control Measures paragraph (a)(ii) is a direct vote on a component of rent control, materially advancing the housing crisis action plan promise.

Voting Pour delivers this

Rent Control Measures paragraph (a)(iii) is a direct vote on rent control measures, a core element of the housing crisis action plan.

Voting Pour delivers this

Rent Control Measures paragraph (b)(i) is a direct vote on rent control, central to the housing crisis action plan promise.

Voting Pour delivers this

Rent Control Measures paragraph (b)(ii) is a direct vote on a rent control component, advancing the housing crisis action plan.

Voting Pour delivers this

Rent Control Measures paragraph (c) advances the implementation of the rent control framework as part of the housing promise.

Voting Contre delivers this

Referring back the Rented Dwellings Licensing Regulations would have delayed the rented housing framework; voting Contre advances the promise.

Voting Pour delivers this

Minimum residential space standards paragraph (c) advances quality standards in rented accommodation, bearing on the housing crisis action plan.

Voting Pour delivers this

The principles of the Public Health and Safety (Rented Dwellings) Licensing Regulations bear on regulating the rented sector, part of the broader housing crisis action plan.

Voting Pour delivers this

Mortgage repayment assistance directly bears on first-time buyer support, a named element of the housing crisis action plan promise.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Affordable Housing Provision (AHP) scheme amendment bears on first-time buyer support, a specific element of the housing crisis action plan.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise commits to implementing Reform Jersey's Housing Crisis Action Plan including first-time buyer support, but the motion concerns a specific amendment to an Affordable Housing Partnership scheme within the Government Plan, and voting against one particular AHP amendment could reflect disagreement with the mechanism, funding level, or design rather than opposition to first-time buyer support in principle.

Voting Pour delivers this

Adopting Regulation 2 of the Rented Dwellings Licensing Regulations advances the licensing framework for rented housing, part of the housing action plan.

Voting Pour delivers this

Adopting Regulations 3-6 of the Rented Dwellings Licensing Regulations advances the rented housing regulatory framework consistent with the housing promise.

Voting Pour delivers this

Third Reading of the Rented Dwellings Licensing Regulations completes the regulatory framework for rented housing, advancing the housing crisis action plan.

Voting Pour delivers this

Minimum residential space standards paragraph (b) advances housing quality standards for renters, part of a broader housing crisis action plan.

Voting Pour delivers this

This motion would invest stamp duty revenue into first-time buyer funds, directly matching the first-time buyer support component of the Housing Crisis Action Plan.

Voting Pour delivers this

Minimum residential space standards paragraph (a) advances housing quality protections for renters, consistent with the housing crisis action plan.

Voting Pour delivers this

The amendment to the Social Rents Plan shapes the mechanism for reducing rental stress, bearing directly on the housing promise's rent regulation commitment.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Social Rents Plan to Reduce Rental Stress for Tenants directly advances rent regulation and tenant support, central commitments of the housing crisis action plan.

Voting Pour delivers this

Increasing assets and savings thresholds for the Affordable Housing Gateway directly bears on first-time buyer and affordable housing access, part of the housing crisis action plan.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise commits to rent regulation and first-time buyer support as part of a broad Housing Crisis Action Plan, while the motion concerns a specific procedural threshold change for the Affordable Housing Gateway, which is a distinct mechanism not named in the promise; voting against this one measure does not plainly contradict the general commitment.

Voting Pour delivers this

Parts 5 and 9 of the Residential Tenancy Amendment Law advance tenancy reform including rent regulation, directly bearing on the housing promise.

Voting Pour delivers this

Part 6 of the Residential Tenancy Amendment Law advances the tenancy regulation framework central to the housing crisis action plan.

Voting Pour delivers this

Amendment 3 to the Residential Tenancy Amendment Law shapes a detail of the tenancy reform package, bearing on the housing promise.

Voting Pour delivers this

Parts 7, 8, 10 and 11 of the Residential Tenancy Amendment Law advance tenancy reform, consistent with the housing crisis action plan.

Voting Pour delivers this

Principles of the Residential Tenancy Amendment Law establish the legal basis for tenancy reform and rent regulation promised.

Voting Pour delivers this

Third Reading of the Residential Tenancy Amendment Law completes enactment of tenancy reform central to the housing crisis action plan.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Residential Tenancy Amendment Law amendment bears directly on the legal framework for rented housing, central to the rent regulation promise.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. Voting against an amendment-to-an-amendment of a tenancy law is a procedural/technical vote that does not straightforwardly contradict a general manifesto promise to implement rent regulation, as the member could oppose this specific sub-amendment for drafting or strategic reasons while still pursuing rent regulation through the main legislation.

Voting Pour delivers this

Part 1 of the Residential Tenancy Amendment Law directly concerns tenancy law reform, a core element of the housing crisis action plan.

Voting Pour delivers this

Part 2 of the Residential Tenancy Amendment Law directly advances tenancy reform including rent regulation, central to the housing promise.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise commits to "proper rent regulation" as part of a broader Housing Crisis Action Plan, but whether this specific amendment to periodic tenancy provisions in the Draft Residential Tenancy Law constitutes or contradicts "proper rent regulation" cannot be determined without knowing the amendment's content—a member could vote against a particular tenancy amendment while still pursuing the broader rent regulation goal through different means or provisions.

Voting Pour delivers this

Part 3 of the Residential Tenancy Amendment Law advances the rent regulation legal framework, a core element of the housing crisis action plan.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise commits to "proper rent regulation" generally, but this motion concerns a specific mechanism (civil penalties under a tenancy amendment law), and voting against one particular enforcement provision does not clearly contradict the broader commitment to rent regulation, as the member may have opposed this specific mechanism while still pursuing the overall goal by other means.

Voting Pour delivers this

Part 1 (as adopted) of the Residential Tenancy Amendment Law advances tenancy reform, consistent with the housing crisis action plan.

Voting Pour delivers this

Part 2 (as adopted) of the Residential Tenancy Amendment Law advances tenancy and rent regulation, central to the housing promise.

Voting Pour delivers this

Part 3 (adopted) of the Residential Tenancy Amendment Law advances the rent regulation framework promised.

Voting Pour delivers this

Part 3 (further division, adopted) of the Residential Tenancy Amendment Law continues to advance the rent regulation framework.

Voting Pour delivers this

Part 4 of the Residential Tenancy Amendment Law advances the broader tenancy reform framework, consistent with the housing crisis action plan.

Voting Pour delivers this

Amendment 5 to the Residential Tenancy Amendment Law concerns a detail of the tenancy reform package, bearing on the housing promise.

Voting Pour delivers this

An amendment on empty residential properties bears on housing supply, which is relevant to the broader housing crisis action plan, though not specifically rent regulation or first-time buyer support.

Voting Pour delivers this

Development levies are a housing policy tool that can fund affordable housing, bearing on the broader housing crisis action plan's goals.

Voting Pour delivers this

Appointment of the Rent Tribunal Chair and members directly advances the institutional capacity for rent regulation, a core element of the housing promise.

Voting Pour delivers this

Affordable Housing Provision at the Waterfront directly advances the housing crisis action plan including first-time buyer support.

Voting Contre delivers this

The amendment sought to remove the stamp duty surcharge on second homes, which if adopted would undermine housing affordability measures relevant to the housing crisis action plan.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise concerns rent regulation and first-time buyer support as part of a Housing Crisis Action Plan, while this motion is a specific budget amendment about stamp duty surcharges on second homes — a related but distinct housing policy mechanism that the promise did not specifically address, requiring an inference to connect the vote to the manifesto commitment.

Voting Pour delivers this

The second amendment to the Residential Tenancy Amendment Law concerns a detail within the tenancy reform package, bearing on the housing promise.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. Voting against a specific amendment to a residential tenancy bill does not clearly contradict a promise to implement rent regulation, as the member may have opposed this particular amendment on the grounds that it conflicted with or undermined their preferred approach to rent regulation rather than opposing the principle itself.

Voting Contre delivers this

This amendment to the empty residential properties motion could weaken or alter measures to address the housing crisis; voting against it preserves the stronger housing measure.

Voting Contre delivers this

Removing the stamp duty surcharge on buy-to-let and second homes would reduce a policy tool that discourages speculative property purchases, working against first-time buyer and affordability goals in the housing plan.

Voting Pour delivers this

A second amendment to the empty residential properties provision relates to housing supply measures relevant to the housing crisis action plan.

Voting Pour delivers this

This motion, proposed by Mézec himself, would directly introduce residential rent controls—a core element of Reform Jersey's Housing Crisis Action Plan.

Voting Pour delivers this

The fifth amendment to the Mini-Budget 2022 concerns adjustments to cost-of-living fiscal measures that bear on the tax burden across income groups.

Voting Pour delivers this

Removing GST from food directly reduces the tax burden on lower and middle earners, materially advancing the promise of tax reform to ease burden on middle earners.

Voting Pour delivers this

An amendment on stamp duty for buy-to-let and second homes bears on increasing contributions from higher-earning property investors, consistent with the promise.

Voting Pour delivers this

Part 1 of the stamp duty amendment for buy-to-let investments bears on increasing contributions from wealthier property investors, touching the promise.

Voting Pour delivers this

Part 2 of the stamp duty amendment for buy-to-let investments further bears on increasing contributions from higher-earning property investors.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise concerns income tax reform targeting middle and higher earners, while this motion is specifically about stamp duty on buy-to-let, second, and holiday homes — a different tax mechanism affecting a different category of transaction, so voting against it is not a plain contradiction of the manifesto commitment to income tax reform.

Voting Pour delivers this

Removing the upper earnings cap on social security contributions directly increases the contribution burden on higher earners, a core commitment of this promise.

Voting Pour delivers this

Removing GST on sanitary products reduces the tax burden on consumers, touching on the promise to reduce tax burden, though narrowly scoped.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Draft Income Tax (High Value Residents Amendment) Law concerns taxation of high-value residents, touching on the promise to increase contributions from higher earners.

Voting Pour delivers this

Third Reading of the High Value Residents income tax amendment directly concerns taxing high earners, materially bearing on this promise.

Voting Pour delivers this

Voting on taxation of High Value Residents paragraph (c) directly tests whether high-earning residents contribute more, a core commitment of this promise.

Voting Pour delivers this

Voting on taxation of High Value Residents paragraph (a) directly bears on whether high earners pay more tax, a central element of this promise.

Voting Pour delivers this

The amendment to abolish interest relief for landlords increases the tax burden on higher-earning property investors, advancing the promise of making higher earners contribute more.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise concerns income tax reform redistributing burdens between middle and higher earners, while this motion specifically concerns abolishing mortgage interest relief for landlords—a related but distinct fiscal measure that the member could reasonably oppose for reasons unconnected to the general tax-reform principle (e.g., timing, mechanism, or policy design concerns).

Voting Pour delivers this

Adopting abolition of interest relief for landlords as amended directly increases tax contributions from property-owning higher earners, in line with this promise.

Voting Pour delivers this

The marginal relief amendment to the Government Plan bears on how middle earners are taxed, touching on the promise to reduce the burden on middle earners.

Voting Pour delivers this

Removing the earnings cap on social security contributions directly advances the promise to increase contributions from higher earners.

Voting Pour delivers this

Increasing stamp duty on non-principal residences increases the fiscal burden on those who own multiple properties, touching on the promise to increase contributions from higher earners.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise concerns income tax reform targeting middle versus higher earners, while the motion concerns stamp duty on non-principal-residence properties — a different tax mechanism — so voting against it does not plainly contradict a promise about income tax reform, even if both touch on the general theme of increasing contributions from wealthier individuals.

Voting Pour delivers this

Removing the upper earnings limit on Social Security contributions would increase contributions from higher earners, directly advancing the promise to increase contributions from those at the top.

Voting Pour delivers this

Removing the upper earnings limit on Long-Term Care contributions for higher earners is a direct mechanism to increase contributions from higher earners, advancing the tax reform promise.

Voting Pour delivers this

Removing interest tax relief for buy-to-let mortgages directly increases the tax burden on higher-earning landlords, a direct test of the promise to increase contributions from higher earners.

Voting Pour delivers this

Suspending the High Value Residents regime would increase tax contributions from very high earners, partially advancing the promise of making higher earners contribute more.

Voting Pour delivers this

Capping the number of High Net Worth Individuals granted entitled status bears on the promise to ensure higher earners contribute more, by limiting a low-tax route.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise concerns tax reform (making middle earners better off and increasing contributions from higher earners), while the motion is about capping the number of High Net Worth Individuals granted residential entitled status — a immigration/population policy measure distinct from the tax reform mechanism the promise specified.

Voting Pour delivers this

Part 3 of the stamp duty amendment on buy-to-let investments bears on the promise to increase contributions from higher earners via property taxation.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise concerns income tax reform (middle earners better off, higher earners paying more), whereas this motion concerns Stamp Duty on buy-to-let, second homes, and holiday homes — a different tax and a different mechanism, so voting against it does not plainly contradict a promise about income tax redistribution.

Voting Pour delivers this

This amendment to the Mini-Budget 2022 bears on tax reform affecting the burden on earners, touching on the promise to reduce burden on middle earners and increase contributions from higher earners.

Voting Pour delivers this

The sixth amendment to the Mini-Budget 2022 concerns tax/contribution measures that bear on the distribution of fiscal burden across earners.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Offshore Wind proposition relates to transitioning energy/industry to net-zero, directly bearing on the promise to support the net-zero transition for digital and finance industries.

Voting Contre delivers this

An amendment to the Offshore Wind proposition that was rejected may have altered the terms of the net-zero transition; voting Contre keeps the substantive motion intact, advancing the promise.

Voting Pour delivers this

An evidence-based energy strategy directly bears on the promise to support industries transitioning to net-zero without harming lower-income residents.

Voting Pour delivers this

The St Helier Urban Renewal Programme including Havre des Pas directly advances green spaces and urban improvements in St Helier, a core element of this promise.

Voting Pour delivers this

The St Helier Country Park amendment directly advances green spaces in St Helier, a named commitment of this promise.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Gas Place Primary School Site amendment relates to use of urban land in St Helier, tangentially bearing on the promise to deliver more green and community spaces.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Walking and Cycling routes amendment directly advances active travel paths in St Helier, a named element of this promise.

Voting Pour delivers this

Supplementary Planning Guidance on the Parking Strategy bears on active travel and urban space priorities in St Helier, touching the promise to deliver active travel paths.

Voting Contre delivers this

An amendment to the Meanwhile Use of the Former Gas Place Site proposition could have altered how the site is used; the motion's rejection means the substantive use advanced, consistent with the promise.

Voting Pour delivers this

The proposed use of the former Jersey Gas site (reconsideration request) bears on how urban land in St Helier is used, relating to the promise for green spaces and pocket parks.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise concerns working with the Parish to deliver green spaces and active travel infrastructure in St Helier generally, while the motion concerns a specific reconsideration of the proposed use of one particular site (the former Jersey Gas site), and a member could reasonably vote against reconsideration while still pursuing the broader promise through other means or because they judged the specific proposal inadequate or premature.

Voting Pour delivers this

Supplementary planning guidance on parking paragraph (a) bears on active travel and urban space priorities in St Helier, touching the promise for active travel paths.

Voting Pour delivers this

Restoring funding to the Environment department's budget supports the environmental and green infrastructure work relevant to delivering green spaces and active travel in St. Helier.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Meanwhile Use of the Former Gas Place Site proposition concerns temporary beneficial use of an urban site in St Helier, bearing on the promise to deliver more community/green spaces.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a general directional commitment to more green spaces and active travel in St Helier, whereas the motion concerns a specific "meanwhile use" arrangement for one site, and voting against it does not necessarily mean abandoning the broader goal, as the member could prefer a different approach for that site.

Voting Pour delivers this

The amendment to the St Helier Urban Renewal Programme including Havre des Pas shapes the delivery of urban renewal and green spaces in St Helier, directly bearing on this promise.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a general commitment to work with the Parish on green spaces and active travel, while the motion concerns a specific Urban Renewal Programme for St Helier including Havre des Pas, and voting against one particular funding or programme amendment does not straightforwardly contradict a broader directional promise, as the member could have had reasons unrelated to the promise's substance (e.g., preferring a different mechanism or funding approach) for opposing this specific measure.

Voting Pour delivers this

This motion directly delivers the £500,000 commitment for neighbourhood regeneration in St. Helier, which bears directly on the promise to deliver green spaces, active travel, and pocket parks in St. Helier.

Voting Pour delivers this

States Employment Board annual reporting improves accountability of civil servants and their employment management, touching the promise to make civil servants accountable to elected ministers.

Voting Pour delivers this

Reporting of headcount and vacancies paragraph (a) increases transparency and accountability of civil service management, bearing on the promise to reform government structure for accountability.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Draft States of Jersey (Deputy Chief Minister) Amendment Law bears on the structure of ministerial government and executive accountability, touching the promise to reform government structure.

Voting Pour delivers this

An audit of Government Department vacancies directly tests accountability of civil service management to elected oversight, bearing on the promise.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. An audit of government department vacancies is a procedural/information-gathering measure, not a direct mechanism for making civil servants accountable to elected ministers, so voting against it does not plainly contradict the promise about accountability reform.

Voting Pour delivers this

Curbing growth of the public sector via an end-to-end review of government processes directly bears on the promise to reform government structure and accountability.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise concerns ministerial accountability over civil servants, while the motion calls for an end-to-end review of government processes to curb public sector growth — a related but distinct measure that the member could reasonably oppose without abandoning the accountability reform they promised.