Stephen George Luce

Voting Pour delivers this

Health Insurance Fund Transfer amendment bears on funding healthcare, directly relating to healthcare affordability.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a general directional commitment to make healthcare more affordable and increase frontline staff, while the motion concerns a specific amendment about a Health Insurance Fund transfer within the Government Plan, and voting against one particular funding mechanism does not straightforwardly contradict the broader promise without inferring that this specific transfer was necessary to deliver it.

Voting Pour delivers this

HIF Transfers amendment to Government Plan directly relates to healthcare funding from the Health Insurance Fund.

Voting Pour delivers this

Multi-morbidity GP consultations amendment directly addresses making healthcare more affordable and accessible for patients with multiple conditions.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise to make doctors more affordable and increase frontline staff is a general directional commitment, while this motion concerns one specific funding mechanism (multi-morbidity GP consultations) within the Government Plan, and a member could reasonably oppose this particular amendment while still pursuing the broader affordability goal through other means.

Voting Pour delivers this

Free GP visits for children and young people directly advances healthcare affordability for families.

Voting Pour delivers this

Health and Community Services Interim Board as amended relates to governance of health services, bearing on healthcare delivery.

Considered and set aside: this motion does not bear on the promise. The motion concerns the establishment or amendment of a Health and Community Services Interim Board — a governance and management structure — which does not directly bear on the promise to make doctors more affordable or increase frontline nursing staff numbers.

Voting Pour delivers this

Funding of Acute Cardiac Nursing directly addresses increasing frontline NHS/HCS staff numbers.

Voting Pour delivers this

Vaccination Service amendment to Government Plan directly bears on frontline health service provision.

Voting Pour delivers this

Medical Hosiery and wound dressing funding directly addresses affordable healthcare provision for patients.

Voting Pour delivers this

Funding of Acute Cardiac Nursing amendment directly addresses increasing frontline healthcare staff numbers.

Voting Contre delivers this

Freeze on Public Health staff appointments would reduce frontline staff; voting Contre advances the promise of increasing frontline staff numbers.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise concerned making doctors more affordable and increasing frontline NHS staff, while this motion specifically imposed a freeze on Public Health staff appointments—a related but distinct category—and a member could reasonably judge that a freeze on some administrative or public-health posts was compatible with, or even supportive of, redirecting resources toward frontline clinical staff.

Voting Pour delivers this

IVF Funding directly addresses making a healthcare procedure more affordable and accessible.

Voting Pour delivers this

IVF Funding amendment also directly relates to healthcare affordability.

Voting Pour delivers this

New Healthcare Facilities Programme paragraph (b) relates to healthcare infrastructure and service delivery.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise concerns affordability of doctors and increasing frontline staff numbers, while the motion concerns a New Healthcare Facilities Programme, which is a capital/infrastructure matter; voting against one specific facilities programme paragraph does not straightforwardly contradict a commitment about staffing levels and affordability without further inference about how the programme relates to those goals.

Voting Pour delivers this

New Healthcare Facilities Programme paragraph (a) directly relates to developing healthcare facilities bearing on the commitment.

Considered and set aside: this motion does not bear on the promise. The promise concerns affordability of doctors and increasing frontline NHS staff numbers, while the motion concerns a "New Healthcare Facilities Programme paragraph (a)," which relates to capital infrastructure rather than staffing levels or healthcare costs, making the link too indirect to constitute a breach.

Voting Pour delivers this

New Healthcare Facilities Programme expenditure sixth amendment bears on healthcare funding and facilities development.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise concerns healthcare affordability and frontline staffing levels, while this motion concerns capital expenditure on new healthcare facilities, which is a different mechanism (infrastructure spending) rather than a direct decision on staff numbers, management levels, or the cost of accessing doctors.

Voting Pour delivers this

Health and Care Jersey Advisory Board and Partnership Board amendment relates to healthcare governance and service delivery.

Considered and set aside: this motion does not bear on the promise. The motion concerns the structure and membership of Health and Care Jersey advisory and partnership boards, which is a governance/procedural matter, not directly related to the promise about making doctors more affordable or increasing frontline staff numbers.

Voting Pour delivers this

Health and Care Jersey Advisory Board paragraph (a) relates to healthcare governance structures.

Voting Pour delivers this

Health and Care Jersey Advisory Board paragraph (b) relates to healthcare governance.

Voting Pour delivers this

Redirecting funds into palliative and respite care directly bears on healthcare provision and frontline care services.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise concerns making doctors more affordable and increasing frontline nursing staff, while this motion specifically concerns redirecting assisted dying funding into palliative and respite care — a related but distinct policy area requiring an inference to connect the vote to the promise.

Voting Contre delivers this

Freeze on Public Health Staff Appointments second amendment would restrict frontline staffing; voting Contre advances the promise of more frontline staff.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is to increase frontline staff numbers, and voting Pour on a freeze on public health staff appointments works against that goal, but the motion concerns a freeze broadly on "public health staff" rather than specifying frontline clinical staff versus management, so a member could plausibly support it believing it targeted non-frontline or administrative roles while still pursuing the underlying promise.

Voting Pour delivers this

Medical Hosiery and wound dressing funding amendment directly relates to affordable healthcare provision.

Voting Pour delivers this

Raising the share of Social Security contributions to the Health Insurance Fund increases resources for healthcare funding, bearing on healthcare affordability.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise to make doctors more affordable is a general directional commitment, and voting against one specific funding mechanism (raising the Health Insurance Fund's share of Social Security contributions by 0.5%) does not straightforwardly contradict it, as the member could oppose this particular fiscal measure while pursuing the goal through other means.

Voting Pour delivers this

Part 1 of the amendment to redirect assisted dying funds into palliative and respite care bears on healthcare provision commitments.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise concerned making doctors more affordable and increasing frontline NHS staff, while this motion specifically concerned redirecting assisted dying service funding to palliative and respite care — a related but distinct healthcare spending choice that requires an inferential chain to connect to the original promise.

Voting Pour delivers this

Funding free GP visits for full-time students directly makes healthcare more affordable, aligning squarely with the promise to make healthcare more affordable.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise to make doctors more affordable is directional, and voting against one specific mechanism (free GP visits for full-time students) does not plainly contradict it, as the member could have opposed this particular measure on grounds of funding, scope, or preferred alternative approaches while still pursuing the general aim.

Voting Pour delivers this

Funding medical hosiery and wound dressings makes healthcare consumables more affordable for patients, bearing on the promise of more affordable healthcare.

Voting Pour delivers this

Hospital funding amendment to Government Plan 2023-2026 directly addresses funding the new hospital, a core part of this promise.

Voting Pour delivers this

New Healthcare Facilities Programme paragraph (b) is a direct vote on proceeding with the new hospital/healthcare facilities programme.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise commits to a new hospital "in the right place, at the right cost," and voting against a specific healthcare facilities programme could reflect a judgement that the particular plan fails the "right place" or "right cost" criteria rather than opposition to building a new hospital per se.

Voting Pour delivers this

Our Hospital Project Reporting motion directly demanded reporting on the hospital project, bearing on accountability for building a new hospital at appropriate cost.

Considered and set aside: this motion does not bear on the promise. The motion concerned reporting arrangements for the hospital project, not the location or cost of building a new hospital, so a vote against reporting procedures does not contradict a promise about building a hospital in the right place at the right cost.

Voting Pour delivers this

New Healthcare Facilities Programme paragraph (a) is a direct vote on the new hospital programme.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise commits to building a new hospital at the right place and right cost, but voting against a specific programme paragraph could reflect a judgement that this particular plan fails those criteria (wrong location or wrong cost) rather than opposition to building a new hospital at all.

Voting Pour delivers this

New Healthcare Facilities Programme expenditure amendment directly addresses funding and cost of the new hospital project.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a general commitment to build a new hospital at the right place and cost, while this motion concerns a specific budget amendment about healthcare facilities programme expenditure, and voting against a particular funding mechanism or spending level does not straightforwardly contradict the broader goal, especially if the member judged the specific amendment unsuitable in cost, scope, or approach.

Voting Contre delivers this

Halting the Fort Regent redevelopment unless funded by a GST rise would block a major capital project, bearing on responsible capital investment decisions at appropriate cost.

Voting Pour delivers this

Draft Children and Young People Commencement Act directly relates to implementing legislation supporting young people.

Voting Pour delivers this

Gas Place Primary School Site amendment to Government Plan directly relates to education infrastructure for young people.

Voting Pour delivers this

Commissioner for Children and Young People Amendment Regulations Principles bears on support structures for young people.

Voting Pour delivers this

Appointment of the Commissioner for Children and Young People directly relates to supporting young people's rights and welfare.

Voting Pour delivers this

Skills Development Fund directly supports education and young people reaching their potential through skills training.

Voting Pour delivers this

Update of Higher Education Student Funding as amended directly addresses supporting young people through education funding.

Voting Pour delivers this

Update of Higher Education Student Funding amendment Parts 1 to 6 directly addresses education funding for young people.

Voting Pour delivers this

Youth Service Statutory Provision as amended directly bears on supporting young people through statutory youth services.

Voting Pour delivers this

Youth Services Statutory Provision amendment directly bears on statutory support for young people.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a general directional commitment to prioritising education and supporting young people, and voting against one specific amendment to a Youth Services statutory provision motion requires inferring that this particular amendment was the right or necessary means of fulfilling that broad goal.

Voting Pour delivers this

Fully funded education or training for 16-18 year olds paragraph (c) directly addresses supporting young people to reach their full potential through funded education.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a broad directional commitment to prioritising education, while the motion concerns one specific funding mechanism for 16-18 year olds; voting against it does not plainly contradict the general promise, as the member could oppose this particular measure while still supporting education through other means.

Voting Pour delivers this

Fully funded education or training for 16-18 year olds paragraph (a) directly commits to providing funded education or training for young people.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a broad directional commitment to prioritising education for young people, and voting against one specific funding mechanism for 16-18 year-olds does not clearly contradict it, as the member could support the goal while opposing this particular measure on grounds of funding, design, or alternative approach.

Voting Pour delivers this

Delivery of Three Bilingual Primary Schools paragraph (c) bears on education provision for young people.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. A general promise to prioritise education and help young people reach their potential does not straightforwardly commit to supporting one specific bilingual schooling initiative; voting against this particular delivery mechanism could reflect concerns about implementation, cost, or approach rather than opposition to educational excellence.

Voting Pour delivers this

Delivery of Three Bilingual Primary Schools paragraph (b) directly addresses education infrastructure for young people.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise to prioritise education and help young people reach their potential is a broad directional commitment, and voting against one specific mechanism — delivery of three bilingual primary schools — does not plainly contradict it, as the member could reasonably oppose this particular initiative while still pursuing the general educational priority through other means.

Voting Pour delivers this

Modern Languages in Schools amendment Parts 3 & 4 directly relates to education quality for young people.

Voting Pour delivers this

Delivery of Three Bilingual Primary Schools paragraph (a) directly relates to education infrastructure.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a broad directional commitment to prioritising education and helping young people reach their potential, while the motion concerns one specific policy mechanism (delivery of three bilingual primary schools), and voting against it does not necessarily contradict the general commitment, as the member could oppose this particular measure while supporting education by other means.

Voting Pour delivers this

Adding funding for sport and physical activity in primary schools through the Jersey Premium scheme directly supports young people's development in education.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise to prioritise education and help young people reach their potential is a broad directional commitment, and voting against one specific £350,000 sport pilot amendment does not plainly contradict it, as the member could reasonably oppose this particular funding mechanism or source while still pursuing the general aim through other means.

Voting Pour delivers this

Protecting the Children's Commissioner's budget from savings cuts directly supports the welfare of young people, bearing on prioritising support for them.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise to prioritise education and help young people reach their potential is a broad directional commitment, and the motion concerns a specific savings allocation to the Office of the Children's Commissioner—a procedural budget decision where a member could reasonably vote against the amendment on grounds of fiscal approach or alternative means of supporting children, rather than rejecting the underlying goal.

Voting Pour delivers this

Adjusting apprenticeship grants for inflation supports young people's vocational development, bearing on supporting young people to reach their full potential.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise to prioritise education and help young people reach their potential is a general directional commitment, and voting against one specific funding mechanism—inflation-adjusting apprenticeship grants—does not plainly contradict it, as the member could oppose this particular amendment for reasons unrelated to the broader goal (e.g., preferring a different approach or level of funding).

Voting Pour delivers this

Free GP visits for full-time students supports young people's health, bearing on supporting young people to reach their full potential.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise to prioritise education and help young people reach their potential is a broad directional commitment, and voting against one specific funding mechanism (free GP visits for full-time students) does not plainly contradict it, as the member could reasonably oppose this particular measure on affordability, scope, or delivery grounds while still pursuing the general promise through other means.

Voting Pour delivers this

Additional funding for education directly advances the promise to prioritise education and support young people.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. A general manifesto commitment to prioritise education does not straightforwardly bind a member to vote for every specific additional-funding amendment, as they may have opposed this particular measure on grounds of affordability, mechanism, or preference for an alternative approach while still broadly supporting education.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Mini-Budget 2022 involved public finance decisions including tax and spending measures; supporting or opposing it bears on careful management of public finances.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Our Hospital Project Reporting motion sought accountability and transparency over a major public expenditure, bearing on careful financial management.

Considered and set aside: this motion does not bear on the promise. A promise about careful management of public finances does not clearly map onto a specific motion about hospital project reporting arrangements, which concerns procedural oversight mechanisms rather than the substance of fiscal discipline or spending levels.

Voting Pour delivers this

The twentieth amendment on hospital funding directly concerns how public money is allocated for a major capital project, bearing on careful financial management.

Voting Pour delivers this

Adopting the Government Plan 2023-2026 as a whole is the key vote on overall public expenditure planning and fiscal management.

Voting Pour delivers this

Reporting of headcount and vacancies bears on transparency and accountability in public sector spending, supporting careful management of public finances.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a general commitment to careful financial management, and voting against a specific reporting requirement on headcount and vacancies is a procedural/mechanism matter that does not straightforwardly contradict that broad aim, since a member could reasonably oppose this particular reporting measure while still pursuing fiscal prudence by other means.

Voting Pour delivers this

Audit of Government Department Vacancies bears on careful management of public money by scrutinising staffing costs.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. A promise to manage public finances more carefully is a general directional commitment, and voting against one specific audit motion does not plainly contradict it, since a member could oppose this particular mechanism while still pursuing fiscal prudence through other means.

Voting Pour delivers this

Adopting the Government Plan 2024-2027 as amended is a direct vote on the government's overall spending and fiscal framework.

Voting Pour delivers this

Cabinet Office Expenditure Savings motion directly concerns cutting public sector costs, bearing on careful management of taxpayers' money.

Voting Pour delivers this

Transfer of 2024 departmental underspend into the Stabilisation Fund directly addresses prudent management of public finances by saving surpluses.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. Transferring a departmental underspend into a Stabilisation Fund is one specific fiscal mechanism that could plausibly serve careful financial management, but voting against it does not straightforwardly contradict a general promise about careful spending, as the member could have had legitimate reasons (e.g., preferring the funds be used differently or returned to taxpayers) consistent with that broader commitment.

Voting Contre delivers this

The sixth amendment sought to add expenditure to the New Healthcare Facilities Programme; voting against it could reflect concern about cost management.

Voting Pour delivers this

Adopting the Government Plan 2025-2028 as amended is a key vote on public expenditure priorities and financial management.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Government Plan 2026-2029 as amended is the principal vote on public finances and expenditure management.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Council of Ministers' amendment reducing net revenue expenditure to balance the Budget directly advances careful management of public finances.

Voting Pour delivers this

Curbing Growth of Public Sector via end-to-end review directly addresses more careful management of public finances and government efficiency.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a general commitment to careful financial management, while the motion concerns one specific mechanism (an end-to-end review of government processes), and a member could reasonably vote against this particular review while still pursuing fiscal prudence through other means.

Voting Pour delivers this

Freezing government spending at 2025 levels is a direct measure of expenditure restraint bearing on careful management of public finances.

Voting Pour delivers this

Employment Minimum Wage Amendment directly affects business costs and workers, relating to re-energising the economy.

Voting Pour delivers this

Jersey Business amendment to Government Plan directly addresses support for businesses, a core part of this promise.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise to "promote innovation and encourage businesses" is a broad directional commitment, and voting against one specific amendment concerning Jersey Business cannot be straightforwardly equated to opposing that general goal, as the member may have had reasons related to the amendment's specifics, funding mechanism, or preferred alternative approach.

Voting Pour delivers this

Enhanced Capital Allowance amendment promotes business investment through tax incentives, directly supporting innovation and business.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise to "promote innovation and encourage businesses" is a general directional commitment, and this specific amendment about Enhanced Capital Allowance is one particular tax mechanism among many possible ways to support businesses, so voting against it does not plainly contradict the broader promise without inferring that this specific measure was necessary to honour it.

Voting Pour delivers this

High Value Residents income tax amendment relates to attracting investment and economic activity to Jersey.

Voting Pour delivers this

Regtech amendment to Government Plan 2024-2027 directly relates to promoting innovation through regulatory technology support.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise to "promote innovation and encourage businesses" is a general directional commitment, and voting against one specific RegTech amendment to the Government Plan is not plainly equivalent to rejecting innovation support, as the member could have had reasons unrelated to the promise's substance (e.g. disagreeing with the specific mechanism, cost, or implementation approach) while still pursuing the broader goal.

Voting Pour delivers this

Increasing revenue expenditure on agriculture and fisheries supports key Jersey industries, bearing on re-energising the economy and supporting businesses.

Voting Pour delivers this

Economy Strategy amendment to Government Plan directly addresses re-energising the economy through a dedicated strategy.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a general directional commitment to promote innovation and support businesses, while the motion concerns one specific amendment to an Economy Strategy within the Government Plan, and voting against a particular amendment does not straightforwardly contradict a broad economic aspiration since the member may have preferred a different approach to the same goal.

Voting Pour delivers this

Jersey Business Revenue Expenditure amendment directly addresses financial support for Jersey Business, a key business support body.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a general directional commitment to support businesses and innovation, and voting against one specific budget amendment to Jersey Business's revenue expenditure could reflect a preference for a different funding level or mechanism rather than opposition to the underlying goal.

Voting Pour delivers this

Skills Development Fund directly supports innovation and workforce development to re-energise the economy.

Voting Pour delivers this

Enhanced Capital Allowance as amended also supports business investment through tax policy.

Voting Pour delivers this

Multinational Taxation Global Anti-Base Erosion Tax law bears on Jersey's business environment and international tax competitiveness.

Voting Pour delivers this

Multinational Corporate Income Tax law bears on Jersey's business and economic environment.

Voting Pour delivers this

Jersey Business and Digital Jersey Savings amendment directly relates to maintaining funding for business support and digital innovation.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise to promote innovation and support businesses is a broad directional commitment, and voting against one specific budget amendment affecting Jersey Business and Digital Jersey savings does not straightforwardly contradict it, as the member could oppose this particular funding mechanism while still pursuing the general aim through other means.

Voting Pour delivers this

Digital Services Platform amendment to Government Plan relates to promoting innovation and digital economy infrastructure.

Voting Pour delivers this

Inflation-adjusting apprenticeship grants supports workforce development and business needs, bearing on the promise to support businesses and the economy.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. While apprenticeship grants relate broadly to supporting businesses, the promise to "re-energise the economy by promoting innovation and encouraging businesses" is a general directional commitment, and voting against one specific inflation adjustment mechanism does not plainly contradict it, as the member could oppose this particular measure for budgetary or other reasons while still pursuing the broader goal.

Voting Pour delivers this

States Employment Board Annual Reporting directly advances open and transparent government by requiring public reporting on employment decisions.

Voting Pour delivers this

Our Hospital Project Reporting motion sought greater transparency and public reporting on a major government project, directly bearing on open and transparent government.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. A general commitment to "open, transparent, and responsive government" does not straightforwardly determine how one must vote on a specific reporting mechanism for a hospital project, as the member could have had reasons unrelated to transparency principles (e.g., preferring a different reporting structure) for opposing this particular motion.

Voting Pour delivers this

Amendment to Standing Orders introducing a States Decision Tracker directly advances transparency by tracking and publicising government decisions.

Voting Pour delivers this

Whistleblowing legislation advances transparency and accountability in government by protecting those who expose wrongdoing.

Voting Pour delivers this

Vote of No Confidence in the Chair of the Health Scrutiny Panel relates to accountability and oversight within government.

Voting Pour delivers this

Vote of No Confidence in the Chief Minister is a direct mechanism for democratic accountability and responsive government.

Voting Contre delivers this

Reporting on Ministerial activities - move to next item would avoid requiring ministerial reporting; voting Contre (against moving on) advances transparency.

Voting Pour delivers this

A Chief Minister poll proposition bears on democratic accountability and responsive government by testing public confidence in leadership.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. A general commitment to "open, transparent, and responsive government" does not straightforwardly require supporting a confidence vote in the Chief Minister; one could hold that commitment while judging that a particular poll motion is not the right mechanism or timing to advance it.

Voting Pour delivers this

Reporting of headcount and vacancies requires government to publish staffing data, directly advancing transparency in government operations.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. A general promise of "open, transparent, and responsive government" does not straightforwardly commit a member to support every specific reporting mechanism proposed, and voting against this particular headcount/vacancy reporting amendment could reflect a preference for a different reporting approach rather than opposition to transparency as a principle.

Voting Pour delivers this

Composition of Rent Tribunal amendment bears on housing management by shaping the body that regulates rents.

Voting Pour delivers this

Composition of Rent Tribunal as amended directly relates to housing policy by establishing the structure of rent regulation.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise concerns broad goals of population management and solving the housing crisis, while the motion concerned the specific composition of a Rent Tribunal, making it impossible to say that voting against this particular procedural/structural measure plainly contradicts the general housing promise.

Voting Contre delivers this

Cost of living crisis - measures affecting Andium Homes rent increases: voting against 'move to next item' would allow debate on measures to address the housing/rent crisis.

Voting Pour delivers this

Cost of living crisis measures affecting Andium Homes rent increases directly bears on affordable housing and solutions to the housing crisis.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise to "solve the housing crisis" is a broad, directional commitment, and voting against one specific measure regarding Andium Homes rent increases does not plainly contradict it, as the member could oppose this particular mechanism while still pursuing housing solutions through other means.

Voting Pour delivers this

Rent Control Tribunal Chair and Member nominations reference back relates to the governance of rent regulation, part of housing crisis solutions.

Considered and set aside: this motion does not bear on the promise. The motion concerned a procedural reference-back of nominations to a Rent Control Tribunal, which is too removed from the broad manifesto promise of "sensible population management" and solving the housing crisis to constitute a clear breach without multiple inferential steps.

Voting Pour delivers this

Rent-a-room tax relief amendment to Government Plan directly addresses housing supply by incentivising homeowners to rent out rooms.

Voting Pour delivers this

Stamp duty on buy-to-let investments and second homes bears on population management and housing affordability.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise to manage population sensibly and solve the housing crisis is a broad directional commitment, and voting against one specific fiscal measure (stamp duty changes on buy-to-let/second/holiday homes) does not plainly contradict it, as a member could reasonably oppose this particular mechanism while still pursuing the general housing goal through other means.

Voting Pour delivers this

Stamp duty amendment Part 2 on buy-to-let investments and second homes also directly relates to housing crisis solutions.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise to manage population sensibly and solve the housing crisis is a broad, directional commitment, and voting against one specific fiscal measure (stamp duty changes on buy-to-let, second homes, and holiday homes) does not plainly contradict it, as a member could oppose this particular mechanism while pursuing the same general housing goals through other means.

Voting Pour delivers this

Ringfenced Stamp Duty amendment to Government Plan relates to housing funding and affordability.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a broad, directional commitment to population management and housing solutions, while the motion concerns one specific fiscal mechanism (ringfenced stamp duty) within a Government Plan, and a member could vote against this particular funding mechanism while still honestly pursuing the general housing commitment through other means.

Voting Pour delivers this

Regulation of Estate Agents as amended bears on the housing market and solutions to the housing crisis by adding consumer protections.

Voting Pour delivers this

Development Levies - parts (a) and (b) directly relate to housing policy by funding affordable housing through levies on development.

Voting Pour delivers this

Jersey Homes Trust rent increase assistance scheme directly addresses housing affordability for renters.

Voting Pour delivers this

Rent Control Measures paragraph (a)(i) directly addresses the housing crisis by imposing rent controls.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. A general promise to "manage population sensibly and find ways to solve the housing crisis" does not commit the member to any specific mechanism such as rent control, and voting against one particular housing measure could reflect a judgment that it was the wrong route rather than a rejection of the overall goal.

Voting Pour delivers this

Rent Control Measures paragraph (a)(ii) is a direct vote on rent control measures addressing the housing crisis.

Voting Pour delivers this

Rent Control Measures paragraph (a)(iii) is a direct vote on rent control policy addressing the housing crisis.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise to "manage population sensibly and find ways to solve the housing crisis" is a broad, directional commitment, and voting against one specific rent control measure does not plainly contradict it, since a member could reasonably oppose that particular mechanism while still pursuing the general goal of addressing the housing crisis through other means.

Voting Pour delivers this

Rent Control Measures paragraph (b)(i) directly relates to rent regulation as part of housing crisis solutions.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. A general manifesto promise to "manage population sensibly and find ways to solve the housing crisis" does not clearly commit to any specific mechanism such as rent control, and a member could reasonably oppose this particular measure while still honestly pursuing the broader housing-crisis goal through other means.

Voting Pour delivers this

Rent Control Measures paragraph (b)(ii) is a direct vote on rent control policy.

Voting Pour delivers this

Minimum Residential Space Standards paragraph (c) bears on housing quality and the housing crisis.

Voting Pour delivers this

Draft Public Health and Safety (Rented Dwellings) (Licensing) Regulations principles directly address housing standards, bearing on solutions to the housing crisis.

Voting Pour delivers this

Mortgage repayment assistance directly addresses housing affordability as part of solutions to the housing crisis.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise to "find ways to solve the housing crisis" is a broad directional commitment, and voting against one specific mortgage repayment assistance scheme does not straightforwardly contradict it, as the member could reasonably favour different mechanisms to address housing affordability.

Voting Pour delivers this

Entitlement to work - reduction in residency requirement relates to population management and labour supply, bearing on the housing crisis.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a broad directional commitment to "sensible population management" and housing solutions, and whether reducing the residency requirement for work entitlement serves or undermines that goal requires a policy judgement rather than being self-evidently implied by the promise.

Voting Pour delivers this

Abolition of interest relief for landlords (amendment) bears on housing affordability and housing crisis solutions.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise to "manage population sensibly and solve the housing crisis" is a broad directional commitment, and whether abolishing landlord interest relief specifically advances or hinders that goal requires an inference about housing policy mechanism rather than being self-evident from the promise's text.

Voting Pour delivers this

Abolition of interest relief for landlords as amended directly addresses housing market dynamics and affordability.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. Abolishing interest relief for landlords is one specific fiscal mechanism that could affect housing supply and costs, but voting against it does not plainly contradict a general manifesto promise to "manage population sensibly and find ways to solve the housing crisis," as a member could reasonably oppose this particular measure while still pursuing the broader housing and population goals through other means.

Voting Pour delivers this

Licensing regulations for rented dwellings Regulation 2 amendment bears on housing standards and the housing crisis.

Voting Pour delivers this

Rented dwellings licensing Regulation 2 directly addresses housing standards.

Voting Pour delivers this

Rented dwellings licensing Regulations 3-6 advance housing standards and tenant protections.

Voting Pour delivers this

Third Reading of rented dwellings licensing regulations is the final adoption vote on housing standards legislation.

Voting Pour delivers this

Minimum Residential Space Standards paragraph (b) directly addresses housing quality standards, part of housing crisis solutions.

Voting Pour delivers this

Investing stamp duty uplift from second homes into first-time buyer funds directly addresses the housing crisis by supporting first-time buyers.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise to manage population sensibly and solve the housing crisis is a broad directional commitment, and voting against one specific funding mechanism (directing second-home stamp duty revenue to first-time buyer funds) does not plainly contradict it, as the member could reasonably prefer a different route to addressing housing affordability.

Voting Pour delivers this

Minimum Residential Space Standards paragraph (a) directly sets minimum housing quality standards.

Voting Pour delivers this

Pets in rental properties as amended directly addresses tenant rights in the private rental sector, part of housing crisis solutions.

Considered and set aside: this motion does not bear on the promise. The motion concerned pets in rental properties, which is too tangentially related to a general housing-crisis or population-management promise for a vote against it to constitute a breach of that promise.

Voting Pour delivers this

Removal of stamp duty surcharge on second homes relates to housing market management.

Voting Pour delivers this

Stamp Duty Exemption amendment bears on housing market and affordability.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise to manage population and solve the housing crisis is a broad directional commitment, and whether a specific stamp duty exemption in the 2025–2028 Budget is a necessary or even helpful means of delivering that promise requires inference and policy judgement rather than being self-evident.

Voting Pour delivers this

Increase in stamp duty for properties that are not principal residences directly addresses housing affordability and managing speculative investment.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a broad directional commitment to population management and housing crisis solutions, while the motion is one specific fiscal measure (stamp duty on non-principal residences) whose connection to either goal requires inference about whether this particular mechanism would genuinely help solve the housing crisis.

Voting Pour delivers this

Social Rents Plan to Reduce Rental Stress amendment directly addresses the housing crisis by proposing measures to reduce rental costs.

Voting Pour delivers this

Social Rental Plan to Reduce Rental Stress as amended is a direct vote on reducing rental costs for social housing tenants.

Voting Pour delivers this

Increase in Assets and Savings Threshold for the Affordable Housing Gateway bears on access to affordable housing.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a broad, directional commitment to address the housing crisis, and this motion concerns one specific mechanism (raising the assets/savings threshold for the Affordable Housing Gateway), so voting against it does not straightforwardly contradict the promise, as the member could oppose this particular measure while still pursuing the general goal by other means.

Voting Pour delivers this

Residential Tenancy Amendment Law Amendment 3 bears on tenancy reform.

Voting Pour delivers this

Third Reading of Residential Tenancy Amendment Law is the final adoption of housing tenancy reform legislation.

Voting Pour delivers this

Draft Residential Tenancy Amendment Law amendment bears on tenant protections and the housing crisis.

Voting Pour delivers this

Residential Tenancy Amendment Law Part 1 directly addresses tenancy law reform, bearing on housing crisis solutions.

Voting Pour delivers this

Residential Tenancy Amendment Law Part 2 advances tenancy protections.

Voting Pour delivers this

Residential Tenancy Amendment Law Part 3 advances tenancy law reform.

Voting Pour delivers this

Residential Tenancy Amendment Law Part 3 (second division) advances housing protections.

Voting Pour delivers this

Residential Tenancy Amendment Law Part 4 advances tenancy protections.

Voting Pour delivers this

Statutory Pre-Sale Agreements for Standard Residential Property Transactions amendment bears on housing market transparency.

Voting Pour delivers this

Statutory Pre-Sale Agreements for Standard Residential Property Transactions as amended addresses housing market reform.

Voting Pour delivers this

An amendment on empty residential properties directly bears on bringing unused housing stock back into use, addressing the housing crisis.

Voting Pour delivers this

Reinstating mortgage interest tax relief could ease housing affordability for homeowners, bearing on making housing more affordable.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise to address the housing crisis is general and directional, and voting against one specific proposed mechanism (reinstating mortgage interest tax relief) does not clearly contradict it, as the member could reasonably prefer alternative routes to solving the housing crisis.

Voting Contre delivers this

Removal of Interest Tax Relief for Buy-to-Let Mortgages directly addresses housing market dynamics; voting Pour would deliver this housing measure, voting Contre would not - but the motion was rejected, and its direction aligns with housing crisis solutions (pour delivers).

Voting Pour delivers this

Control of Housing and Work Amendment Regulations bear directly on population management, a core part of the promise.

Voting Pour delivers this

Affordable Housing Provision at the Waterfront directly addresses solutions to the housing crisis by requiring affordable units in a major development.

Voting Contre delivers this

Removing the stamp duty surcharge on second homes would reduce funds available for housing solutions and weaken a policy measure targeting the housing crisis.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise to manage population and solve the housing crisis is a broad directional commitment, and whether removing a stamp duty surcharge on second homes advances or hinders that goal requires a chain of reasoning about housing policy rather than being self-evidently contrary to the promise.

Voting Contre delivers this

An amendment to the empty residential properties measure that could weaken it works against addressing the housing crisis.

Voting Contre delivers this

Removing the stamp duty surcharge on buy-to-let and second homes would undermine a housing market intervention designed to address the housing crisis.

Voting Pour delivers this

A second amendment to the empty residential properties motion that was adopted bears on the housing crisis commitment.

Voting Pour delivers this

Introducing residential rent controls directly addresses the housing crisis commitment by regulating rents for tenants.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise to "solve the housing crisis" is a broad directional commitment, and voting against one specific proposed mechanism (temporary rent controls) does not plainly contradict it, as the member could reasonably prefer alternative approaches to addressing housing affordability.