Jersey States Member Scorecard

AN INDEPENDENT RECORD OF EVERY PROMISE MADE IN THE STATES OF JERSEY

Visit the Guernsey edition →
PRE-LAUNCH FEEDBACK PHASE — Public launch: Friday, 18 September 2026
04 SeptStamp duty on buy-to-let and second homes regraded from Mixed to Kept after the vote that delivered it was found unlinked; Long-Term Care cap ruling stands, with the December 2025 vote added.— Stephen Ahier04 SeptSustainable finance promise regraded from No recorded vote to Kept after a reader challenge found the amendment that delivered it, which she lodged herself, unlinked.— Hilary Jeune04 SeptTwo further verdict-based promises revised after reader challenges: constituency surgeries regraded Partial to Delivered; Equalities Minister regraded Outstanding to In progress.— Hilary Jeune
← All members

Stephen Morrison Ahier

Deputy for St Helier North · Independent

Did not return for the 2026–2030 Assembly · role shown is from 2022–2026 Assembly

Stephen Morrison Ahier

Stephen Ahier served as Deputy for St Helier North in the 2022–2026 Assembly. He had previously represented St Helier in an earlier term, making the 2022–2026 Assembly his second. He did not return to the States Assembly in 2026.

Ahier campaigned on themes of fiscal restraint, community welfare, population management, and environmental protection. Among his specific commitments, he pledged to oppose tax increases while excessive consultant salaries persisted in the public sector, and to support a Compensatory Allowance for married couples disadvantaged by compulsory independent taxation. He proposed a Utilities Benefit card for senior citizens to ease rising energy costs, and committed to advocate for a Health Ombudsman once a Public Service Ombudsman had been established. He also pledged to push for implementation of a population policy and tighter control of immigration, to oppose further loss of agricultural fields in the Island Plan, and to campaign for a new primary school in St Helier along with increased funding for special needs support staff.

Ahier described himself as a retired businessman who had lived in the St Helier district for over three decades, and noted a personal connection to Jersey's farming community, having come from a farming family.

Sources

100%

States participation

892

Votes expected

Voted or abstained on every one of the 892 votes they were expected to cast during 2022–2026 Assembly.

Have your say

Constituent feedback

Public commentary and ratings from readers on how Stephen Morrison Ahier is doing. This is not Stephen Morrison Ahier’s own response.

No comments yet. Be the first to rate this member’s term so far.

Comments open soon. Sign-in for this feature is still being configured.

Attendance

Turnout in the States Assembly — 2022–2026 Assembly

The States Assembly records a reason against every non-vote, so being ill, off-island, on parental leave or barred by a declared interest can be told apart from simply not turning up. Absences with an accepted reason are removed from both sides of the rate rather than held against the member.

Every vote

of the 892 votes they were expected to cast in 2022–2026 Assembly

  • Voted or abstained892

Manifesto

Promises, and how they voted — 2022–2026 Assembly

Grouped by policy area. Each promise carries the recorded States Assembly votes that test it, and whether this member voted to deliver — open any vote for the motion and the reasoning. A vote counts against a promise only where it plainly contradicts it; where a member voted against one particular measure but the breach is arguable, the vote is shown and set aside rather than counted. Where no recorded vote bears on a promise, an AI delivery verdict assesses progress against the public record.

Voted to deliverVoted againstAbsent or abstained

Health & Social Care

2 promises · 0 kept

3recorded votes

3 Contre

  • No recorded voteconditional

    Will propose the creation of a Health Ombudsman once a Public Service Ombudsman has been established.

    “Once this has been achieved, I will propose the creation of a Health Ombudsman to provide much-needed oversight.”

    Health And CareGovernance And Constitution
    No recorded vote - delivery verdictNot yet testedhigh confidence

    The precondition for Ahier's promise — establishment of a Jersey Public Services Ombudsman — was not fulfilled during the 2022–2026 Assembly term; the Chief Minister confirmed in January 2026 that enabling legislation would not be ready in time for the outgoing Assembly, with work deferred to the incoming 2026–2030 term. No Health Ombudsman proposition was lodged by Ahier at any point during his term, and he lost his St Helier North seat at the June 2026 general election, ending his ability to pursue the commitment.

  • Brokendirectional

    Will support removing the cap on Long-Term Care contributions to protect middle-income earners from tax rises.

    “I am in favour of the removal of the cap on Long-Term Care contributions.”

    Health And CareTax And Gst

    3 recorded votes test this promise

    3 Contre
    • 10 Dec 2025✗P.70/2025 Amd.(5). — Proposed Budget (Government Plan) 2026-2029 (P.70/2025): fifth amendment. Upper Earnings Limit, Part 2 (Long-Term Care contributions) — Contre, voted against delivering16-28

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Part 2 of Deputy Coles' fifth amendment to the Budget 2026-2029 would have removed the upper earnings limit on Long-Term Care contributions, the precise cap the promise committed to removing. Voting Pour delivered it.

    • 15 Dec 2022✗P.97/2022(Amd)(23) — Proposed Government Plan 2023-2026 (P.97/2022): twenty-third amendment Removing the Upper Earnings caps — Contre, voted against delivering16-28

      Voting Pour delivers this

      This amendment to the Government Plan specifically concerned removing the upper earnings caps, directly matching the promise to support removing the cap on Long-Term Care contributions to protect middle-income earners from tax rises.

    • 14 Dec 2023✗P.72/2023 Amd.(3) — Proposed Government Plan 2024-2027 P72 Amendment 3 - Removal of earnings cap — Contre, voted against delivering12-33

      Voting Pour delivers this

      This amendment to the Government Plan 2024-2027 concerned removal of the earnings cap on social security contributions, directly testing the promise to support removing the cap on Long-Term Care contributions.

    Related votes (shown for context; too partial or indirect to count towards the score)

    • 10 Dec 2025·P.70/2025 Amd.(5). — Proposed Budget (Government Plan) 2026-2029 (P.70/2025): fifth amendment. Upper Earnings Limit, Part 1 (Social Security contributions) — Contre13-30

      Part 1 of Deputy Coles' fifth amendment removed the upper earnings limit on Social Security contributions, the sister cap to the Long-Term Care one the promise named. Shown as context.

      Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise specifically concerned the Long-Term Care contribution cap, while the motion dealt with abolishing the cap on employer Social Security contributions, making this a different (though related) contribution mechanism rather than the precise one promised.

Education & Families

2 promises · 1 kept

5recorded votes

2 Pour · 3 Contre

  • Keptaspirational

    Will advocate for a new primary school in St Helier to provide modern educational facilities.

    “St Helier deserves a new primary school. Our capital's population has almost reached 36,000 – it is essential that we have suitable, modern educational facilities for our children.”

    EducationInfrastructure And Transport

    4 recorded votes test this promise

    2 Pour · 2 Contre
    • 16 Dec 2022✓P.97/2022(Amd)(21) — Proposed Government Plan 2023-2026 (P.97/2022): twenty-first amendment Gas Place Primary School Site [P.97-2022 Amd.(21)] — Pour, voted to deliver43-1

      Voting Pour delivers this

      This Government Plan amendment concerned the Gas Place Primary School Site in St Helier, directly advancing the promise to advocate for a new primary school in St Helier.

    • 10 Jul 2025✓P.48/2025 — Meanwhile Use of the Former Gas Place Site (P.48-2025) — Contre, voted to deliver6-30

      Voting Contre delivers this

      The motion on Meanwhile Use of the Former Gas Place Site concerns the use of the site identified for a new primary school in St Helier; approving interim alternative uses could delay or prevent a new primary school on that site, working against the promise.

    • 09 Jul 2025✓P.48/2025 Amd. — Meanwhile Use of the Former Gas Place Stie (P.48/2025) Amendment — Pour, voted to deliver16-26

      Voting Pour delivers this

      The amendment to the Meanwhile Use of the Former Gas Place Site proposition bears on whether the Gas Place site in St Helier is preserved for use as a new primary school, connecting to the promise to advocate for a new primary school in St Helier.

    • 21 Oct 2025·P.45/2025 — Proposed use of former Jersey Gas site: request for reconsideration (P.45-2025) — Contre, voted against, not counted as a breach10-31

      Voting Pour delivers this

      This proposition sought reconsideration of the proposed use of the former Jersey Gas site, which is the Gas Place site identified for a new primary school, bearing on the promise to advocate for a new primary school in St Helier.

      Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is to advocate for a new primary school in St Helier, but the motion concerns a specific proposal about the former Jersey Gas site, and voting against it could reflect disagreement with that particular site or plan rather than opposition to the broader goal of a new primary school.

  • No recorded votedirectional

    Will push for extra funding for special needs support staff in schools.

    “We must ensure that there are adequate resources for our schools, including extra funding for special needs support staff.”

    EducationDisability And Inclusion

    1 recorded vote tests this promise

    1 Contre
    • 13 Dec 2023·P.72/2023 Amd.(20) — Proposed Government Plan 2024-2027 (P.72/2023): twentieth amendment. Additional funding for education — Contre, voted against, not counted as a breach13-32

      Voting Pour delivers this

      This amendment provided additional funding for education, which materially bears on the promise to push for extra funding for special needs support staff in schools, even though it is not limited to SEN staff.

      Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise calls for extra funding specifically for special needs support staff, while the motion is described only as "additional funding for education" generally, making it unclear whether this particular amendment targeted the promised area or bundled other educational spending, so rejecting it need not directly contradict the specific commitment made.

Economy, Tax & Cost of Living

4 promises · 2 kept

21recorded votes

4 Pour · 17 Contre

  • No recorded voteconditional

    Will support a Compensatory Allowance for married couples disadvantaged by compulsory independent taxation.

    “If Independent Taxation is made compulsory, I will support the introduction of a Compensatory Allowance for married couples who would be left worse off.”

    Tax And GstCost Of Living

    7 recorded votes test this promise

    2 Pour · 5 Contre
    • 05 Jul 2023·P.32/2023 — Removal of compulsory independent taxation for existing married couples and civil partnerships. - as amended - paragraph (a) — Contre, voted against, not counted as a breach20-21

      Voting Pour delivers this

      This motion sought removal of compulsory independent taxation for existing married couples and civil partnerships (paragraph a), directly testing whether compulsory independent taxation would be imposed on existing couples - the condition on which the promise depends.

      Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise was to support a Compensatory Allowance as a remedy for harm caused by compulsory independent taxation, whereas this motion sought to remove compulsory independent taxation altogether — a different mechanism for addressing the same harm — so voting against removal is not the same as voting against a compensatory allowance.

    • 05 Jul 2023·P.32/2023 — Removal of compulsory independent taxation for existing married couples and civil partnerships. - as amended - paragraph (d) — Contre, voted against, not counted as a breach18-23

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Paragraph (d) of the motion on removal of compulsory independent taxation for existing married couples and civil partnerships bears on the condition underpinning the promise.

      Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise committed the member to supporting a Compensatory Allowance as a remedy within a compulsory independent taxation regime, whereas this motion concerned removing compulsory independent taxation altogether — a different mechanism in the same policy area — so voting against removal does not plainly contradict the promise to support a compensatory allowance.

    • 16 Apr 2024·P.6/2024 — Draft Income Tax [Amendment - Stage 2 of Independent Taxation] Law Article 3 — Pour, voted against, not counted as a breach43-0

      Voting Contre delivers this

      Article 3 of the Draft Income Tax (Amendment – Stage 2 of Independent Taxation) Law directly implements compulsory independent taxation, triggering the promise's condition; voting Pour advances the compulsory regime without the compensatory allowance.

      Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The motion concerned Stage 2 of Independent Taxation broadly, and without knowing whether Article 3 specifically removed or precluded a Compensatory Allowance for married couples, voting in favour of the overall amendment cannot straightforwardly be equated to opposing the promised compensatory allowance.

    • 16 Apr 2024·P.6/2024 — Draft Income Tax (Amendment – Stage 2 of Independent Taxation) (Jersey) Law 202- Third Reading — Pour, voted against, not counted as a breach44-0

      Voting Contre delivers this

      This vote adopts Stage 2 of Independent Taxation, making independent taxation compulsory for married couples - the very condition that triggers the promise to support a Compensatory Allowance; voting Pour advances compulsory IT without the allowance, so Contre would deliver the promise.

      Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise was to support a Compensatory Allowance for disadvantaged married couples if independent taxation became compulsory, not to oppose independent taxation itself, so voting for Stage 2 of the law could still be consistent with pursuing the allowance through separate means.

    • 16 Apr 2024·P.6/2024 Amd. — Draft Income Tax (Amendment – Stage 2 of Independent Taxation) (Jersey) Law 202- (P.6/2024): amendment. — Contre, voted against, not counted as a breach8-36

      Voting Pour delivers this

      This amendment to the Stage 2 Independent Taxation law was the direct vehicle where a Compensatory Allowance or protective measure for married couples could have been introduced; voting Pour advances delivery of the promise.

      Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. Without knowing the specific content of the amendment to P.6/2024, it cannot be determined with certainty that voting against it contradicts the promise to support a Compensatory Allowance, as the amendment may have concerned a different mechanism, funding level, timing, or procedural matter rather than the principle of the Compensatory Allowance itself.

    • 05 Jul 2023·P.32/2023 — Removal of compulsory independent taxation for existing married couples and civil partnerships. - as amended - paragraph (b) — Contre, voted against, not counted as a breach21-20

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Paragraph (b) of the motion on removal of compulsory independent taxation bears on the same legislative package that triggers the promise's condition about compulsory independent taxation for existing married couples.

      Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise was to support a Compensatory Allowance as a remedy for couples disadvantaged by compulsory independent taxation, whereas this motion concerned removing compulsory independent taxation altogether for existing couples — a different mechanism for addressing the same underlying concern, meaning a member could reasonably vote against this motion while still intending to pursue their promised compensatory allowance route.

    • 05 Jul 2023·P.32/2023 — Removal of compulsory independent taxation for existing married couples and civil partnerships. - as amended - paragraph (c) — Contre, voted against, not counted as a breach20-21

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Paragraph (c) of the motion on removal of compulsory independent taxation for existing married couples and civil partnerships bears on the condition underpinning the promise.

      Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise committed to supporting a Compensatory Allowance as the remedy for disadvantaged couples, whereas this motion sought to remove compulsory independent taxation entirely — a different mechanism — so voting against removal is not plainly inconsistent with still favouring a compensatory allowance approach.

  • Keptdirectional

    Will support increasing stamp duty on buy-to-let investment properties and second homes.

    “I would support an increase in stamp duty for "buy-to-let" investment properties and second homes.”

    Tax And GstHousing

    11 recorded votes test this promise

    1 Pour · 10 Contre
    • 13 Dec 2022·P.97/2022(Amd)(2)(Amd) — Proposed Government Plan 2023-2026 (P.97/2022): second amendment (P.97/2022. Amd.(2).) – amendment Stamp Duty of buy to let investments second homes and holiday homes — Contre, voted against, not counted as a breach11-34

      Voting Pour delivers this

      This amendment to the Government Plan 2023-2026 specifically concerned Stamp Duty on buy-to-let investments, second homes and holiday homes, directly matching the promise to support increasing stamp duty on such properties.

      Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise did not name a rate. Ahier voted for the Government Plan that introduced the 3-point surcharge in December 2022 and twice voted to keep it. This motion asked for a higher rate than the one he had voted for, and opposing that is a judgement about how far to go, not a vote against an increase.

    • 13 Dec 2022·P.97/2022(Amd)(2) — Proposed Government Plan 2023-2026 (P.97/2022): second amendment Stamp Duty of buy to let investments second homes and holiday homes (P.97/2022 Amd.(2)) Part 1 — Contre, voted against, not counted as a breach16-29

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Part 1 of the amendment on Stamp Duty for buy-to-let investments, second homes and holiday homes directly tests the promise to support increasing stamp duty on such properties.

      Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise did not name a rate. Ahier voted for the Government Plan that introduced the 3-point surcharge in December 2022 and twice voted to keep it. This motion asked for a higher rate than the one he had voted for, and opposing that is a judgement about how far to go, not a vote against an increase.

    • 13 Dec 2022·P.97/2022(Amd)(2) — Proposed Government Plan 2023-2026 (P.97/2022): second amendment Stamp Duty of buy to let investments second homes and holiday homes (P.97/2022 Amd.(2)) Part 2 — Contre, voted against, not counted as a breach2-42

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Part 2 of the amendment on Stamp Duty for buy-to-let investments, second homes and holiday homes directly tests the promise to support increasing stamp duty on such properties.

      Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise did not name a rate. Ahier voted for the Government Plan that introduced the 3-point surcharge in December 2022 and twice voted to keep it. This motion asked for a higher rate than the one he had voted for, and opposing that is a judgement about how far to go, not a vote against an increase.

    • 16 Dec 2022✓P.97/2022 — Proposed Government Plan 2023-2026 — Pour, voted to deliver37-11

      Voting Pour delivers this

      The Government Plan 2023-2026 introduced a stamp duty and LTT surcharge of 3 percentage points on buy-to-let, second and holiday homes from 1 January 2023, the increase the promise called for. Voting Pour delivered it.

    • 13 Dec 2023·P.72/2023 Amd.(19) — Proposed Government Plan 2024-2027 (P.72/2023): nineteenth amendment. Investment of stamp duty uplift into first time buyer funds — Contre, voted against, not counted as a breach12-34

      Voting Pour delivers this

      This amendment would invest revenue from the higher stamp duty rate on second homes into first-time buyer funds, reinforcing the policy of applying a stamp duty uplift to second homes that the promise supports.

      Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise was to support increasing stamp duty on buy-to-let and second homes, which this amendment presupposes, but the motion specifically concerned how the resulting revenue should be allocated (into first-time buyer funds), a distinct question of fiscal mechanism that the member could reasonably oppose while still supporting the underlying stamp duty increase.

    • 26 Nov 2024✓P.51/2024 Amd.(28) — Proposed Budget (Government Plan) 2025-2028 (P.51/2024): twenty-eighth amendment. Removal of stamp duty surcharge on second homes - as amended — Contre, voted to deliver23-24

      Voting Contre delivers this

      This amendment sought removal of the stamp duty surcharge on second homes, directly opposing the promise to support increasing stamp duty on buy-to-let investment properties and second homes; voting Contre delivers the promise.

    • 26 Nov 2024✓P.51/2024 Amd.(25)(re-issue) — Proposed Budget (Government Plan) 2025-2028 (P.51/2024): twenty-fifth amendment. Stamp Duty Exemption - as amended — Contre, voted to deliver7-36

      Voting Contre delivers this

      This amendment concerned a Stamp Duty Exemption, which if adopted would reduce stamp duty burdens on properties, working against the promise to increase stamp duty on buy-to-let and second homes.

    • 01 Apr 2025·P.16/2025 — Increase Stamp Duty for Properties that are not Principal Residences to 5 per cent (P.16-2025) — Contre, voted against, not counted as a breach3-41

      Voting Pour delivers this

      This proposition sought to increase stamp duty for properties that are not principal residences to 5%, directly matching the promise to support increasing stamp duty on buy-to-let investment properties and second homes.

      Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise did not name a rate. Ahier voted for the Government Plan that introduced the 3-point surcharge in December 2022 and twice voted to keep it. This motion asked for a higher rate than the one he had voted for, and opposing that is a judgement about how far to go, not a vote against an increase.

    • 26 Nov 2024✓P.51/2024 Amd.(28).Amd. — Proposed Budget (Government Plan) 2025-2028 (P.51/2024): twenty-eighth amendment (P.51/2024 Amd.(28)), amendment. Removal of stamp duty surcharge on second homes — Contre, voted to deliver30-14

      Voting Contre delivers this

      This amendment sought to remove the stamp duty surcharge on second homes, directly opposing Promise 2's commitment to increase stamp duty on buy-to-let and second homes; voting Contre preserves the surcharge.

    • 13 Dec 2022·P.97/2022(Amd)(2) — Proposed Government Plan 2023-2026 (P.97/2022): second amendment Stamp Duty of buy to let investments second homes and holiday homes (P.97/2022 Amd.(2)) Part 3 — Contre, voted against, not counted as a breach2-42

      Voting Pour delivers this

      Part 3 of the amendment on Stamp Duty for buy-to-let investments, second homes and holiday homes directly tests the promise to support increasing stamp duty on such properties.

      Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise did not name a rate. Ahier voted for the Government Plan that introduced the 3-point surcharge in December 2022 and twice voted to keep it. This motion asked for a higher rate than the one he had voted for, and opposing that is a judgement about how far to go, not a vote against an increase.

    • 08 Dec 2025✓P.70/2025 Amd.(15). — Proposed Budget (Government Plan) 2026-2029 (P.70/2025): fifteenth amendment. Removal of 3% Stamp Surcharge — Contre, voted to deliver2-42

      Voting Contre delivers this

      This amendment to the Budget 2026-2029 sought to remove the 3-point stamp duty surcharge on second homes and buy-to-let. Voting Contre kept the increase in place.

    Related votes (shown for context; too partial or indirect to count towards the score)

    • 27 Mar 2026·P.51/2026 — Removal of Interest Tax Relief for Buy-to-Let Mortgages (P.51-2026) — Contre18-21

      This proposition sought removal of interest tax relief for buy-to-let mortgages, which is a different mechanism from stamp duty but directly related to increasing the tax burden on buy-to-let investors as the promise intends; voting Contre would work against burdening buy-to-let investors.

      Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise specifically concerned increasing stamp duty on buy-to-let properties, while this motion concerns removing interest tax relief on buy-to-let mortgages — a different fiscal mechanism targeting the same sector, so voting against it does not straightforwardly contradict the stated commitment.

  • No recorded votespecific

    Will propose a Utilities Benefit card for senior citizens to help reduce the impact of rising energy costs.

    “I will propose a 'Utilities Benefit' card for senior citizens (based on the 2020 'Spend Local' card) to reduce the impact of escalating energy charges.”

    Cost Of LivingSocial Security And Benefits
    No recorded vote - delivery verdictNot yet testedmedium confidence

    Extensive searches of statesassembly.je, gov.je, and media archives returned no evidence that Deputy Steve Ahier lodged a proposition or ministerial statement proposing a 'Utilities Benefit' card for senior citizens at any point during the 2022–2026 Assembly term. Hansard records show Ahier asking oral questions about Jersey Electricity price increases in 2024 (OQ.202/2024), confirming ongoing concern about energy costs, but no record of the specific card scheme he promised. The 2020-style 'Spend Local' card mechanism on which the promise was modelled was not revived for this purpose by Ahier or any other member.

  • Keptconditional

    Will oppose tax increases while excessive consultant salaries continue to be paid in the public sector.

    “I will oppose any such increase while exorbitant salaries continue to be paid to consultants.”

    Tax And GstPublic FinancesPublic Sector Reform

    3 recorded votes test this promise

    1 Pour · 2 Contre
    • 20 Sept 2022✓P.80/2022(Amd)(4) — Mini-Budget 2022 (P.80/2022): fourth amendment. Replace the 20% standard rate of personal income tax with 25% for all but High Value Residents — Contre, voted to deliver11-34

      Voting Contre delivers this

      This amendment proposed raising income tax from 20% to 25%, a significant tax increase of the kind the promise opposes while consultant salaries remain high; voting Contre advances the promise.

    • 10 Dec 2025✓P.70/2025 Amd.(5). — Proposed Budget (Government Plan) 2026-2029 (P.70/2025): fifth amendment. Upper Earnings Limit, Part 1 (Social Security contributions) — Contre, voted to deliver13-30

      Voting Contre delivers this

      Removing the upper earnings limit on Social Security contributions would increase the tax burden on higher earners, a form of tax increase the promise opposes while consultant salaries remain excessive.

    • 11 Dec 2025·P.70/2025 Amd.(2). — Proposed Budget (Government Plan) 2026-2029 (P.70/2025): second amendment. Health Insurance Fund Contributions — Pour, voted against, not counted as a breach14-28

      Voting Contre delivers this

      This amendment would raise the Social Security contribution rate allocated to the Health Insurance Fund, constituting a tax/contribution increase of the type the promise opposes while exorbitant consultant salaries persist.

      Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise opposes tax increases while excessive consultant salaries continue, but this motion concerns reallocating the share of existing Social Security contributions to the Health Insurance Fund rather than a straightforward tax rise, and a reasonable case exists that supporting a reallocation within existing contributions is not the same as supporting a new tax increase.

Infrastructure & Environment

1 promise · 0 kept

1recorded vote

1 Contre

  • No recorded votespecific

    Will oppose the loss of agricultural fields in the next Island Plan to protect the countryside from overdevelopment.

    “I would oppose the loss of further agricultural fields in the next Island Plan.”

    Environment And ClimatePlanning And DevelopmentAgriculture And Fishing

    1 recorded vote tests this promise

    1 Contre
    • 15 Dec 2022·P.97/2022(Amd)(5) — Proposed Government Plan 2023-2026 (P.97/2022): fifth amendment St Helier Country Park — Contre, voted against, not counted as a breach20-25

      Voting Pour delivers this

      This amendment concerned a St Helier Country Park in the Government Plan, which relates to preserving open/green space from development and connects to the promise to oppose loss of agricultural fields to overdevelopment.

      Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise concerned opposing loss of agricultural fields in the Island Plan, while this motion was a Government Plan amendment for a St Helier Country Park — a related but distinct mechanism (funding/planning proposal) that cannot straightforwardly be equated with the Island Plan agricultural land protection the member specifically promised to defend.

Governance & Public Services

1 promise · 1 kept

2recorded votes

1 Pour · 1 Contre

  • Keptdirectional

    Will push for implementation of a population policy and control of immigration into Jersey.

    “The new Council of Ministers must respond by implementing the long-awaited population policy. It is essential that we control immigration into the island.”

    Population And Migration

    2 recorded votes test this promise

    1 Pour · 1 Contre
    • 23 May 2023✓P.20/2023 — Draft Control of Housing and Work (Residential and Employment Status) (Amendment No. 2) (Jersey) Regulations 202- Principles — Pour, voted to deliver46-0

      Voting Pour delivers this

      The Draft Control of Housing and Work (Residential and Employment Status) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations concerns control of residency and employment status in Jersey, bearing on the promise to implement a population policy and control immigration.

    • 19 Jul 2023✓P.49/2023 — Entitlement to work – reduction in residency requirement. — Contre, voted to deliver11-31

      Voting Contre delivers this

      This motion sought reduction in the residency requirement for entitlement to work, which if adopted would loosen immigration controls, working against the promise to push for control of immigration into Jersey.

Stephen Morrison Ahier’s record changes with every States Assembly sitting. Follow us on LinkedIn and we will tell you when it does.

Follow on LinkedIn