States Meeting Transcript - 24th November 2021

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT

WEDNESDAY, 24th NOVEMBER 2021

COMMUNICATIONS BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER ........................................ 3

1.1 Written Question 458/2021 ................................................................. 3 PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption .................................................................. 3

2. Draft Income Tax (Amendment of Law - Taxation of Cannabis Companies) (Jersey) Regulations 202- (P.93/2021) ............................................................... 5

1. Deputy S.J. Pinel of St. Clement (The Minister for Treasury and Resources): ............ 5

1. Deputy D. Johnson of St. Mary : ........................................................... 6
2. Connétable K. Shenton-Stone of St. Martin : .............................................. 7
3. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier : ....................................................... 8
4. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour : ........................................................ 8
5. Deputy S.G. Luce of St. Martin : ........................................................... 8
6. Deputy J.H. Young of St. Brelade : ........................................................ 9
7. Deputy R.E. Huelin of St. Peter : .......................................................... 10
8. Deputy R.J. Ward of St. Helier ........................................................... 10
9. Senator L.J. Farnham : .................................................................... 11
10. Connétable S.A. Le Sueur -Rennard of St. Saviour : ................................... 12
11. Senator S.W. Pallett: .................................................................. 12
12. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade : ............................................. 13
13. Deputy S.J. Pinel: ...................................................................... 13

2. Deputy S.J. Pinel:......................................................................... 16

3. Assisted Dying (P.95/2021) - as amended (P.95/2021 Amd.)............................ 19

3.1 Deputy G.C. Guida (The Minister for Home Affairs - rapporteur): ...................... 20

1. Connétable A. Jehan of St. John : ......................................................... 21
2. The Deputy of St. Martin : ................................................................ 22
3. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour : ....................................................... 23
4. The Deputy of St. Peter : .................................................................. 23
5. Senator S.W. Pallett: ...................................................................... 24
6. The Connétable of St. Saviour : ........................................................... 25
7. The Connétable of St. Martin : ............................................................ 26
8. The Deputy of St. Mary : .................................................................. 26
9. Deputy R.J. Ward : ........................................................................ 27
10. Connétable R.A. Buchanan of St. Ouen : .............................................. 28
11. Deputy S.M. Ahier of St. Helier : ...................................................... 30
12. Deputy K.G. Pamplin: ................................................................. 31
13. Senator S.C. Ferguson: ................................................................ 32
14. Deputy R.J. Renouf of St. Ouen :...................................................... 32
15. Senator S.C. Ferguson. ................................................................ 35

Mr. M.H. Temple Q.C., H.M. Attorney General: .............................................. 36

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED ................................................... 37 LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT .................................................................. 37

16. Senator S.Y. Mézec : ................................................................... 37
17. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet of St. Saviour : ............................................... 40
18. Deputy L.B.E. Ash of St. Clement : .................................................... 45
19. Deputy G.P. Southern : ................................................................ 46
20. Deputy S.J. Pinel: ...................................................................... 47
21. Senator I.J. Gorst : ...................................................................... 48
22. Deputy T. Pointon of St. John : ........................................................ 50
23. Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence : ...................................... 51
24. Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré: ............................................................. 51
25. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier : ...................................................... 53
26. Deputy J.H. Young: .................................................................... 54
27. The Connétable of St. Brelade : ........................................................ 55
28. Deputy G.J. Truscott of St. Brelade : .................................................. 56
29. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier : ................................................... 57
30. Connétable J. Le Bailly of St. Mary : .................................................. 57
31. Deputy I. Gardiner of St. Helier : ...................................................... 58
32. Senator L.J. Farnham : ................................................................. 58
33. Senator K.L. Moore :................................................................... 59
34. Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat of St. Helier : ................................................ 60
35. Deputy K.G. Pamplin: ................................................................. 61

3.1.39 Deputy K.F. Morel : .................................................................... 64

ADJOURNMENT .................................................................................. 70

[9:31]

The Roll was called and the Dean led the Assembly in Prayer. COMMUNICATIONS BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER 1.1  Written Question 458/2021 The Bailiff :

Before moving on to the next item of Public Business, I have asked to make a determination in connection with the answer to Written Question 458 provided by the Minister for Health and Social Services to the Connétable of St. Lawrence . The question asks the Minister to explain any reasons, including legal ones, that prevent the staff of the Emergency Department from giving advice to the public over the telephone. The answer states what the Emergency Department does and to an extent why it does it, but does not directly answer if there are any reasons, legal ones or otherwise, that prevent the staff from giving advice. To that extent, in my judgment the answer does not meet the requirements of the Standing Order that applies to written answers and I direct that a further and more complete answer should be lodged by 9.30 tomorrow morning.

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption Senator I.J. Gorst :

Sir, I have just put a note in the chat. I wonder if before we come to the next item of Public Business I could make a request of the Assembly that I move P.94 until after P.95, please, just due to other States business I have this morning.

The Bailiff :

So you would like to move P.94, which is the Principles for Jersey's Participation in United Kingdom Free Trade Agreements, to after the Assisted Dying debate. Very well, that is a proposition as a result of the States business that the Minister has. Is that seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on that? If no Member wishes to speak, then I will assume that this could be taken on a standing vote. If anyone wishes a formal vote, please indicate in the chat, otherwise I will take that as a standing vote pour. Yes, I take that as a standing vote pour and the Assembly resolves to move that, to change the positioning of those 2 debates around.

Senator I.J. Gorst :

Thank you, Sir.

Deputy G.C. Guida of St. Lawrence : Sorry, Sir, I have another request.

The Bailiff :

Well, it would be helpful if Members could indicate any requests in the chat as opposed to simply participating by speaking, but yes, Minister, what is your request?

Deputy G.C. Guida:

Yes, I apologise for that but it does take a few seconds to reach the chat and you were going to start on P.93.

The Bailiff :

I know, but I am sure, Minister, it did not just immediately occur to you to make your request. Deputy G.C. Guida:

I will not argue with you, Sir. Yes, sorry, I have been asked to remove the speech time limit on the debate for P.95, so I am using Standing Order 80 to request that Standing Order 104A is just standard for that particular proposition.

The Bailiff :

Thank you very much, Minister. That is a perfectly proper proposition. That can be raised at any time during the course of the sitting. It is open to the Assembly to suspend the effect of a Standing Order. The time limits on speeches are provided by Standing Order 104A and if that is removed the only effect will be that there shall be no time limits on speeches. There is no other collateral effect for  the  removal  or  suspension  rather  of  that  Standing  Order.   Is  that  proposition  seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on that proposition? No one has indicated in the chat a desire to speak on that proposition, so accordingly I will take this as a standing vote unless someone in the chat wishes that vote to be recorded. If anyone wishes the vote to be recorded, please indicate in the chat. Deputy Ahier seeks the vote to be recorded. Accordingly, I will ask the Greffier to place a voting link into the chat. The vote is on the suspension of Standing Order 104A, which would remove for the purposes only of the Assisted Dying debate, P.95, the time limits on speeches. I open the voting and ask Members to vote in the usual way. If Members are unable to vote using the link, then please indicate their vote in the chat in the way that has become customary. If Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, then I ask the Greffier to close the voting. Are you still attempting to vote, Deputy Southern , can I ask? If the Greffier has closed the voting, that vote may not be recorded.

[9:45]

The Connétable of St. Clement , you are indicating you have no voting link. Do you wish to indicate a vote either in the chat .. well, you can do it in the chat. I will allow that because you have indicated that you cannot vote otherwise. Very well, in any event the proposition has been adopted.

Very well, the Standing Order 104A for the purposes of P.95 is suspended.

2. Draft Income Tax (Amendment of Law - Taxation of Cannabis Companies) (Jersey) Regulations 202- (P.93/2021)

The Bailiff :

The next item of Public Business is the Draft Income Tax (Amendment of Law - Taxation of Cannabis Companies) (Jersey) Regulations, P.93, lodged by the Minister for Treasury and Resources. For the purposes of this debate, the main respondent will be the chair of the Economic and International Affairs Scrutiny Panel. I ask the Greffier to read the citation.

The Greffier of the States:

Draft Income Tax (Amendment of Law - Taxation of Cannabis Companies) (Jersey) Regulations 202-. The States make these regulations under Article 143AA of the Income Tax (Jersey) Law 1961.

1. Deputy S.J. Pinel of St. Clement (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):

I hope that this debate on taxation of medicinal cannabis today will be more positive than the debate on charitable funding yesterday. Today I am proposing a simple set of Regulations that will ensure the profits of companies in the medicinal cannabis industry are subject to tax at 20 per cent. The regulation should come as no surprise to Members. The proposal to tax the profits of these companies was first outlined in the Government Plan 2020-2023. Last year's Finance Law included a power to make regulations for the purpose of taxing those companies and this year my officers have been working on developing the regulations which we are debating today. I want to say a few brief words about the medicinal cannabis industry as I know there have been some concerns about its potential impact. I want to reassure Members and the public that this is a highly regulated industry and that all applications are subject to stringent requirements before any licence is issued by the Minister for Health and Social Services. The industry would not compromise the growth of traditional open-field crops because medicinal cannabis is grown indoors under strictly controlled conditions. If anything, it brings a new use for redundant glasshouses. The potential benefits to Jersey of this industry are threefold. It will support the rural economy strategy by encouraging diversity of our agriculture. It will develop a high-value ancillary business sector by encouraging inward investment and creating jobs, and it will generate revenue through taxes. The purpose of today's proposition is squarely focused on the taxation aspects of the policy, so I want to concentrate on that potential third benefit to Jersey. The medicinal cannabis market in Europe is fast growing and that growth is expected to continue in the coming years to become the world's largest. Like Jersey, Guernsey is also fostering a medicinal cannabis industry and has already put in place changes to their tax system to benefit from

the potential revenue. Revenue is expected to be raised and Members will recall that the proposed Government Plan indicated that the taxation of medicinal cannabis would be one of the measures that has been forecast to help balance budgets by 2024. I think it would be remiss of us as an Assembly not to act now to ensure Jersey is in the best place to benefit from that imminent growth. The regulations before us are straightforward. Firstly, companies in the medicinal cannabis industry are added to an existing list of industries that are not subject to the zero per cent standard rate of corporate income tax. These other industries include, for example, financial services companies and utility companies. To be consistent with Jersey current tax law, there is no possibility of income streaming. This is where different activities undertaken by the same company are subject to different rates of tax. Under these Regulations, income tax would be applied to all the profits or gains arising in the year of assessment. The existing technical rules concerning capital allowances and losses would be applied to cannabis companies in the same way they apply to companies in other industries which are not subject to the standard nought per cent corporate tax rate. I have no intention of introducing unnecessary complexity into our tax system for one particular business sector. The Regulations also define the activities that are undertaken by a company that would bring it within the scope of the 20 per cent rate. These activities include cultivating cannabis plants and processing cannabis plants for any purpose. While there has never been any intention to impose income tax on retail activities, there is a provision to ensure that any company undertaking the growing or processing activities would not be able to distribute, sell or further process cannabis without being subject to tax. I also want to mention that the regulations create a definition of cannabis that excludes industrial hemp, which contains a very low amount of the psychoactive compound known as T.H.C. (Tetrahydrocannabinol). The purpose of these draft Regulations is to catch plants that have higher levels of T.H.C. grown specifically for the medicinal cannabis market. I want to be clear that the Regulations do not create any special rules for these companies. They would be subject to normal business tax principles. They would be entitled to claim expenses and capital allowances in the same way as other companies. At this point I would like to thank the Economic and International Affairs Scrutiny Panel for their balanced comments paper, which I have considered. I am glad they agree that a rate of 20 per cent is appropriate. I am, of course, happy to keep an open dialogue with the panel on the point they raise about the level of potential revenue, and I agree with the panel's conclusion that amendments should be brought forward. As I have already mentioned, this is a fast-paced area and I fully expect the taxing provisions and scope to be updated as the industry develops and as our policies evolve. Ultimately, if adopted, profits of the company in the medicinal cannabis industry would, from 2020, be subject to tax at 20 per cent rather than to the standard corporate rate tax at nought per cent. These regulations deliver on a clear Government commitment and I ask all Members to support these changes to our Income Tax Law. I make the principles.

The Bailiff :

Are the principles seconded? [Seconded] The debate is, therefore, open.

1. Deputy D. Johnson of St. Mary :

I hope Members have had the opportunity of considering the comments paper of the Economic and International Affairs Scrutiny Panel and there is, in fact, very little more that I wish to add. Two points which I would like to perhaps highlight are, first, the matter of capital allowances for glasshouses, to which the Minister has just made reference. As we point out in our comments paper, we do appreciate the reason why those engaged in agriculture should have the benefit of such an allowance. As may have been noticed by reference to the media recently, there is some question as to when the mere cultivation of cannabis expands into more of a processing situation. The question we draw attention to is as to whether it is appropriate in a processing situation as opposed to a mere cultivation activity that that capital allowance should be available. We did note at the public hearing held only last Friday that there is now a Ministerial oversight group of the industry and I hope the Minister for Treasury and Resources will bring this to their attention for further review. The only

other comment we make, which again the Minister has alluded to, is that there is little data to suggest that there will be an immediate impact tax-wise by the introduction of this tax and we utter the caution, therefore, that it is a speculative proposition or hope that we are going to receive high amounts of income in the near future. But against that background, we are happy to support the proposition.

The Bailiff :

Thank you very much, Deputy . Does any other Member wish to speak on the principles?

2. Connétable K. Shenton-Stone of St. Martin :

When I started writing, I just obviously put: "Taxation of cannabis" and then I put: "Again, not enough detail." I am surprised by the proposition put forward as I would like to understand the rationale for simply going down the route of 20 per cent of net profits. As stated within the proposition itself, it is not yet possible to forecast how much tax will be raised from these measures because the industry is in its early stages and forecasts would be speculative. I am concerned that the availability of capital allowances, management fees, interest relief, losses, foreign ownership, et cetera, that we may see no tax for a very long time from this venture and we will simply endure the blight on the countryside of light pollution, noise pollution, security fencing, traffic, et cetera, to give no actual benefit to the Island. We already do not have enough agriculture workers to service our traditional industries and the salaries being suggested will not create any new additional tax here either. As the product will be exported, the companies will contribute no G.S.T. (goods and services tax) and be in a net repayment situation. It is noted from the minutes of the Revenue Policy Development Board that the board decided to adopt the 2 recommendations that, (1) the cannabis industry is taxed at a rate of 20 per cent, and (2) that the normal taxation principles should apply. There is no further explanation within the minutes of the discussions. Could I, therefore, ask the Minister or any other members of the development board to expand on their discussions and how they were able to agree that 20 per cent was correct when no data exists and to advise the Assembly what consideration was given to alternative bases of taxation - for example, company turnover or weight of the cannabis flower or units sold - and how they were able to reconcile the likely zero tax benefit in the first years with the likely damage that the industry will do to the countryside and the possible reputational risk of an offshore finance centre dabbling in what is still an illegal substance? I will put this on record that the 20 per cent seems to have been plucked out of the air but this new industry is not tightly regulated or that regulations are conveniently being put in retrospectively. Just look at all the retrospective planning applications and the piecemeal applications and you will realise, and that the experts that the Minister is listening to appear in the main to be the investors. What the Minister believes that the industry will bring to the Island and the reality of what it may bring, if you take into account what I have just said, are not the same. I and many others fear that we are again being led along by the promise of big money, but big money for whom? The investors or the Island? My real fear is that this industry is purely for the investors. Do they, the Minister and the Council of Ministers, understand what damage they may be doing? I would urge the Minister and his colleagues to revisit the story of The Emperor's New Clothes. As I have said before, I am in favour of medicinal cannabis but how this new industry is evolving, with a vast industrial unit - and I mean absolutely vast - enclosed in a greenhouse and no clear idea of how the product will be taxed or when the Island will reap any benefits is extremely worrying. I will reiterate what I have already said. Could the Minister or any other members of the development board expand on their discussions and how they were able to agree that 20 per cent was correct when no data exists, and also to advise the Assembly what consideration was given to alternative bases of taxation - for example, company turnover or weight of cannabis flower or units sold - and how they were able to reconcile this likely zero tax benefit in the first years with the likely damage that the industry will do to the countryside and the possible reputational risk of an offshore finance centre dabbling in what is still an illegal substance? I cannot vote for this and I urge others to vote against.

[10:00]

3. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier :

I just want to raise a question from the rapporteur to ask what our relationship is with the E.U. (European Union), if any nowadays. It seems to me pre-Brexit we had an agreement with our nearest neighbours, the E.U., France, et cetera, to be good tax neighbours to them in that we had a tax rate of zero per cent with only a few exceptions for the utility companies, for rental income and the like of that. Have we come to an agreement with France or with their neighbours, our neighbours, to have more exceptions to these zero tax rules which we used to have? Has that now been transposed post- Brexit? Have we got such an agreement that it is okay for us to charge 20 per cent on another category of income? That seems to me a question that needs to be answered before we vote on this issue.

4. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour :

Just very briefly, and I appreciate this is a proposition to do with taxation, but as the Constable of St. Martin has pointed out, this whole industry does need a comprehensive view on it. We did have those discussions around the Council of Ministers' table when I was there and I think from our time on the Planning Committee I was able to express in that meeting the need for the Minister for Planning - and I hope he is listening; he is now the Minister for the Environment, is he not? - that there needs to be a comprehensive framework for this industry because, as the Constable of St. Martin has pointed out, there is a line between what is an agricultural business and then what becomes light industry. On the Planning Committee we are struggling when obviously we have objections to determine applications when in that grey area it is very difficult for us to know how to proceed. So what is happening is you have different departments working on different workstreams in order to support this industry, and I am supportive of it. I think it is a good opportunity for Jersey. I think that it is an alternative and a profitable alternative to agricultural space but, while we have different parts of government storming ahead, the planning framework which is desperately needed is lacking. I urge the Minister for Planning to bring that forward as soon as possible in order to address the concerns that Members are raising in the Assembly, but I am supporting the Minister for Treasury and Resources in this proposition.

5. Deputy S.G. Luce of St. Martin :

From the outset, I am going to try and concentrate on the tax, which is the reason for this proposition. I am going to vote in favour today. However, I have to say that I am not particularly enthused and I have been trying to think of an analogy to use. I came up with a sort of an end-of-term report on a student who has been in school for a couple of years. Let us call him Tex for the benefit of this. So his report reads: "Tex came to us with huge potential a couple of years ago and we had high hopes of great things to come. However, during the last year or so the potential and enthusiasm seems to have slipped away and we have seen little that is new or inspires us moving forward. There seems to be little vision and no new ideas, which is a disappointment given the potential for great things. Tex must do better and try harder if he is to succeed." There were some real opportunities to make absolutely sure this new and highly profitable industry contributed to our tax income here in Jersey, things like payroll tax, turnover tax, maybe only a single year of allowances. But none of these have come to light and we have been left with what is basically the standard tax clauses, which leave some loopholes that will mean little or no tax income for many years to come, in my view. Also, the inconsistencies of things like greenhouses where allowances on greenhouses are allowed, whereas cannabis grown in a specially designed and built shed will not be allowed. That seems to me to be very inconsistent and cannot be right. But as I said, I am going to vote in favour of this proposition, if only because we have to put something in place by the end of the year. We need to get going on a taxation regime, whatever it is, and, of course, we cannot change something if it does not exist. But as that school report says, we must try harder, we must do better, and we will have to change some

of the system if we are going to succeed and really bring any income into the Exchequer from this industry.

6. Deputy J.H. Young of St. Brelade :

I had not intended to speak because I am generally supportive of the proposition, but I do think I need to speak in response to the comments made by Deputy Maçon and, indeed, Deputy Luce , which I think are important and should not be overlooked. Obviously, we are in a period where this industry is emerging and at the moment we are not yet fully able to assess what its impact on us is likely to be, either economically or in terms of the Island or its environment. But nonetheless, some things are progressing and I did pick up in the Minister's proposal what I think does have logic, that there is a very clear difference between the growing of hemp in a field situation and the hypotonic growing of the medicinal cannabis varieties, which have higher than I think it is 5 per cent psychoactive content, within what are effectively controlled laboratory conditions. So there is a very clear difference, and I think it is clear, as Deputy Maçon says, that that distinction between what is agriculture in terms of growing products and what is effectively an industrial process has been very, very difficult. That does not really fit within the shape of our planning application at the moment. So, in response to Deputy Maçon, it leads me to tell him that I did visit a number of these sites - one complete, one under development - with the Constable of St. Martin and, indeed, the Constable of Trinity with the planning officers and my officials. We are grateful for the owners of those who allowed us to go round and see what, in effect, is being done. I have given authority and I have asked now the officers to amend the permitted development regulations to make it clear that where there is production of medicinal cannabis in these very controlled conditions, that where there is conversion of existing structures or rebuilding of existing structures or adaptation of them, that is a matter that I think falls within a separate use which does require to be dealt with under the planning system by way of application. But that is to come. That is not the situation now. That, of course, will come before the various processes but, of course, I will be clear, it will not be retrospective. It is obviously for future developments. Members might be puzzled that there are applications around and that is where there is a distinction between those projects where there is a conversion of existing glasshouses and those where there is new construction and rebuilding. That already is dealt with under the law but it is complex. So I think we do need this tax structure and I think I would just touch on .. there is no question in my mind that the processing of medicinal cannabis does have major economic potential for the Island, and as long as we can manage those environmental consequences I think it is a good use of those former glasshouse sites. I think it offers much less impact with the proper regulation of all the emissions and so on, the whole raft of things there that, of course, can be done under a planning framework. Those things can be controlled by condition, so I think that is going to be .. but I do want to mention the question of field hemp. Obviously, field hemp is much more established and it is absolutely true that .. personally, I do not think there is the same direct economic yield. That is my impression; I am not an expert on that. Of course, the end result is that they produce this thing called C.B.D. (cannabidiol) oil, which is quite a high-value product. I think those are selling for £110 a small vial or bottle and so on, and there is quite a market. I need also to flag up that I have been advised that under the new food law that is going to have to be brought forward, particularly as a result of the post-Brexit rules, I think there will be some implications for that product in terms of what is called novel foods, where they do not really fit the regulations that are in place at the moment. Therefore, things like labelling and regulation on that is something which I think will also have to be a subject for the future. So that is the C.B.D. oil side, and just to mention, of course, there is also the issue of organic waste. We do have a very substantial waste product from that, which at the moment I do not think the industry has geared up to be able to fully deal with that. But I think that is a story for another day and I think my overall point is I wanted to let Members know that those issues are emerging and developing. The planning system will respond to it and, therefore, Members can be assured about that, but I think having a tax framework is a sensible way forward. It may well be that the details of the tax regime will have to be altered or amended in the future, but I am sure

our Minister for Treasury and Resources and teams will bring that forward at the right time. I think this is clearly a start that is needed.

7. Deputy R.E. Huelin of St. Peter :

I am totally in support of this. I think it is a wonderful opportunity to diversify our economy and maybe some compromises will have to be made, but this certainly is an extra leg on our financial stool to ensure financial security going forwards. However, I just would like to draw one thing to attention. There are many Islanders who are seeing benefits from medicinal cannabis. They get it on a private prescription, which is currently expensive, to put it mildly, at the moment. I would like to put it out there and ask for some joined-up thinking to ensure that those people who can benefit and can ill-afford the medicinal cannabis can have it prescribed free in the usual way. We are going to be making a lot of money out of this. Those that can benefit most from this should have the opportunity to have it included within a safe prescription.

8. Deputy R.J. Ward of St. Helier

I was going to say a couple of things, but a word that was just used in the previous speech concerns me, this idea where we need to make compromises. We are at risk in the flurry of belief that this is going to be a huge money-making industry for the Island ..

The Bailiff :

Can I interrupt you, Deputy ? The Connétable of St. Martin has raised a point of clarification. It is not clear whether that is a point of order that can wait until the end of your speech or not. I am afraid the moment has passed, because it was not on my screen when Deputy Ward began to speak. We will get back to it. Please carry on, Deputy .

Deputy R.J. Ward :

It was the use of the phrase "compromises". When we talk about profits from this industry, we do need to be careful in terms of how we are defining those profits, because it does seem that this is an industry of a multinational investment structure, which is complex to say the least. It does appear to be quite a huge undertaking, in terms of its industrial nature. Most of the products, it seems, will not simply be for sale in Jersey. They will be exported. They will go to countries all over the world. Perhaps many of the profits made from that will not be made in Jersey's jurisdiction. There is always confusion, therefore, of where companies pay tax.

[10:15]

Will it be in Jersey, because it originated in Jersey? Will it be in the company where it sold? This is not on the retail arm, it seems, of what is being developed here. The notion that we would tax an industry is fair, because we all have to pay our share. It is a contract with a civilised society. I am concerned that we have an industry that is promising us so much and so many Government Members have bought into this notion that this is a really big future for the Island that we may be being clouded in our view of the success of this or not. I know this is about taxation and I suppose I can agree with the 20 per cent taxation, but I would like to see a proper definition of what those profits are and where those profits are, so that we know what we are taxing. If the situation is going to be that early on in the setup of this, very little profit is made because of the costs and so on of setting up, et cetera, and we all know about those, that in the long-term there will be very little profit being made that can be taxed on this Island. Therefore, we give access to significant swathes of the Island, significant compromises, as has been said, of the rules of this, without having a financial benefit that we have been promised in the beginning. I do have concerns over this. I do have concerns that what we are being promised is not what we would get in the end. I am a little wary about this.

The Bailiff :

Connétable of St. Martin , could you please withdraw from the chat the comment that you have made in it. Firstly, it amounts to a second speech, after your first speech has been concluded. Secondly, it is a suggestion that there is a misleading of the Assembly and it does not say that it is an unintentional misleading of the Assembly. Thirdly, the ability to ask for a point of clarification from another speaker depends upon that speaker being prepared to give way. Clearly the speaker cannot give way if another speaker has then started; the process just does not work. I would direct you, please, to remove that particular entry within the chat. Does any other Member wish to speak on the principles?

9. Senator L.J. Farnham :

Perhaps we could just turn the clock back a little bit and look at why we are introducing new sectors to the agricultural economy. I am really responding to some rather disappointing assertions from Members about this. The previous speaker spoke about promises of huge returns. No one has made any huge promises about great returns. What we said is that there is great potential here. If we, as an Assembly and Ministers and individual Members, start to get behind the potential then we might give the industry a chance of succeeding rather than trying to really stop it with assertions that are not correct. I feel compelled to respond to some of them, because they are simply not correct. We introduced, in the rural economy strategy, the intention to research and develop new higher value crops. The idea of that is we could produce greater revenues from much less impactful methods of farming. We are not planning to cover the Island with great swathes of hemp and cannabis farming. On the contrary, we will use up a comparatively small area of land. The high value medicinal cannabis is grown indoors or under glass. For years, as Minister for Economic Development, I was facing questions  from parishioners and occasionally  Members on why  we were allowing our glasshouses to remain in disuse and disrepair. Now we have a solution for that and, of course, it is wrong it is causing potential great harm to the Island. It is not. It is not at all. The Minister for Planning explained clearly and has always been adroit at dealing with these issues. He has been monitoring this closely right from the conception of the idea. I am very pleased and completely aligned with him in his views and action aimed at ensuring the industry is properly and appropriately regulated from a planning perspective. While we are rejuvenating some of the old greenhouse sites and returning them to their former glory, we must not allow an over-industrialisation. Also, we must not treat the industry different to the other farming activity. Lighter industry has to partner successful cultivation of crops and we look at our Jersey Royal, the mainstay for many, many decades of our agricultural sector and the light industrial requirements that accompany that activity because of the huge demands placed on the industry by the modern retailer. We need an even playing field. We have heard from the Constable of St. Martin about damage to the countryside. What damage to the countryside? There is no damage to the countryside. We are seeing improvements to old or rundown or derelict sites; improvements. We are not seeing vast industrial units. We are seeing large greenhouse operations, which were built for the primary use of agriculture and horticulture, being returned to it. That is a good outcome. I understood when working with other Members to put the rural economy strategy together, this was a strong outcome, this is what we wanted. We wanted diversification. We could not remain reliant on the Jersey Royal, simply because of the challenges around land, crop rotation and the pressures and challenges we face on that. This is one of the results. There were other crops. The tea crop, for example, is something that also has good potential. We are not dabbling in illegal substances. That is a complete misrepresentation and very unfair on the strong licenced and regulatory conditions placed upon the industry. I wanted to make that point absolutely clear. We have amended our Proceeds of Crime Law, for example, to allow a financial services industry to provide the business solutions for the activity in these areas. The potential benefits to Jersey of this industry, and we have been open about this from the start, come in a number of different ways. For the record, no one has promised massive returns from this. We hope we achieve good returns. Every Member who has looked at this will see that potential there and that is what we have to nurture. We want to encourage the diversity of our agricultural sector. We want to develop a high value ancillary business sector. I say "business", because farming is a business. All

farming is a business. That would generate revenue through taxes and licence fees. Also, of course, there will be many new jobs created in the sector, much higher value jobs than in other agricultural sectors, because the level of expertise required is higher as we get into producing a product for pharmaceutical use. It is hard to predict those accurately at this stage, because it is a fledgling industry. However, if we get behind it and it is done properly this could be a long-term economic industry sector that could provide strong returns in years to come. I reiterate, we have to get behind and support the potential rather than trying to hold it back or, quite frankly, destroy it in its early stages. There are some tax questions which I will leave to the Minister for Treasury and Resources to answer. However, of course, we did look at turnover taxes and different types of taxes, but at this stage of the game, as we make our mark on the global stage with this, we have to be mindful of what other jurisdictions are doing and we have to remain competitive. Jersey has always been a competitive tax jurisdiction. We want to keep it that way. That does not stop us from allowing the taxation of this industry to evolve as the industry evolves. I am sure we will always work to make sure, while we remain competitive, we are getting optimum tax returns from the success of the sector. I urge Members to support this, of course. The Constable of St. Martin said she was not going to support it. The impact of not supporting it is there will be no tax on the industry and they could continue without paying tax. Even those Members who are not sure about this industry, I would suggest they do support this so at least we have a tax structure in place. From our point of view, at Economic Development, we are going to work very closely with the industry moving forward and keep Members informed in the new political oversight group as it starts to gain momentum, will ensure that the Island is well-placed to make sure we grow this in a very well-regulated and sensible managed way that at least gives us the chance of seeing the opportunity of this industry delivered in the medium to long-term. We are not going to see quick returns because of high-level investment. We will see great improvements to our agricultural infrastructure. We know that Field Industrial have explained, in an answer to Deputy Ward 's oral question yesterday, it could provide great enhancement to our biodiversity and our environment. I urge Members to support the industry and at least get involved in the accurate detail that is available, which underpins the decisions we have made to move this forward.

10. Connétable S.A. Le Sueur -Rennard of St. Saviour :

I cannot believe what I have just heard. All these derelict greenhouses that we have can now be occupied with hemp, which is absolutely fantastic. Why do we not do housing on them, which would mean that the agricultural lands that we already have would not have to be sacrificed for homes because this Government and previous Governments do not have an immigration policy? He is saying this hemp is a good idea. No, it is not. You have to have security and there would have to be lights in the greenhouses. There is a lot to go through on this. This is ridiculous. To bring in the tea crop, which is fabulous, because it is in the middle of a field and is well-regulated .. I just cannot believe that the Assistant Minister has come out with this drivel. Sorry, I know that is most probably not a parliamentary word. The one I wanted to say was definitely not parliamentary, because it related to my farm and 2 of the males I have on it. I cannot believe the Assistant Minister thinks it is a very good idea to use derelict sites for hemp rather than use them for housing. This is ridiculous. I will not be supporting this. It needs to be regulated correctly. As for no tax, what we have never had we will never miss. We could have people living in homes where they would pay rates, where they would use electricity and it would be so much more. I got out of bed for this because I have had a cold and I was not in yesterday. I got out of bed to come to the Parish Hall for this, but the way I feel, I would have been better off in bed. I am so disappointed. These glasshouses can be used for something that is so much better. It can be used for housing and not for growing dope.

[10:30]

11. Senator S.W. Pallett:

I will be brief. I sit on the panel with my colleagues, Deputy of St. Mary and Deputy of St. Martin . We have recently had a public hearing with the Minister for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture. As much as I am very much supportive of these tax regulations, it is becoming unclear about where future profits will lie, whether they lie on-Island and taxable here or whether the raw cannabis product will be exported off-Island and potential profits made elsewhere or are made on- Island and would be taxable here. In saying that, we do need to have a tax structure here. We need to have a tax structure here for the start of next year. I am going to support these regulations. As many have said, these tax regulations may well change over time when we fully understand where profits are going to be made and how much of what we grow here is processed on Island. I am supportive of the industry and I do want to see it succeed, I am not trying to knock it in any way, shape or form, but the Minister says that they do not have high targets and have not set any bar. I would like to remind the Minister of something that the chair of the Island's Cannabis Service Advisory Board said at the farming conference. I did not hear him say it, I left before that point, but it was reported in the media. I will quote him as saying: "I can see the industry here being as big as financial services." Well, that is a very big sweeping statement in regards to what potentially this industry could be and the benefit to the Island. We need to be very careful about the targets that we set. It is a fledgling industry. It has only just started. We only have a couple of companies with licences. However, to be clear, we need to understand where profits are going to be made and how they can be taxed. We do need these regulations. I hope people will vote for them, because we do need to have a structure that we can change at a later date. I will leave it there. I have made my point about where future profits may lie.

12. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade :

Picking up on Deputy Huelin's speech, I would ask the Minister for Treasury and Resources to confirm whether in fact there is a correlation between the 20 per cent tax and free prescription cannabis to the public. There is a risk, in my view, of a South Sea bubble scenario here. There is a potential reputational risk to the Island. While this is the case, it may well work for Jersey. I always like to be positive about these things. We always need to be proactive in looking to the future. The bottom line, and I would like the Minister for Treasury and Resources once again in her summing up to confirm where we are on the global scene, it seems to me that we are never going to compete with the whole world and the whole world will be doing the same thing if there are profits to be made. I would be interested to hear her comments on that.

The Bailiff :

Thank you very much, Connétable . Does any other Members wish to speak on the principles? If no other Member wishes to speak on the principles then I close the debate and call upon the Minister to respond.

13. Deputy S.J. Pinel:

I thank all Members for their questions. I have to say at the start that these are regulations to implement the taxation in advance of and it is speculative, there is no doubt about it, as several Members have mentioned, because we are not expecting to see a profit from the growth of medicinal cannabis until 2024. It would be ridiculous to try and put ideas in, as somebody mentioned, of how it was going to be divided up into what; into oils for example. We cannot speculate that far at this stage. It is a matter of getting the regulations through, agreed by the Assembly, so that we can move forward in 2022, so that we have them in place for 2024. It may not be 2024, but that is what we are estimating. I will try and quickly answer some of the questions. The allowances for greenhouses are going to be 10 per cent. The Connétable of St. Saviour was quite cross that they were being used for this, but of course, they are on greenfield sites, so it is a better use than looking at a derelict greenhouse, because it is being used for development. The Connétable of St. Martin said there is not enough detail. Referring to what I have said, no, there probably is not at present, but there is no point

in speculating on the detail until we have more information. The whole idea is to get the legislation through. I have said in my speech, and that was asked again in one of the questions, that amendments and meetings, whatever any Members wants, can be brought forward. It is just a matter of getting these regulations through so that we have something in place. The 20 per cent is correct. That was the Connétable of St. Martin . That was agreed by the group, because we do not want to go into taxation steaming where you have different tax levels for different industries. This one just goes with the 20 per cent of the industries that I mentioned in the opening remarks. Deputy Southern asked about the E.U. Yes, of course, it has been discussed. There is a European growth of 60 per cent in Europe in legal markets, such as Germany and Italy. We would intend to, hopefully, be on that ladder, if this legislation goes through. Deputy Luce , thank you for your support. The potential for future amendments, as I mentioned in the speech, we are open for discussion on any of this because it is a moving feature. Planning situation to come, yes, C.B.D. oil is in very great demand. Of course, that will be a few years down the road before it can be produced. As Deputy Huelin said, it is an extra leg on a financial stool. Of course, it is. We have to look at other measures to raise taxation with the finance centre - not in doubt - but certainly the option now, as it is quite clear to anybody, they could move the companies to anywhere in the world and then they will do so, so we have to have plan B. Deputy Ward 's concerns over the profits, as I said, that is speculative, because we will not know what they are until further down the road. Thank you, Senator Farnham ; no one has made promises about huge returns because we do not know what they are going to be. Use the small areas of land for medicinal cannabis under glass, aligned with Deputy Young, the current Minister for the Environment the long and short of it is that we are open and available for more contact with anybody who wishes to know more details. However, at this stage it is very difficult to say what the trading situation will be, the demand will be or what the profits will be. This is really just an initial situation. With that, I ask for the principles to be approved.

The Bailiff :

Deputy , will you give way for a point of clarification from Deputy Southern ? Deputy S.J. Pinel:

Yes, Sir.

Deputy G.P. Southern :

The rapporteur addressed my question but did not appear to clarify what position we were in. Have we renegotiated? Do we have an agreement that we can have an extra exemption to our zero tax regime with 20 per cent tax on cannabis?

The Bailiff :

Are you able to clarify that, Minister? Deputy S.J. Pinel:

Not down to the last date, I have to say, but yes we have spoken to them and, of course, with Guernsey who have already implemented this. Guernsey and the U.K. (United Kingdom) have got further than we have. They have already put their legislation in. We have been having endless conversations with them and with some counties in Europe.

The Bailiff :

Thank you very much. The appel is called for and I ask the Greffier to put a link into the chat. The vote is on the principles. I open the voting and ask Members to vote in the usual way. If Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes then I ask the Greffier to close the voting. The principles have been adopted.

The Greffier of the States:

Those who voted contre were: the Constable of St. Brelade , Deputy Lewis , the Constable of St. Martin , Deputy Southern and Deputy of St. Saviour .

The Bailiff :

Very well, Deputy of St. Mary , does your panel wish to call the matter in?

The Deputy of St. Mary (Chair, Economic and International Affairs Scrutiny Panel):

No, thank you, Sir, we do not.

The Bailiff :

Then, Minister, how do you wish to deal with the matter in Second Reading; there are 4 regulations?

2. Deputy S.J. Pinel:

I would like to propose them en bloc, as there are only 4.

The Bailiff :

Do you wish to speak to them or deal with them by way of questions?

Deputy S.J. Pinel:

I can do if any Member wants me to speak to them.

The Bailiff :

It is a matter for you.

Deputy S.J. Pinel:

Okay. Regulation 1 provides that the regulation amends the Income Tax (Jersey) Law 1961. Regulation 2 adds cannabis companies to an existing list in the Income Tax Law that carves out specified activities from the standard corporate income tax rate of 0 per cent. That regulation also amends the heading of Article 123C. Regulation 3 creates a new Article in the Income Tax Law. The new Article defines the activities that if undertaken by a company would bring it within the scope of the 20 per cent income tax rate. Those activities are growing cannabis plants or processing cannabis plants for any purpose. Retail activities such as selling products that contain cannabis derivatives are not in scope. However, a company that sells cannabis will be caught by the Regulations if it is connected to a company that grows or processes cannabis plants. Regulation 3 also introduces a definition of cannabis plant, which is borrowed from the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law. The definition does not include industrial hemp, which contains very low amount of T.H.C. and is not used in the medicinal cannabis industry. Regulation 4 provides that the regulations come into force on 1st January 2022.

The Bailiff :

Do you propose the Regulations, Minister? Are they seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on any of the Regulations in Second Reading? If no Member wishes to speak then the debate is closed and I ask the Greffier to place a voting link into the chat in the usual way. I open the voting and ask Members to vote.

[10:45]

If Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, I ask the Greffier to close the voting. The Regulations have been adopted in Second Reading.

Do you propose the matter in Third Reading, Minister? Deputy S.J. Pinel:

Yes, please, Sir. May I also take the opportunity to thank States Members for their contributions today? We look forward to a healthy financial future.

The Bailiff :

Are the Regulations seconded in Third Reading? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak in Third Reading? If no Member wishes to speak in Third Reading then I close the debate and ask the Greffier to put a vote into the link. I open the voting and ask Members to vote. If Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes then I ask the Greffier to close the voting. The Regulations are adopted in Third Reading.

3. Assisted Dying (P.95/2021) - as amended (P.95/2021 Amd.) The Bailiff :

The next item is the Assisted Dying proposition, P.95, lodged by the Council of Ministers. Because the States have resolved to abolish any time limits on speeches in connection with this debate there is no need to identify who the primary responder will be. There is an amendment lodged by Deputy Morel . Minister, are you accepting this amendment?

Deputy G.C. Guida:

Yes, I would like to present a proposition as amended, please. The Bailiff :

Are Members content to take the proposition as amended by the amendment from Deputy Morel ? I am assuming, therefore, that that is agreed unless anyone indicates to the contrary in the chat. I ask the Greffier to read the proposition as amended.

The Greffier of the States:

The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion having regard to the key recommendation of the Citizens' Jury on Assisted Dying: (a) to agree, in principle, with the jury that assisted dying should be permitted in Jersey; and that (i) the Government of Jersey should make arrangements for the provision of an assisted dying service that is available to a person aged 18 or over who: (1) has a voluntary, clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life; and (2) has capacity to make the decision to end their own life; and (3) has been diagnosed with a terminal illness, which is expected to result in unbearable suffering that cannot be alleviated and is reasonably expected to die within 6 months; or, has an incurable physical condition, resulting in unbearable suffering that cannot be alleviated; (ii) an assisted dying service in Jersey may provide assistance in dying in one of the following 2 ways: (1) either by physician assisted suicide - whereby a registered medical professional may prescribe lethal drugs at the request of a person, who meets defined eligibility criteria, to enable that person to self-administer the drugs to end their own life; or (2) voluntary euthanasia - where a person who meets the defined eligibility criteria has their life ended, at their voluntary request, by a registered medical practitioner; and (iii) an assisted dying service in Jersey should be subject to the following safeguards: (1) assisted dying should be permitted with the direct assistance of registered medical practitioners and registered nurses only; (2) the law should provide for a conscientious objection clause so that any nurse, medical practitioner or other professional is not under a legal duty to participate in assisted dying; (3) assisted dying should be subject to a mandatory period of reflection; (4) a withdrawal of request should be permitted at any time; and (5) assisted dying should only be permitted at preapproved locations. (b) to agree, in the event that paragraph (a) is adopted, that assisted dying should be available to Jersey residents only; (c) to agree in the event that paragraph (a) is adopted, that assisted dying should be subject to a preapproval process which, subject to further consultation, may involve a decision made by a court or specialist tribunal; and (d) to request the Council of Ministers to lodge final proposals (to include all processes and safeguards on assisted dying) for debate by the States Assembly, prior to the preparation of instructions for the Legislative Drafting Office, with the debate on such proposals to take place by October 2022, and with a view to draft legislation being available for debate by the States by the end of March 2023.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

Sir, before we start, may I ask a quick question? May I check which Scrutiny Panel this would come under? I do not know if this is the appropriate time. The Minister is, I believe, the Minister for Home Affairs, but this is lodged by the Council of Ministers. Just for clarity later on.

The Bailiff :

The position is that because there is no process for this proposition for referral to a Scrutiny Panel and there is no ability to call it in, it is a matter for the Scrutiny Liaison Committee to consider what the correct Scrutiny Panel would be.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

Thank you.

3.1   Deputy G.C. Guida (The Minister for Home Affairs - rapporteur):

Yes, I can help answer that question as well. The Health and Social Security Panel has been following this proposition from the very start and have published comments which are available to States Members.

The Bailiff :

Thank you very much indeed, Minister. Deputy G.C. Guida:

I would like to start by thanking the Health and Social Security Panel for their comments. They have been following the progress of this proposition much longer than I have. They have summarised everything I need to say now in those comments. Importantly, they have detailed the timeline and the reason why this proposition is before the Assembly today. This is a current societal issue being discussed and debated worldwide. Jersey should not ignore it. Also, this matter needs an in-principle decision before it can be progressed with stakeholders, in particular the United Kingdom's regulatory bodies that we depend upon. I will also thank Deputy Morel for his amendment. This ensures that if this proposition is successful the next Assembly will be able to carefully examine the basic implementation principles and corresponding law drafting instructions, with the option to modify them as they would feel necessary. This will be made easier as the conversation with the regulatory bodies will have advanced significantly by then and the control mechanisms will be clearer. After drafting and consultation the law will then come back to the Assembly sometime in early 2023 for a third debate and more chances of amendments. It could be stopped at any of these stages and it is very reasonable to ask 2 different Assemblies to give their assent to such an important question. Again, this is an in-principle proposition. It is a very complete and extremely well-researched proposition, which provides answers to many of the questions this Assembly could have on how Jersey would implement assisted dying in a fair and safe way. The vote today, however, is only about the principle. The principle is whether assisted dying should be allowed in Jersey. I know that this is a very controversial issue and that States Member will have had many representations from organisations and individuals strongly advocating one side or the other. Neither the Council of Ministers nor my Ministry are suggesting a vote in either way. We do not recommend a vote pour or a vote contre. This will be up to individual Members according to their conscience and their understanding of the issue. The only thing I will ask for is for all States Members to have the courage to act according to their own conviction. I know this would come as a matter of fact on any other day, but I am well aware of the external pressure Members would have been subjected to in the last few months from both sides. Do listen to them, but please draw your own conclusions. I move the proposition, Sir.

The Bailiff :

Is the proposition seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the proposition?

1. Connétable A. Jehan of St. John :

I would like to thank everyone who has taken time to contact me and other Members on this subject, especially those parishioners of St. John , who answered my call to hear from them in particular. I have personally replied to over 100 emails on the subject and I apologise if I have not answered them all. Like other Members, I have heard some very personal stories, stories about individuals, their partners, parents, grandparents, sons and daughters, stories that would touch the hardest of hearts. I know that there is no middle ground and that we are going to please some and upset others, regardless of which way we vote today. I hope that whatever way people vote that we can all respect others' views. I sincerely hope that we do not see Members abstain when it comes to such an important vote. We are elected to make decisions, and while some will argue that the forming of a citizens' jury was designed to kick this particular can down the road, today we have to make a decision either to support or reject the proposals in front of us. I have done my best to listen to both sides of the argument. I have read as much as I can. I attended the Caritas event and I also attended the End of Life Choice event last week, both of these events giving the attendees plenty of food for thought. While I learnt a lot from both debates, I, like others, would have preferred to have heard both sides of the argument at these debates rather than 2 one-sided arguments. Having said that, the 4 speakers all gave those in attendance something to think about, being experts in their subject. The biggest concern of Islanders, young and old, is around safeguards and especially safeguards for the vulnerable, something I am sure all Members, whatever side of the debate, have considered carefully. Concerns have been amplified in recent times, as there are a lot of people who have concerns with our current health services. While recognising the many people who strive to do their best every day in the care sector, there does not seem to be a day that goes by without another issue, theatres, mental health, rehabilitation and so on.

[11:00]

Many people I speak to are genuinely worried about what is going on in the health service. People are being sent home from hospital without assessments from occupational therapists and people in care homes are being told that they will not see an occupational therapist for 3 months; yes, 3 months. Some of these are the people and their families who are really worried about the introduction of new legislation. On Sunday we received correspondence from the B.M.A. (British Medical Association), a well-respected organisation, who have moved from being opposed to such a proposal that is before us to now holding a neutral view, albeit they are strong on the point of there being a need for robust protection for conscientious objectors. Any legislation will need to incorporate this protection, as this proposal does. A doctor who wrote to all of us stated, and I will quote, if I may: "As a doctor, I have seen first-hand the suffering of some patients with terminal illness when the length of their lives has been extended by a result of modern medicine, but the quality has not. Many spend their last months suffering both physical and psychologically." They go on to say: "This is not to say that we should not strive to improve end-of-life care for all, but what we should also strive is to allow those who wish to not ensure those final undignified months and years to have access to compassionate, fully legal and expert euthanasia." Just 8 weeks ago I lost a very loved member of my own family. The care that that person received from her own family and the professional carers was as good as it could be. The person in question did not want to go to hospice, but the inevitable happened and they were persuaded to go there for respite. A week was spent in the excellent care of hospice at Mont Cochon. Was it a peaceful death? Was that patient surrounded by loved ones as they passed, as had been their wish? Well, the answer to the first question is we will never know. The answer to the second question is they passed away without any members of their family being present. Despite the excellent care on offer from hospice both in the home and at Mont Cochon, this patient preferred to go without morphine for as long as possible, as when they took it, it confused them. Instead, they

preferred to be in pain and to suffer. Sadly, that person still ended up confused at times due to sleep deprivation. Many of the correspondents we have had would have us believe that this was needed to go to a better place. I would prefer to believe that there are better options. How different could that experience have been? We are talking about people who have capacity, and I am sure others will talk about that. We are talking about people who are terminally ill. Importantly, we are talking about residents of Jersey. The proposal, if successful, would give these people a choice. The amendment puts in a second step to ensure safeguards are considered and I welcome this step from Deputy Morel . As the campaign for Dignity in Dying state: "The principle underlying assisted dying legislation is that those who are already dying should have choice. Choice and control over end of lives once death has become inevitable results in not more deaths, but would lead to fewer people suffering." I would like to quote from the J.E.P. (Jersey Evening Post) on 16th October from an article written by someone who is terminally ill and has given me permission to quote. Gary Burgess wrote: "For my part, I have always found this one really simple. It's my life, so I should be free to choose what I want to do, so long as it doesn't hurt other people." What is proposed contains many belt and braces controls. It does not force doctors or nurses to do something they do not want to do when it comes to assisting somebody. The 2 main takeaways from the End of Life Choice meeting that I took was, first, it is important for people to make a living will, ensuring their loved ones know what they would like in the event of serious illness or accident, and I would encourage people to do that, whether this legislation is passed or not. Secondly, the proposed law was likened to having an emergency exit. We all like to know where it is, but we hope we never have to use it, but if we need to, we know it is there. This is an in-principle debate. If approved as amended, there will need to be robust safeguards, appropriate training and regulation. Having considered all the arguments, having read the outputs of the citizens' jury, I am happy to support both the amendment and the proposal.

2. The Deputy of St. Martin :

This I suspect is one of those debates, one where many Members may be undecided coming into the Assembly today and one where many will wait to hear what others have to say, so I have decided to speak early. I want to seek to influence others and to ask Members to focus on the basics here, focus on what is written in the proposition and not get dragged down into the detail that is yet to come and into a place where they get diverted away from the specifics of what we are debating today. I made up my mind on this subject some time ago and, despite the very many letters and emails, I have not seen or heard anything to change my mind. I read every email, every letter, but I have to say to Members that I have not been swayed because the report contained, in my mind, answers to all those questions that have been posed in the correspondence I have received. At the end of the day, there are 2 reasons why I am resolved to vote in favour of this proposition. First, this is an in-principle debate and I have no doubt in my mind that we need to consider this whole issue further and in more detail. Second, because it concerns helping those who have been, and I quote from the proposition: ".. diagnosed with a terminal illness which is expected to result in unbearable suffering that cannot be alleviated" and to me, all the other words in the report and proposition are somewhat superfluous when you read those. I, like a few in this Assembly, have seen the fear in the eyes of those who are suffering. I, like some in the Assembly, have experienced first-hand the wonderful care that our hospice provides. However, I know that in some cases and situations we can still do better. I do not want Members to assume I have reached my conclusion quickly. I want to assure them that I have been thinking and considering the subject for the last few years now, but here today this is a first step and it is one that I am prepared to take. Even if this proposition is successful, there is still a huge amount of discussion and scrutiny to be completed before this whole issue gets anywhere near a final decision in this Assembly and the necessary legislation. Who in this Assembly would not wish to seek to find ways to help those who are suffering unbearably and in the knowledge that that suffering could not be alleviated? Surely what we are doing here today is to try to find ways to help others and to move forward with this issue. I know that for my part I feel that the very many and various objections that I have received are all dealt with in the proposition: the ability for doctors and nurses

to opt out; the time for reflection; the ability for decisions to be changed at any time; most importantly, that any decision that is taken is made voluntarily by the individual who is suffering; that decision is not taken by others and that the person making that decision has to be of a clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life. I am not going to speak further, but I would only request fellow Members who take time to ask themselves if they want to help those who are diagnosed with a terminal illness which is expected to result in unbearable suffering that cannot be alleviated, and if the answer is yes, which it surely must be, to vote to agree in principle that we need to look closer at this issue and do what we can to help Islanders who are so very, very ill.

3. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour :

I too was quite surprised to note that the B.M.A. have voted to have a neutral stance on this, so basically we have to make the decision. There are many countries, or several countries, that do permit assisted dying: Belgium, Canada, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand and a few states in the United States of America. I believe while we must do everything in our power to alleviate pain, I just feel that this assisted dying proposition is a step too far. Where does it leave people with strong religious convictions, the fact that they have technically - well, and legally - taken their own lives? It is quite a dilemma. I am not going to speak for long. While we must do everything to increase palliative care, I believe that this proposition is a step too far and I will vote against this and urge Members to do likewise.

4. The Deputy of St. Peter :

One of the things I have learnt in my reading on this subject is - and I accept this is a broad generalisation - that those pro assisted dying do so because of personal experience. Those against do for many reasons, however, most likely do not have such personal experience to draw on. I go back to May 2010 for my personal experience, so my thinking on this subject is over 10 years old. I have decided not to share that experience with the Assembly. I do not think much will be gained in the debate based on individual emotions. I would rather stick to a few fundamentals, and also I will not dwell on the well-rehearsed arguments. We must not lose sight of what we are being asked. We are being asked in principle whether we support the right of someone who, in exceptional circumstances, wishes to end their life. I stress "their life." We have, however, been given some high-level principles: adults with a diagnosis of death within 6 months who are fully capable of making that decision; Jersey residents only; the option to administer the drug themselves or have the assistance of a medical professional and that there will be a conscientious objection clause so no medical professional is forced to do so against their will. We have not been given the full safeguards and that will be fundamental, but those - due to Deputy Morel 's amendment, which I am delighted that the Minister for Home Affairs has accepted - will be debated at a later date, obviously depending on the outcome of this debate. While I am in support today, I do not say I will support tomorrow. It is the safeguards that are paramount, especially protection against coercion, which I will forensically examine if I am in the Assembly for the next debate. What I find most interesting is the names of 2 pro campaigning groups, Dignity in Dying and End of Life Choice. Let us think on the words "dignity" and "choice." What we are being asked today is should we allow someone, in exceptional circumstances, the choice to end their life at a time and with the dignity of their choosing, or put it the other way around, who has the right to deny someone that choice, to end their life with that dignity of their choosing? Let us not forget it is their life we are debating, not our life. I would like to close with a quote used by Dr. Nigel Minihane in a recent speech. It is from Rabbi Jonathan Romain, who has written jointly with Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury in the British Medical Journal in support of assisting dying. His response to any challenge is relatively simple and I quote: "Opponents of assisted dying are welcome to live on until the last breath, be it painfully or peacefully, but demanding that someone else die in pain because of those principles is the height of arrogance. They worry about potential abuses in the future, but ignore people suffering here and now and crying for release. How sensible is it to let theoretical objectors mean that definite agonies continue?"

5. Senator S.W. Pallett:

I am going to be brief. I have held a strong view on this subject for some time. I have been a supporter of End of Life Choice for many years and believe that far too many people are denied the dignified death that they wish and that their loved ones desperately want for them. This in-principle decision to prepare detailed legislation for me is a common-sense way forward to ensure that all necessary safeguards are included in the legislation and that the public can fully consider how an assisted dying scheme in Jersey should work. Any future legislation clearly needs to be - and it has been mentioned already by the previous speaker - fully scrutinised to make sure that those safeguards are as strong as they need to be.

[11:15]

Many people that have contacted me by email - and I am sure others as well - have had deep concerns around slippage and abuse of safeguards and we need to be clear about any safeguards that are included in legislation are strong. One or 2 people have already said it, and I find it quite abhorrent that any group of people could deny another the right to choose. For those who do not wish to use assisted dying, then the answer is simply not to engage. If palliative care is your choice, I have got to say the palliative care we have in the Island is of the absolute best quality, but we will need to invest in it and we still need to make sure that it is available for all that want it. But if palliative care is your choice, then that needs to be respected, but the same level of respect needs to be levelled at those who make the difficult decision that the quality of their life is so poor, due to extreme pain and suffering, that they choose to end it. I, like I think most people, do not want to die, but for some, they want to be in control of when and where and not be in the hands of doctors or pain management. They simply want to leave at a time of their choice, at a place of their choice, with their family and friends around them. As I have said, palliative care has to carry on improving, but it is not the answer for everyone. As it has been laid out to me I think by many people that have contacted me, including some doctors, who have obviously been through the process with families and respect the right of those who wish to end their life in a dignified way, there are many issues that revolve around having a robust law and the word "burden" has been used I think in many emails to us and being a burden to one's family is not and must never be a criteria for allowing assisted dying. Any suggestion that an individual has been coerced or pressurised or even bullied into making a decision should stop that process moving forward until an independent assessment has been carried out and somebody has a settled view. It has also been suggested by some - and it is an extreme view, I believe - is that we all have the opportunity, if we so wish, to end our life. Well, that may well be true, but I think in some cases, if diagnosed with a serious illness such as cancer or dementia or any of those things, that may well be an option for some, but that is not I think an option that many families find easy to accept. When somebody commits suicide it is an awful thing to go through. I know I dealt with suicides with the Honorary Police and it is the saddest issue to go through with a family that have not expected it and it is deeply affecting to all involved. I would not suggest that as a way forward for anybody when we could have a system in place with assisted dying that would offer an option to those that have got to end of life and need another option. By the way, most of those comments I have made that I am sharing today have been made while I have been writing emails, so this is not a speech I prepared specifically, it is more around many of the comments I have made to other people in regards to comments they have made. One of the issues was around dignity and what does that mean. Well, each of us I think have a different view of dignity and I think it is up to us to decide when their care becomes undignified and they wish to make a choice to potentially choose assisted dying. As much as assisted dying may well be, as one person said to me, denying natural causes, in terms of natural causes, I think this is true of many medical advancements, that has extended people's lives. Denying those in pain the option to end their life, for me it just is purely cruel, and those who are unsupportive of assisted dying, as I have already said, have a choice not to engage, but they should not deny others that choice. Another comment that was also made to me was around the psychological effect on family members who are present during a potential assisted death in future. I think you have got to

understand that or consider that again it is a psychological effect of a family who have lost a family member who has had to go through unbearable pain, excruciating pain or suffering and watch them do that. That is something I have only had happen once to me and I do not want to go through that situation again with a loved one. I know I would want a choice. I think many of the people that have written to me are clear that they should not be denied that choice. Another issue that I think is a relevant issue and one that must be considered is this difficulty in estimating lifespan in terms of long-term illness, especially around illnesses such as cancer, but there are those who suffer life- threatening injuries or are diagnosed with particular cancers where lifespan can be reasonably accurately calculated. For those unfortunate individuals, I do believe that providing an end-of-life choice is essential if they are suffering unbearable pain or suffering. I just wanted to finish by saying that this is clearly a very emotive issue and one that I think we will undoubtedly hear other speeches today from Members that have had personal experiences. I have not based my decision or my thoughts just on personal experience. It very much has been on the evidence that has been put to me and the views of others. It has not been one-sided in terms of the comments I have received, it has been pretty well-balanced, those that are for and against, but I have no doubt in my own mind that I do not want to be part of denying somebody the choice of how and when they choose to end their life if they really are suffering unbearable pain or excruciating pain. I would not wish that on anybody and I do hope Members today would at least allow us or at least vote in favour of this in-principle proposition. That will at least allow us to get to a point where we can look at the legislation and understand what the detail will be before deciding whether to rule this in or rule this out. For me, it is about personal choice and we should not deny people personal choice.

6. The Connétable of St. Saviour :

This is an in-principle debate and I, like a lot of people, have had so many emails and calls for and against and I can only say that the palliative care is fantastic. I had both my mother and my father at home and I took care of the both of them and the palliative care was lovely, but neither of them were in pain, it was just a case of old age and: "We have had enough, thank you very much." I went out the other night for a meal with some school friends and one of them, the husband, had been very, very ill and in a lot of pain. He had asked her I do not know how many times to help him and she said: "I cannot" and he turned around and he said: "If I was a cat or a dog, you would be able to." She said: "Yes, but I cannot" and he asked her right until the very end, when he was on so much morphine he had lost really sort of the understanding of where he was, bless him. She says now that when she takes an animal to the vet or has an animal put to sleep, she thinks of her husband begging to help him and she could not do it. This is something that he said that has been haunting me all the way through this debate and all the paperwork that I have read I thought if I had .. as everybody knows, I have got a farm, and if an animal is unwell the vet comes and I will be guided by the vet, who will say to me: "It has to be put to sleep" and it will be put to sleep gently and kindly at home, not a problem. I think that human beings should be given that dignity to be allowed to choose and if they are feeling unwell, like my friend's husband, he would have been with her and he would have thought: "This is fantastic. I am going to be out of pain, she is with me and I am not afraid" and that I think is so important, to have your family with you. We should not have to ask people to travel away if they are that desperate to have their life terminated. They should be allowed to do it here and we should be allowed to do it here and not for anybody else, but just for Islanders. If you are here and you want to have the pain taken away and have the rest, then you should be allowed to do it. As I say, sometimes I wonder if we keep people alive so that we can still see them and they are there still with us because we do not want to lose them. That might be a little bit harsh, but I think that sometimes happens. I am going to vote for this because it is just an in-principle debate. I will not be in the next States sitting and I hope that they will be debating more into great depth, but I think people should have the choice because it is their life and if they are in pain and you are watching them suffer, but for what? It is so unfair and if they are looking to you for help, you should be able to give it to them.

7. The Connétable of St. Martin :

To be honest, I would rather be anywhere else today than in the Assembly debating assisted dying. This is by far the hardest debate that I have ever had to take part in. I have been for, I have been against and I have sat on the fence, and that is where I would like to be right now, sitting on a fence somewhere. However, none of us were put in this Assembly to abstain or sit on the fence. I, like other Members, have been inundated with emails and I apologise, it has simply not been possible to respond to so many of them. Many have been against and many have been in favour. This is an in- principle proposition. It is not legislation. The vote is only about the principle to do this. Rightly so, this is such a controversial subject. Some representations have been so moving, so heartfelt and tragic, some have been matter of fact and some have been quite aggressive. We all have to vote according to our conscience. Some, if not many, have alluded to the fact that if we even think about voting against, we do not believe in God. This is not the case. I for one do believe in God. There are good and compelling arguments from both sides. I myself have changed sides several times, but fundamentally this is about human dignity. Sorry, this is a very difficult and emotional matter to discuss. We have to consider the individual dying, their wishes and not the wishes of those who surround them, however close they may be. I have had close personal experience of 2 dearly loved people who had unbearable suffering at the end. One in particular suffered unbearably. She had dementia, she had broken bones and she was in constant pain the morphine did not alleviate. She was highly distressed, she was in unbearable suffering.

[11:30]

We could do nothing apart from sit near her .. sorry. The Bailiff :

Take your time, Constable. There is no rush.

The Connétable of St. Martin :

Apart from sit near her bed and try to bring comfort. She was in the loving care of the Little Sisters. This wonderful person had often said throughout her life that if she reached such a stage - and I do not think she could even envisage how awful her experience of dying would be - she had always asked us that if she was suffering and had no quality of life that, in her words, that if we loved her we would help her out of her suffering. This we obviously could not do. Both my parents received palliative care, but palliative care, however loving and caring it is, to put it bluntly, not enough in some cases. Dying with dignity is the outcome of compassionate care. I will end by quoting from a 45 year-old lady who has a terminal illness and who emailed all of us. She says, as a final point: "While I empathise with anyone who has a terminally ill loved one, I must point out that they can never truly know how that person feels or what they are going through. The loved one may try to tell them, but our brains only have our own experiences of pain and suffering as a reference point. Our brains cannot fathom pain or suffering beyond what they already know. When the time comes that the Assembly are facing death, I will afford each of them the decency and respect, but how that happens is a matter for them, not for me. Please afford me the same decency and respect." I will reiterate, dying with dignity is the outcome of compassionate care and respect for the wishes of the person who is dying. After much soul-searching, I will be voting for this proposition. [Approbation]

8. The Deputy of St. Mary :

As many speakers have already said, this is a proposition in principle and with much detail yet to come. I have to say that even though it is only in principle, I would have had difficulty in accepting the original proposition because, for me, it did not contain enough safeguard and comfort as to what might come in the future. Having previously been a solicitor engaged in private practice and having occasion to advise many families in many instances, I can well appreciate the concerns that have been raised as to coercion, subtle or otherwise, as it might be, and that is one of my main concerns.

However, I will be supporting this proposition as amended, with the amendment in particular being of great significance to me the fact that such amendment requires final proposals to include all processes and safeguards on assisted dying, which was not there before. It does provide me with comfort. In saying that, I am mindful of the presentation given only last week when Dignitas was represented, where there seemed to be some - to my disappointment - opposition to the idea of some form of court or tribunal being involved. To my mind, that will be an essential characteristic of any scheme and I do hope that those with reservations on that aspect will have cause to reflect. In supporting this proposition, I am not in fact necessarily supporting assisted dying. I think it is important that we do proceed to the next step where all the various arguments, the processes and safeguards can be fleshed out in greater detail and we do therefore need this opportunity to make these public for everyone to understand. If I may conclude with an insight into my private life for an interval of 2 weeks, this occurred during my introduction to the law, when as an article clerk - the then equivalent of what is now a trainee solicitor - I was much involved in conveyancing processes, which in turn involved the investigation of title. I recall that in my first 2 weeks of training, I came across 2 wills where the testator said specifically - and I apologise if this appears gruesome - where the testators had specifically requested that following death they had one of their limbs severed by an independent medical practitioner before they were interred. I say that because it does seem to me to strike a chord with the present state of mind of some people. It horrifies me that at that stage - and it was probably in the late 1800s - there were people who believed or who feared that on death there was a distinct possibility that they might be buried alive. My email box suggests that even now there are those who believe that one of the effects of assisted dying will be to allow those suffering from dementia or some such to be somehow hastened to their end without their say-so. It is clear from the law as it stands that it is not. You have to be of sound mind, but I welcome the additional time that will be given by this amendment to enable such misconceptions to be aired out in full and so that those who do have such a fear can be suitably assured. I will therefore be supporting this amendment simply to allow a more thorough debate to be given in the fullness of time.

9. Deputy R.J. Ward :

I thank the speakers that have gone before on whatever side, so to speak, of the debate. I am pleased to see such a considered debate happening in this Assembly. This is the most challenging debate and decision we face in this Assembly. It leaves us all addressing the complex relationship between the personal and the political. I do remind Members that this was a recommendation of the citizens' panel set up to consider assisted dying. We have all had many emails and communications on both sides of the debate and I thank everyone for the emails. I have tried to answer them all, but tried to avoid short and generic answers, therefore time may have defeated me in replying to all of them. My apologies if I have not managed to reply. I have also spoken to many people and many groups and attended talks on both sides of the debate because that is vital in addressing this issue. I start from a position of supporting the right to choose over all aspects of our own bodies and lives, but with similar concerns to some of the people who have contacted me. What does this proposition aim to achieve? The vote is about the acceptance of the principle of allowing members of our society who so choose to access assisted dying, the detail of which will come back to the Assembly for further consideration and the amendment adds to that. I am pleased to accept that amendment. By offering the choice to decide on when one's life ends, it does not mean that this is a compulsory action to be taken. Those who are opposed to this action for religious reasons can simply choose not to consider this as a choice in the same way as they do now, but for those who want the right to make this choice, given specific reason, it enables this choice. I remind Members of the proposition. In part it says: "has a voluntary, clear, settled and informed wish to end their own lives and has capacity to make the decision to end their own life and has been diagnosed with a terminal illness which is expected to result in unbearable suffering that cannot be alleviated and is reasonably expected to die within 6 months or has an incurable physical condition resulting in unbearable suffering that cannot be alleviated." I read that because I think we need to revisit what the proposition is saying frequently

during this debate. I cannot understand the feelings and emotions and physical pain of those who may be in the extraordinarily difficult position of a terminal illness and therefore I cannot deny them the right to assisted dying, the right to have a genuine choice about how they are going to end their own life and when. I do not accept that this is the beginning of a slippery slope, the inevitable development of pressure on the most vulnerable consequently from that. It will require careful regulations and the right for medical professionals to opt out and I fully accept that. I will speak more about that in a moment. We should not adopt a system, in my view, that allows unsupervised administering of drugs used, as in some of the jurisdictions that have been quoted to us as bad examples of when assisted dying has become seen as a problem. As for the idea that people becoming a burden will lead to assisted dying becoming widespread, this is part of a much wider societal problem with the value we give to our elderly, our vulnerable and those with perceived disabilities. Our failure to address genuine equality and inclusion in our society cannot be the reason to condemn some to pain and suffering that they themselves feel is intolerable. We need to deal with our society at the same time. I understand that palliative care has improved. I do not accept the premise that by agreeing to this principle today - and it is the principles, I say that again - that we undermine or stop the development of palliative care. It does not. These advances in palliative care are understood and have changed the end-of-life experience for so many, but it does not mean that those who choose to use the assisted dying provision should be stopped from doing so. Indeed, it may be less likely for some to choose assisted dying if they are not in severe pain due to effective care at the end of their life. I mentioned that I share concerns with those who emailed me with their opposition to this proposition. Another was coercion. This would be the case in any situation where someone has a choice of actions and others are affected, but I believe that we can regulate effectively to prevent this. We also have to look at the attitudes we have to the elderly, the vulnerable and those we define as having a disability. I say that again because it is so important. There has also been raised a notion that this is the beginning .. I mentioned about the slippery slope. Sorry, I am repeating myself. This is the right for an individual to choose to have control over their own body. Fundamentally I believe that we should have the right to choose. I will be looking at tracking regulations in detail and would urge that a specific review panel from across the Assembly is set up to review the input into regulations. So none of us really want to consider our own mortality and we cannot understand the pressures as the end of our life approaches until it happens. I believe we need a careful considered structure that allows me and all others to have control over that end of life should we wish to do that. I reiterate, those who oppose on religious grounds or other grounds have the right to not take this option, as does everybody. There are plenty of safeguards, there should be at any time when you can change your attitude to this and change your mind. I have experienced losing both of my parents and a loss of friends to illness. I would say in all of those occasions it is an almost impossible situation. I will be supporting this proposition because I cannot deny those who have intolerable suffering the right to choose when and how they end their life with dignity and care. I urge Members to think very carefully about those principles as they vote today.

10. Connétable R.A. Buchanan of St. Ouen :

Like many other Members I have received a considerable amount of correspondence on this subject, some in favour, many more against. While measuring the constitute of such correspondence is not perhaps an accurate measure of public opinion, nevertheless many of the concerns expressed mirror many of my own. On the one hand, nobody with an ounce of compassion cannot be moved by the stories of those within incurable illness who are suffering greatly and want to end it all to escape the pain. There is no doubt the advances of medical science have allowed us to prolong life to the extent where one has to question whether there has been any consideration for the quality of life or indeed the unbelievable pain and suffering this may entail. I have seen it myself with my poor father who had acute dementia and many other ailments was kept alive by modern medicine long after his time and in some pain and discomfort. Was it right or not that he should have been eased into the next life a little earlier? While he would not have qualified under the current criteria proposed, how long before a change to encompass those in his position is proposed? The taking of another life by another is a giant step and should not be taken lightly, not least because there is no going back.

[11:45]

The States misunderstanding cannot be rectified. While trying not to state the obvious it is a cliff edge event of no return. Before we go down this path we need to be sure we are clear about the criteria of where this option is available. As Members will know, 2 options are proposed. Physician assisted suicide, the doctor or nurse provide lethal drugs that the person takes themselves and euthanasia where lethal drugs are administered by professionals, e.g. by a lethal injection. The criteria to qualify is wide in scope, including both those with a terminal illness and an incurable physical condition resulting in unbearable suffering. It requires that the person has a voluntary wish to end their own life, it is why permitting all doctors and all nurses to deliver euthanasia requires assessment of capability and it requires proper regulation. In my view, firstly, before we can approve assisted dying we need to be sure that we have in place or at least able to put in place a mechanism of safeguards to robustly ensure and judge these criteria are met. Deputy Morel 's amendment will ensure that most, if not all, these criteria are met, however it does require those of us, those of us who have concerns about the allowing of taking of life under any circumstances to cross the Rubicon and approve the principle. This is the key for me. The taking of life of another, whether justified or not, is in my view not somewhere we should go. It crosses a line that my own upbringing and values tells me is unacceptable. As a principle I cannot vote for any proposal that allows one individual to take another's life under any circumstances so by implication I could not vote for euthanasia because of this and because it does not involve a direct act by the patient. In my mind there is a huge difference between someone taking their own life voluntarily and this act being undertaken by somebody else. I could therefore be persuaded to vote for physician-assisted suicide alone. If I can elaborate. My biggest concern other than the act of one person ending the life of another is scope. Many sick and elderly are not as strong mentally as those of us who are younger or in good health. They also come to depend on family and carers and can feel increasingly a burden to those around them. This, in my view, makes them vulnerable to unscrupulous suggestions, for example being a burden and generating feelings of guilt about this. In other countries where assisted dying has been introduced there are doubts the safeguards and mechanisms have been enough. There is evidence to suggest that the scope of those who are eligible has been increased, paperwork has been lacking, people have been coerced to the decision and in some countries they have proposed to extend the law to include those without capacity. Will we see this if we approve this today? Who knows? Many of you will say: "Not on my watch" but views change; what is not acceptable now could quickly change as we have seen in the pandemic. Pressure on homecare facilities, hospitals not being able to cope with waiting lists, lack of carers, more causes to look at things in a different light and rethink the position of scarce family-care facilities for the terminally ill and the old to save the expense for young members of society with better prospective outcomes. I hope it never comes about. You can paint a picture of where this might. One thing COVID has taught us is our world, and indeed our values, can change and very quickly. My fear is that by approving this we are opening a door and this is a door we may never be able to close or resist pressure to open further. I hope not, but in my mind a line would have been crossed. I should like to finish by quoting from an extract of a speech made by the Archbishop of Canterbury during a recent debate in the House of Lords on this subject. I should make the point this is not a debate which is faith against no faith or anti-faith as this is not the case at all. However, the speech makes some strong points from a caring pastoral perspective and I quote: "Christ calls his followers to compassion. But compassion must not be drawn too narrowly, a point made indirectly and powerfully by Baroness Meacher. It must extend beyond those who want the law to provide help to end their lives, to the whole of society; especially those who might be put at risk. Our choices affect other people. The common good demands that our choices, rights and freedoms must be balanced with those of others, especially those who may not be so easily heard. Sadly, I believe this Bill to be unsafe. As a curate and Parish priest I spent time with the dying, the sick

and the bereaved. I still do. All of us have personal experience. I have as well. We know that the sad truth is that not all people are perfect, not all families are happy, not everyone is kind and compassionate. No amount of safeguards can perfect the human heart, no amount of regulation can make a relative kinder or a doctor infallible. No amount of reassurance can make a vulnerable or disabled person feel equally safe, equally valued, if the law is changed in this way. All of us here are united in wanting compassion and dignity for those coming to the end of their lives. But it does not serve compassion if by granting the wishes of one closest to me, I expose others to danger. It does not serve dignity if in granting the wishes of one closest to me I devalue the status and safety of others." I hope the points that he has made touches a nerve in all of us. I will continue to listen to this debate with an open mind but I think I have made my concerns clear. I would just ask the proposer if he would consider a separate vote on part 2(1) and (2) at the end of the debate.

11. Deputy S.M. Ahier of St. Helier :

I agree in principle with the citizens' jury that assisted dying should be permitted in Jersey and it is now time for the States Assembly to catch up with public opinion on this important issue. We all have to face the fact that we will die and this is inevitable but what we should now be able to influence and control, however, is the manner of our dying. Assisted dying is presently banned in Jersey and in the United Kingdom. Some people do have the option of accessing assisted dying at Dignitas in Switzerland. This is only available for those who have sufficient funds and it effectively outsources people's deaths overseas at huge financial, practical and emotional cost to the families involved. Some people who have used this facility in Switzerland have taken the step of sharing their stories in open letters ahead of their death. One example is an open letter to Members of Parliament from Geoffrey Whaley dated 7th February 2019, written before he died at Dignitas. He said: "I have been able to fulfil my final wish: to be in control of my end, rather than endure the immense suffering motor neurone disease had in store for me." In his case the terrible anguish he experienced was not simply due to the awful illness he suffered but because of the law against assisted dying. Mr. Whaley was 80 years old and described having lived a full life. He did not fear death but feared extended suffering in the process of dying. When he eventually got permission to be accepted at Dignitas he spoke of a weight being lifted from him and he was able to get on with living without constant mental anguish over his death. In Jersey, our own Alain du Chemin made it plain that he supported a change in the law to enable him to have a dignified death and to die as well as possible on his own terms, when he chose to do so. He was quoted as saying: "What makes anyone think they have the right to force me to die in a particular way, a way I don't want." He hoped that Jersey would lead the way for the rest of the British Isles and the rest of the world on end-of-life choices. Personally I do not wish any of us to be required to go to Switzerland to end our lives but rather to have the compassionate service of assisted dying in our home Island surrounded by the ones we love. In my view, giving the option of assisted dying in Jersey shows true compassion to those suffering allows them autonomy, dignity and freedom of choice. It is not for me to oppose that choice. I believe we need to act and bring Jersey into line with a growing international consensus most recently demonstrated in New Zealand where a referendum showed strong support for a change in the law. Momentum has also increased in the United Kingdom since the Assisted Dying Bill in the House of Lords passed unopposed in the committee stage, the first time in 7 years. Some medical professionals have spoken out strongly in favour of assisted dying. Most notably a retired brain surgeon and a patron of the campaign group My Death, My Decision, who now himself has prostate cancer. He said: "Having spent a lifetime operating on people with cancer the prospect of dying slowly fills me with dread." He asserted the belief that if people in his situation knew they had the ability to choose how, when and where they would die it would greatly reduce their suffering. There has been some opposition from religious leaders but by no means all. At a recent debate in the House of Lords where Baroness Meacher presented her new Assisted Dying Bill a past Archbishop of Canterbury spoke in favour. I am personally moved by the words of leading rabbi who is chair of the Religious Alliance for Dignity

in Dying. He said: "There is nothing sacred in suffering and nothing holy about agony. Compassion in the face of suffering is a key component of all major religions." Some have expressed concern that an option of assisted dying would undermine the provision of palliative care. I do not see these 2 options as being mutually exclusive. A person may be receiving palliative care yet still wish to choose an assisted death. There is no suggestion that funding and resources for palliative care to be withdrawn or reduced in Jersey as a result of the existence of other end of life choices. The proposition before us today provides for a service to be available for those who are terminally ill with less than 6 months to live, but also to those experiencing an incurable condition involving intolerable suffering. These 2 categories are equally important. Intolerable suffering for some is worst to them than terminal illness ..

The Bailiff :

I am sorry, somebody has left their microphone switched on and we are hearing background chat about papers being sent to various places. Could that be switched off, please? I am sorry for the interruption, carry on, Deputy .

Deputy S.M. Ahier :

Thank you. Intolerable suffering for some is worst to them than terminal illness as it involves long periods of pain without reprieve. Having established that I am in favour of an assisted dying law in principle, the issues that remain are to do with safeguarding and the specifics of any legislation. I believe that Jersey should proceed with the confidence that we can manage these safeguards, as do our cousins in the Commonwealth nations of New Zealand and Canada. The proposal before us today include checks that the applicant for assisted dying is making a voluntary, clear and settled decision, meaning it is not a sudden spur of the moment thing and that they are doing so consistently. Checks by 2 different doctors and legal supervision of the process would provide assurance that there is no reasonable evidence of coercion. Assisted dying would only be available where a person is deemed to have capacity and similar safeguards are offered elsewhere and there is no reason why they could not be similarly established here. To summarise, I am supporting the principle of assisted dying because I am not willing to deny others that choice and would indeed wish to have that option for myself if needed. I wish to see the implementation of pragmatic, safe and compassionate assisted dying laws for those Islanders who really need them.  

[12:00]

Blocking this proposition would not result in fewer people dying, supporting it, however, would help some to ease their deaths. Thank you.

The Bailiff :

Thank you very much, Deputy . Does any other Member wish to speak on the proposition? If no other Member wishes to speak on the proposition Senator Ferguson. Before you speak, Senator, Deputy Pamplin has a question for the Attorney General. Deputy Pamplin, do you wish to ask your question of the Attorney now?

Deputy K.G. Pamplin of St. Saviour :

I can wait as you have called Senator Ferguson. No rush. The Bailiff :

The reason I ask is it may offer the Attorney the opportunity to reflect before he is called upon to answer.

12. Deputy K.G. Pamplin:

Of course. It is to refer to the comments paper that the Attorney General has kindly provided to all States Members. I was going to ask him for a summary of that and, in particular, in point 18 the explanation the Attorney General has laid out there, if he could just expand on the explanation I think it would be very helpful.

The Bailiff :

I will allow you to consider that, Mr. Attorney.

13. Senator S.C. Ferguson:

I was interested in the comment about referendums. We have had a change in the voting structure of the Island without the benefit of a referendum, perhaps we should be looking at referendum on this particular topic. I find there were 23 members of the citizens' jury and apparently these were all in favour of assisted dying prior to being appointed to the panel. Accordingly the jury, so-called, was in fact self-selecting. It could also be said that those commenting directly to me were a self-selecting sample. However, in my sample 85 per cent were against any form of assisted suicide. I would also point out that mine was a larger sample than the citizens' jury. I had 164 comments rather than 23 and similarly the survey of the doctors by the B.M.A. supplied to us does not show an overall support of the change to the law. When questioned as to whether doctors would support a change requiring them to administer the drugs, only 37 per cent supported such a change. Indications were that trainees would support the change

The Bailiff :

I am sorry you are fading away, Senator, we are not hearing you any more, your signal is breaking up. The last thing we heard was a percentage of trainees, that was the last thing we heard in the Assembly. I am sorry, Senator, we cannot hear you. Senator, could you indicate in the chat whether you are trying to speak to us? Senator, what I propose to do is to move on to the next speaker but I will return to you so you can continue and finish your speech when the communication issue have been resolved. We now move on to the Deputy of St. Ouen .

14. Deputy R.J. Renouf of St. Ouen :

This is indeed a very significant and difficult debate for Members and for the Island. I think we must start by recognising that all, on all sides of the debate, approach this question with compassion. But there is a great sadness to me in that the proposals here and in other places to adopt assisted dying accept that vulnerable people will be put at risk by its introduction, and accept that safeguards

Senator S.C. Ferguson:

I am actually speaking from the treatment room at the hospital and unfortunately the wi-fi in the hospital is

The Bailiff :

Senator, I understand the difficulty. I have already indicated that we would be leaving you at the moment but I would call upon you again after the next speaker so that you have a chance to sort that out as well as possible. The Deputy of St. Ouen has already started his speech so I will call upon you again, you will not lose the opportunity to speak, it will just have to be a little bit later.

Senator S.C. Ferguson:

I have no problem with that but I am not sure you can do anything about the hospital wi-fi. The Bailiff :

If you are able to maintain the hospital wi-fi at the level it now is we can hear you very well indeed. But I have let the Deputy of St. Ouen start his speech and I would invite him to continue and we will get back to you straight after that.

The Deputy of St. Ouen :

I was expressing sadness that proposals here and in other jurisdictions to adopt assisted dying accept that vulnerable people will be put at risk by its introduction and accept that safeguards have limitations and will not always work. To me that means accepting that we would be bringing about the early death of some people who need our protection. At present those people have our protection because no one can suggest to them that they have an option to bring about their death. Much of the argument is couched as being given a choice over how we die. Proponents would assert a right to choose. Of course, we would always love to be in control and to have as much rights as are available to us and exercise our own autonomy. Sometimes we do need to give prominence to the rights of individuals but no man or woman is an island entire of themselves. Every human being lives in a society and that collective life means that we carry responsibilities to each other and because of that we order our society and we work to maintain a common good. It is sometimes the case that desires expressed by individuals come into conflict with the common good and this is the case here and this is what creates the dilemma. This is difficult for all of us because the fundamental change assisted dying makes will change us. We must recognise the consequences to numbers of people to whom we owe a duty of care, people who are frail and could not be vociferous in a debate such as this. Therefore, I believe our duties as representatives lead us to the imperative of preserving the common good of avoiding harm to those people. Now, there are many points I could make and which others could make on this side of the debate but there is also something personal to me which informs my views on assisted dying, and it relates to the best part of 30 years that I spent in legal practice when I was acting for local clients, including many people who were unable to look after their own affairs. Sometimes as people draw closer to the end of their life they have much to sort out and not just financially. Sometimes they will confide in a lawyer or other professional in the way they cannot confide with their family. So I had those deep conversations with many clients and that was, indeed, a privilege. It was not just a case of perhaps making a will for them and this did not simply relate to elderly people but younger people facing the end of life. I have been thinking of many of them as we have all mulled over this question of assisted dying in recent weeks. I did meet clients who stoically lived with pain as they neared the end of their life but were firmly expressing the wish that they could end their own life. I felt for them in their suffering and I particularly recall one very proud gentleman who could hardly speak because his voice was rasping and he explained to me his lungs were like tissue paper. I remember speaking to him in his study surrounded by oxygen cylinders and all the tubes that were attached to help his breathing. I felt for him and I understood his desire. There were other clients, once robust and well, who had become frail and weak. They often suggested that they felt that they were becoming a burden to their families, or words to that effect, or that they were no longer of any use to anyone and such things. They knew their quality of life was diminishing, illness had brought them low over a long period and I saw they were doubting their intrinsic dignity and worth as a human being. For them, and others like them, they may well have felt that their pain was unbearable. They may well have felt that they did not wish to carry on, and they might well be the sort of people who would have wanted to think about an assisted dying process. They are vulnerable people, we need to recognise that. That feeling that life has changed for them, they are in a different position from what they were, they are dependent and they are weak and frail, leads to low mood, possibly depressive illness, mental health is poor. In the U.S. (United States) states where assisted dying has been introduced, feeling a burden to others is now the leading reason why people ask for assisted dying. I think that must be a damning condemnation of a society. I would hope we would not go there in Jersey's case but instead meet the challenge of an ageing demographic by demonstrating and improving our care for vulnerable people. In the course of my work as a lawyer I also dealt with the families of those vulnerable people. We must not imagine that families are perfect because that is, I am afraid, far from the truth. There were many views expressed to me about squandering inheritance on care costs. This was openly stated sometimes to the relative in care causing distress but in other cases it was quite clear that those views were expressed more subtly that a sense of resentment would develop over time, which I am sure would be felt by the loved one. I think as well as a society we must also be aware of the problem of elder abuse. It is an increasing

problem but the extent is still largely hidden and very difficult to uncover but it is happening and we should not think that in Jersey we are immune, and there are many good people trying to expose the circumstances of risks around elder abuse and that must be taken into account here. My point is that vulnerabilities will emerge and will be all too common in the assisted dying world, whether that is internal feeling a burden or whether it is external pressures applied by family or other pressures.

[12:15]

The question therefore is can any sort of measures be sufficient and effective enough to give us the assurance that those vulnerabilities will not result in a number of people dying prematurely. I think we must also take note because it has not been mentioned too much during this debate that so broad are the criteria set out in the proposition that assisted dying would be available if it is progressed, not only to those who are suffering terminal illness with no more than 6 months to live but also physically disabled people whose lives are not near their end but who may feel their suffering has become unbearable. That includes people that I am sure many of already know, people we look after in Jersey Cheshire Home or Les Amis or within families and other settings in the Island. Now, we know that we pass through many stages in life and that is no different for people with physical disabilities. They will pass through stages where they are down, they may feel their anguish is unbearable. Notwithstanding the requirement for a clear and settled wish to end their life as proposed, these people are not living with terminal illness and they are not facing death within 6 months. A desire expressed in their life could be transient, it could understandably - very understandably - be caused by a depression that had been building up in them over time. They need our support. It should be our privilege to care for them. In the future their condition could be alleviated or their pain could be no longer unbearable to them but in a dark period of their life they might have taken the option of assisted dying. Now, to me that is vulnerability. So faced with all these vulnerabilities, is there a means of protecting these people? Are safeguards sufficient? As a patient approaches end of life doctors discuss end-of-life care with them. For a person with incurable conditions, long term I am sure doctors have - and I know doctors have - serious debates with them about how they want their care to be handled. If assisted dying becomes part of the law of the land our doctors would become professionally obliged to discuss the option of assisted dying with all patients who meet the broad criteria in the proposition. That is something new. If you are in a vulnerable state and your doctor opens up a conversation about choosing to end your own life, even if that doctor is being entirely neutral about it and acting in the very best interests of their patients, what is the effect on the mind of that vulnerable person? Some will cope with it but some being vulnerable, being depressed may think the suggestion is being put before them that they are no longer worthy, they are truly a burden and perhaps the time has come. Even if 2 doctors were appointed as proposed, even if both speak to the patient and the family, such a process cannot provide the assurance that they have teased out the true motivation of their patients. That they have established the request is truly voluntary and has ruled out any suggestion of mental ill-health. Realistically it cannot discern the subtle pressures applied over time by family, friends or carers, even if those pressures are not overt by a growing or inaccurate perception of becoming a burden. Not only would the doctor's time with the patient undoubtedly be limited because of other professional obligations, it would be very unusual for any doctor nowadays to have that kind of deep relationship with their patient that we may have treasured in the past. That means a doctor may not be in a position to detect undue influence or even that their patient was feeling a burden. I question how could the involvement of courts or a tribunal add anything. Yes, I am sure a court could ensure a process had been followed, it could demonstrate that the required questions had been asked. All those sort of process issues but the court is unable to make a finding on what is deep in the heart of a patient. Safeguards can be built up to the best of our ability but not one of them can be truly effective. None of them would truly protect patients who are going to become vulnerable if assisted dying were to be introduced. I think we are beginning to learn from the experiences of other jurisdictions where citizens are becoming seriously alarmed at the failure of safeguards in use there which are suggested in this proposition. So if, having been introduced in other jurisdictions, we see that the safeguards are not up to scratch, there is very little that can effectively be done, why do we need to start on this road now? The prohibition on killing is the safeguard. It is a safeguard we have now and is the only effective safeguard. So the current law provides the protection for the vulnerable. I fear we have a misplaced trust in the ability of a law to fix this because laws do not have that capacity at the end of the day. The question of the motivation of an individual is not medical or legal but it is a personal, social and domestic issue which is outside of the expertise of doctors and lawyers and it is very difficult to divine if somebody is approaching it feeling themselves under a burden or under coercion. So assisted dying will change our society fundamentally, it starts calculating and determining a value to human life that leads to an inevitable change in attitude because we are introducing a choice over the end of our life and for those with incurable conditions. There will be some who criticise choices that others make to preserve life and the resources that are involved following that choice because there are resources involved in care. Over time we will become desensitised to the value of life. To me it is no wonder disability groups around the world have generally opposed assisted dying. Our medical culture will also be corrupted. How valuable at the moment is our doctor/patient relationship when we know that when we are vulnerable, when we are low, there is that certainty that our doctors are there to preserve life and not to put other options around. Assisted dying would undermine our efforts around suicide prevention. This has been seen in other jurisdictions which have seen rates of suicide climb. Our assisted dying would compromise our palliative care efforts. The excellent service we have can be even better and I would want to make it better. Practitioners in palliative care assure us that it is very rare that that care cannot address and alleviate pain at the end of life, surely that is where we should concentrate efforts. Significantly it is the medics in palliative care, the people who are often closest to those who might be candidates for assisted dying, it is they who are strongly against adopting assisted dying. They know and they practice a better way for their patients. As I said at the beginning of my speech, all of us want compassion and dignity for those coming to the end of their lives but it does not serve compassion if by granting the wishes of one we expose others to danger. It does not serve dignity if in granting the wishes of one we devalue the status and the safety of others. Therefore, we should resist this change. A change this proposition needs to make and vote against this proposition.  

The Bailiff :

Thank you. Senator Ferguson, are you now in a position to speak?

15. Senator S.C. Ferguson.

I hope so, Sir. In correspondence to me, correspondents were concerned that this approach is a version of the disposability culture, just because you are old or disabled does this give society the right to terminate you. Will it open the door for the unscrupulous to terminate well-to-do aged relatives or will it open the door to more Dr. Shipmans? What about the stress it will place on doctors? The mental effect on people dedicated to healing when faced with termination of life rather than preserving it must be significant and this is apparent in the response to the survey by G.P. (general practitioners). There were also examples quoted to me where the medics had given a prognosis of weeks or a few months. In those instances the patient outlived the prognosis by years, much to the delight of their families. With great respect to the medical profession, they are not 100 per cent infallible. I am supportive of freedom of choice and of free speech, however, given the fallibility of mankind, should we be legislating for the exception rather than the majority? Some will say this gives everyone freedom of choice in the manner of their dying but given the experience of countries who allow this, would take away security from the aged and the infirm. Are we really going to put the oldies - and I am one of them - who might have a few pounds put by, in a position to be frightened that their nearest and dearest will persuade them that they are becoming a burden and that it would be fairer to die now? If the elderly can be blackmailed like this, how much worse would it be if they are being persuaded to be assisted to die? One correspondent tells me that she was on holiday with her disabled child when a Belgian lady asked why she had not had the child euthanised. Is it not better to have a society where the elderly provide a haven for the young if the parents are having to work, a haven where the young can let off steam about the perceived injustice inflicted by parents, which always happens, a haven where grandparents can advise and guide grandchildren patiently from their experience? Grandparents have time, where parents may be run off their feet, do not take that experience away from the family. Do we really want a society where the elderly and disabled are not permitted to live, a society where the young treat the old as a waste of space, instead of learning from them and appreciating them? It is the worst nightmare from science fiction. I say no.

[12:30] The Bailiff :

Thank you very much indeed, Senator. Mr. Attorney, you have indicated you are now able to advise; this may be a good time, if you are able to do so.

Mr. M.H. Temple Q.C., H.M. Attorney General:

Yes, Sir. Deputy Pamplin's question asked me to refer to and expand upon paragraph 18 of my comments, which were circulated to Members last week. Paragraph 18 deals with safeguards and particularly from a human rights law perspective. I will expand upon those 3 subparagraphs shortly. But before doing so I just wanted to be clear that the comments that I make are obviously in relation to the proposition being an in-principle proposition and clearly we do not have detailed legislative- formed proposals as to what, for example, the regulatory regime will be. Clearly, my comments are simply directed at the principles and not at the detail of any in-practice legislative framework. I would also say, as I say in paragraph 2 of my comments, is simply restricted to the legal aspects of the proposition and there is no view in them on the wider ethical or policy issues raised by assisted dying. In terms of paragraph 18, as I said, they deal with the safeguards that are included in the proposition, particularly at paragraph (iii) of the proposition. I also set out an examination of the 3 safeguards in brief in the numbered 3 paragraphs of paragraph 18 of my comments. Those 3 paragraphs, the structure for them is taken from an E.C.H.R. (European Court of Human Rights) case, which is the case of Lambert v France, which was a case from 2015 and a judgment at the Strasbourg Court. That was a case which was a withdrawal of treatment case, rather than an assisted dying case. But the principles from the European Court of Human Rights judgment are helpful and they are consistent with other cases where the Strasbourg Court has specifically considered assisted dying or euthanasia cases. The structure for the 3 points is taken from paragraph 143 of the judgment in Lambert and there the Strasbourg Court sets out 3 factors which are safeguards in the context of withdrawal of medical treatment cases but which are also relevant to assisted dying cases. The 3 factors that are specifically stated in paragraph 143 are: "The existence in domestic law and practice of a regulatory framework compatible with the requirements of Article 2." Article 2 is the right to life, which is in the European Convention on Human Rights, which we have incorporated into our law in the Human Rights (Jersey) Law 2000. Then the second safeguard is: "Whether account has been taken of the applicant's previously expressed wishes and those of the persons close to him or her, as well as the opinions of other medical personnel." That is the second factor. Then the third factor is: "The possibility to approach the courts in the event of doubts as to the best decision to take in the patient's interests." Those are the 3 safeguards that are specifically mentioned in the Lambert judgment of the European Court of Human Rights and my comments in paragraph 18 follow those 3 factors that have been identified by the Strasbourg Court as safeguards. The first is that it would provide for the establishment of a precise and transparent regulatory framework and then the proposition also incorporates the essential requirement that the competently express wishes of the applicant are paramount. Then the third factor is that the proposition includes the possibility of approaching the court regarding whether the decision is in the person's best interests. I say that the ability to challenge an assisted dying decision or indeed a withdrawal of treatment case by application to a court is a minimum safeguard. In this case the proposition at paragraph (c) goes slightly further

than that, in that it envisages a pre-approval process, which would be via a court or specialist tribunal for cases which fall within the ambit of the proposition. As I say, I do not consider that the involvement of a court or a specialist tribunal at the initial eligibility stage is required by the European Convention on Human Rights. But, as it is included in this proposition, plainly it is an additional safeguard, which is likely to weigh in favour of the proposition being compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. I hope that is of assistance to Deputy Pamplin and to Members. But I would also say that the judgments of the Strasbourg Court are clear, that states are afforded a wide margin of appreciation in this area of assisted dying and withdrawal of treatment cases. That is because the Strasbourg Court says that there is not consensus among states, among contracting states on this area of policy. The Strasbourg Court is going to afford states, it says, a considerable margin of appreciation. Within Lambert the court was also clear that it is not an unlimited margin of appreciation, that there are minimum standards, minimum safeguards that the court expects a state to have that in this area and those are the 3 sorts of safeguards that I have summarised at paragraph 18. I hope that is of assistance to Deputy Pamplin and to Members.

The Bailiff :

Thank you very much, Mr. Attorney. Senator Mézec , I am assuming you would not wish to start your speech now.

Senator S.Y. Mézec :

Sir, I anticipate that I would probably go on for maybe up to 15 minutes, so I suppose it is up to Members whether they want to leave me until after lunch but I am easy either way. I will start now if Members would prefer that.

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED The Bailiff :

The adjournment is proposed. It is an appropriate time, in my view. If no one opposes, very well, the Assembly stands adjourned until 2.15 p.m.

[12:40]

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT

[14:15]

The Bailiff :

The debate resumes on P.95 Assisted Dying.

16. Senator S.Y. Mézec :

This of course is a debate unlike any that we have certainly had in the Assembly in my time. I think, therefore, it is one that requires a very different approach to how we might ordinarily approach a proposition in this Assembly. The Council of Ministers have said a few times that from their position it is not to be either recommended or opposed; it is a matter of conscience for Members. Just for the record, that is the approach that Reform Jersey has taken on this as well. I think there is no other way that you can deal with this subject because the seriousness of what it is about, it is literally a life or death matter and that is not normally what is before us in this Assembly. We have to consider it extremely carefully and deeply and consider what the effects of the decision we will make today will have on people in the future and how that can sit on our consciences one way or another. During the last election I was asked my position on assisted dying and I did say that I was in favour of the principle of it, and I have made a point of saying that this was so long as assisted dying was always thought of alongside assisted living, alongside palliative care and of course all the safeguards to ensure that nobody is ever pressured into opting for one choice rather than another. But in the run up to this debate and the prospect of having to pass the vote and ensuring that I vote in a way that is