STATES OF JERSEY

OFFICIAL REPORT

THURSDAY, 12th MARCH 2026

COMMUNICATIONS BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER ........................................ 5

1.1  Welcome to the Chief Minister of Guernsey .............................................. 5 PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption .................................................................. 5

2. Draft Termination of Pregnancy (Jersey) Law 202- (P.16/2026) - resumption ......... 5

1. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade : .................................................. 5

1. Deputy K.L. Moore of St. Mary , St. Ouen and St. Peter : .................................. 5 Mr. M. Jowitt K.C., H.M. Attorney General: .................................................... 5 Deputy R.J. Ward of St. Helier Central :.......................................................... 6
2. Deputy L.K.F. Stephenson of St. Mary , St. Ouen and St. Peter : .......................... 6
3. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :.......................................................... 9
4. Deputy Sir P.M. Bailhache of St. Clement : .............................................. 11
5. Deputy L.V. Feltham of St. Helier Central : .............................................. 12
6. Deputy R.J. Ward :........................................................................ 13
7. Deputy M.E. Millar of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity : .............................. 14
8. Deputy J. Renouf of St. Brelade : ......................................................... 15
9. Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence : .......................................... 15 The Attorney General: .......................................................................... 16
10. Deputy D.J. Warr of St. Helier South : ................................................ 16
11. Deputy T.J.A. Binet of St. Saviour : ................................................... 16
12. Deputy K.M. Wilson of St. Clement : .................................................. 17
13. Deputy A. Howell of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity : ............................ 18

2. Deputy A. Howell of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity : ................................ 21

1. Deputy R.J. Ward of St. Helier Central : .................................................. 21
2. Deputy I. Gardiner of St. Helier North : .................................................. 21
3. Deputy K.L. Moore of St. Mary , St. Ouen and St. Peter : ................................ 21
4. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet : .................................................................. 21
5. Deputy H.L. Jeune of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity : ............................... 22 Deputy J. Renouf of St. Brelade : ................................................................ 22 Mr. M. Jowitt K.C., H.M. Attorney General: ................................................... 23 Deputy C.S. Alves of St. Helier Central : ....................................................... 23
6. Deputy J. Renouf : ........................................................................ 23 Deputy K.F. Morel of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity : ..................................... 24 The Attorney General: .......................................................................... 24
7. Deputy M. Tadier : ........................................................................ 24 Deputy L.K.F. Stephenson of St. Mary , St. Ouen and St. Peter : ............................... 25 The Attorney General: .......................................................................... 25 Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Mary , St. Ouen and St. Peter :.......................................... 25
8. Deputy A. Howell : ........................................................................ 26

3. Deputy A. Howell : ........................................................................ 29

1. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet of St. Saviour : .................................................. 30
2. Deputy A. Howell : ........................................................................ 30

3. Agreement between the Government of Jersey and the Government of the Kingdom of Bahrain: Elimination of Double Taxation (Taxes on Income) and Prevention of Tax Evasion/Avoidance (P.17/2026) ........................................................... 31

3.1   Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Mary , St. Ouen and St. Peter (The Minister for External

Relations): ................................................................................ 31

1. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :......................................................... 32
2. Deputy I.J. Gorst : ......................................................................... 33

4. Draft Sea Fisheries (Trawling, Netting and Dredging) (Jersey) Amendment Regulations 202- (P.18/2026) .............................................................. 35

1. Deputy S.G. Luce of Grouville and St. Martin (The Minister for the Environment): .... 35

1. Deputy H.L. Jeune of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity : ............................... 38
2. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade : ................................................ 40
3. Deputy J. Renouf of St. Brelade : ......................................................... 41
4. Deputy Sir P.M. Bailhache of St. Clement : .............................................. 43
5. Deputy S.G. Luce :........................................................................ 43

2. Deputy S.G. Luce of Grouville and St. Martin : .......................................... 46
3. Deputy S.G. Luce :........................................................................ 46

1. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade : ................................................ 47
2. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :......................................................... 47
3. Deputy S.G. Luce :........................................................................ 47

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED ................................................... 49 LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT .................................................................. 49

5. Comptroller and Auditor General: Appointment (P.20/2026) .......................... 49 [Debate proceeded in camera] .................................................................. 49
6. Assess affordability of qualifying state pensioners receiving home carer's allowance (P.27/2026) .................................................................................. 50

6.1   Deputy M.B. Andrews of St. Helier North : .............................................. 51

1. Deputy L.V. Feltham of St. Helier Central : .............................................. 53
2. Deputy H.M. Miles of St. Brelade : ....................................................... 54
3. Deputy B. Ward of St. Clement : .......................................................... 54
4. Deputy M.R. Scott of St. Brelade : ........................................................ 55
5. Deputy M.E. Millar of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity : .............................. 55
6. Deputy D.J. Warr of St. Helier South : .................................................... 57
7. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :......................................................... 57
8. Deputy C.D. Curtis of St. Helier Central : ................................................ 58
9. Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Mary , St. Ouen and St. Peter : ................................... 59
10. Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier South : .............................................. 60
11. Deputy M.B. Andrews : ................................................................ 62

7. Political Parties and election expenses: online publication of information (P.28/2026)

 .............................................................................................. 64

7.1   Deputy M.R. Scott of St. Brelade : ........................................................ 64

1. Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier South : .................................................. 65
2. Deputy M.R. Scott : ....................................................................... 66

8. Assessment of visual impact in green backdrop zone planning applications (P.31/2026)

- as amended (P.31/2026 Amd.) ........................................................... 68

8.1   Deputy M.R. Scott : ....................................................................... 68

1. Deputy S.G. Luce of Grouville and St. Martin (Minister for the Environment): ........ 70
2. Deputy A.F. Curtis of St. Clement :....................................................... 72
3. Deputy J. Renouf of St. Brelade : ......................................................... 73
4. Deputy A. Howell of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity : ................................ 74
5. Deputy M.R. Scott : ....................................................................... 74

9. Draft Elections (Electoral Registers) Amendment (Jersey) Commencement Act 202- (P.39/2026) - as amended (P.39/2026 Amd.) .............................................. 77

9.1   Deputy S.M. Ahier (Chair, Privileges and Procedures Committee): ..................... 78

1. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade : ................................................ 78 Deputy H.M. Miles of St. Brelade : ............................................................. 78 Mr. M. Jowitt K.C., H.M. Attorney General: ................................................... 79 Connétable K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour : ......................................................... 79
2. Deputy H.M. Miles : ...................................................................... 79
3. Deputy M.R. Scott of St. Brelade : ........................................................ 79
4. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :......................................................... 80 The Attorney General: .......................................................................... 80 Deputy M. Tadier : .............................................................................. 80
5. Deputy J. Renouf of St. Brelade : ......................................................... 81 Deputy H.L. Jeune of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity : ..................................... 81 The Attorney General: .......................................................................... 81
6. Deputy R.J. Ward of St. Helier Central : .................................................. 81
7. Connétable K. Shenton-Stone of St. Martin : ............................................. 81
8. Deputy S.M. Ahier : ....................................................................... 82

10. Curbing growth of Public Sector: end-to-end review of Government processes (P.44/2026) .................................................................................. 83

10.1   Deputy M.R. Scott : ....................................................................... 84

1. Deputy M.E. Millar of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity : ........................... 85
2. Deputy K.L. Moore of St. Mary , St. Ouen and St. Peter : ............................. 85
3. Deputy L.V. Feltham of St. Helier Central : ........................................... 86
4. Deputy M.R. Ferey of St. Saviour :.................................................... 86
5. Deputy M.R. Scott :.................................................................... 87

ADJOURNMENT .................................................................................. 90

11. Assisted Dying - Unbearable Suffering (P.46/2026) ..................................... 90

11.1   Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier Central : .............................................. 90

1. Connétable K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour : ................................................ 92
2. Deputy R.J. Ward of St. Helier Central : .............................................. 92
3. Deputy M.R. Scott of St. Brelade : .................................................... 92
4. Deputy T.J.A. Binet of St. Saviour : ................................................... 93
5. Connétable R.D. Johnson of St. Mary :................................................ 94
6. Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier South : .............................................. 94
7. Deputy C.S. Alves of St. Helier Central : .............................................. 95
8. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade : ...................................................... 96
9. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet : .............................................................. 99 The Attorney General: .......................................................................... 99
10. Deputy G.P. Southern : ............................................................... 99

12. Rent Tribunal: appointment of Chair, Deputy Chair and Members (P.50/2026) .... 100

12.1   Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier South (The Minister for Housing): .................. 101

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS................... 103

13. Deputy S.M. Ahier of St. Helier North (Chair, Privileges and Procedures Committee): ........................................................................................... 103

ADJOURNMENT ................................................................................. 105

[9:30]

The Roll was called and the Dean led the Assembly in Prayer. COMMUNICATIONS BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER

The Bailiff :

1.1  Welcome to the Chief Minister of Guernsey

Joining us this morning in the gallery is the Chief Minister of Guernsey. I think I speak for all of us when I say the 2 Bailiwicks are strongest when we work together, and we are delighted to welcome you to the Chamber this morning. [Approbation]

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption

2. Draft Termination of Pregnancy (Jersey) Law 202- (P.16/2026) - resumption The Bailiff :

We now return to the Order Paper and the continuation of the debate on the Draft Termination of Pregnancy Law. The next speaker is the Connétable of St. Brelade .

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

I speak to relay a communication from one of my parishioners who was concerned about this proposition. I bow to the superior knowledge of the lady's presence in the Chamber, so the views are that of my constituent rather than my own. But I think they need to be addressed by the rapporteur when she comes to summing up. The first point that is made is that the consultation process was flawed and biased and the Government paid only attention to one organisation B.P.A.S. (British Pregnancy Advisory Service), which is an extreme pro-abortion campaigner, and a major abortion provider to report on provision. Moving on, it is pointed out that the legislative proposals are extreme and unpopular. The abortion on request up to 21 weeks and 6 days is described as one of the most extreme abortion laws in the world and was supported by less than ½ of the public consultation respondents. There was a complete omission of risks to women's health. The consultation and drafting process completely overlooks the documented dangers of abortion to women's physical and mental health. B.P.A.S. denies these risks. There is a neglect of foetal rights and welfare. The rights and welfare of the unborn child are unprotected until the moving point of viability. In summary, I was asked that the current proposition lacks proper democratic process and consideration of scientific evidence, so I just ask the rapporteur, when she sums up, to comment on those points.

1. Deputy K.L. Moore of St. Mary , St. Ouen and St. Peter :

First, before speaking, I would like to ask a question of the Attorney General. I gave him notice last night of that because it paid material difference to .. he does not seem to have received my email from his look, but I will ask him a question, if I may. My question relates to whether or not it is best placed to make my point at this stage in the principles or during the Articles, because my point relates to the cost and why this is a paid for service versus a free service, such as the newly agreed assisted dying service. The question to the Attorney General is whether the contents of Article 17, which relates to fee orders, what would the impact be if Members voted against that? Because in my reading it is such a broad Article that there would not really be any purpose in voting against that. So I think really the point ought to be made in the principles. But if the Attorney has a view, I would be grateful.

Mr. M. Jowitt K.C., H.M. Attorney General:

The effect of not adopting Article 17 would mean that it would remove the proposed power for the Minister by order to provide for fees to be charged for termination services, termination-related services, counselling services, provided in connection with termination services. It would remove from the legislation the power to make orders to set fees for some or all of the services, set different fees for different services, to provide exemptions from fee payments, including how exemptions are applied. One can see what the effect would be by reading the terms of Article 17, which would no longer be there. I hope that is helpful.

Deputy K.L. Moore :

I think that is helpful. Thank you very much, Mr. Attorney. So my understanding is that if we vote against Article 17, when we get to the Articles, we would remove the ability of the Minister to charge a fee for this service. I would ask, when we get to that point, that we debate that Article separately. But at this point, in the principles, I would ask the Assistant Minister if she could, when summing up, explain to the Assembly why this service, in particular, is going to be a paid-for service as opposed to, as I said when posing my question to the Attorney General, the assisted dying service that Members have agreed will be a free service to those who wish to use it?

Deputy R.J. Ward of St. Helier Central : May I ask the Attorney General something? The Bailiff :

Yes, you may.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

It may not be, it may just be a logical answer, but setting fees. Fees could be set at zero, is that correct?

The Attorney General:

Well, zero is not a fee, I think. Deputy R.J. Ward :

My point being that if that stays there, if the Minister decides that the fees would be zero, that is consistent with the law.

The Attorney General:

Yes, the provision is permissive, not mandatory. The Minister "may by order".

2. Deputy L.K.F. Stephenson of St. Mary , St. Ouen and St. Peter :

I want to start by thanking the Minister and their officers for their work on this legislation, which I know has been a challenging piece of work at times, not least due to the issues with resourcing around it, but of course because it is complex and it is a very sensitive subject matter. I would also congratulate the Assistant Minister on her speech yesterday setting it out, because it set a really clear tone for this debate as well. I would also like to touch on the contribution from Deputy Miles yesterday, because I think that was a really important one. I hope it made others in the Assembly and outside as well actually stop to think about the support we provide to families who have children with disabilities, because it certainly did make me stop and think. But I am pleased where we have got to, where we are today with this, because Islanders and, in this case, women in particular, although it is not just a woman's issue. It may be happening to a woman's body but there are 2 people in these situations as well, so I think although it is very relevant to the lives of women we should not just categorise it as something for women or something for the women in this Assembly to be thinking about. Islanders deserve modern up-to-date and fit-for-purpose laws, and the existing Termination of  Pregnancy  Law,  as  we  have  already  heard,  is  from  1997. But  as  the  Minister's  report accompanying the proposition states, even then much of what it contained was considered to be outdated even when it was brought in because it was based on the U.K.'s (United Kingdom) 1967 law. In 1967 Twiggy was dominating the catwalk, miniskirts were in fashion, a woman ran the Boston Marathon for the first time, but it would be still 6 years before women gained access to the London Stock Exchange. In 1967 women still often required a signature from a husband or a father to open a bank account, obtain a mortgage or secure credit. Equal pay legislation did not exist and

women were frequently barred from senior positions and paid significantly less than men for doing the same job. Some bars and pubs still legally refused to serve women unless they were accompanied by a man. Juries were still largely male. There was no women's refuge anywhere in the U.K. and, fittingly given some of the other debates we have had this week, under U.K. law in 1967 it was legal for a man to rape his wife.

[9:45]

Thankfully the world has moved on and much of our legislation has too, and it is now time that our Termination of Pregnancy Law caught up as well. There are a couple of specific points I want to make, and the first relates to the public consultation which informed this work, and why I believe it is vital that we take action following that work, and the second consultation which followed it. I think particularly with an election coming up, when candidates make all sorts of promises about listening to Islanders, it is even more important that we reflect on the use of public consultations and what we do with the views and the feedback that Islanders provide us with. In this case, a public consultation took place between July and October 2023, and there was a second phase last year. I am sure that the Assistant Minister will touch on the points made by the Connétable of St. Brelade , but I would draw Members' attention to a freedom of information request that is published online, where somebody asked about exactly the points that he made. It does state very clearly, and the report on the consultation itself makes this very clear, so there is no attempt to hide any links there. But the initial interviews conducted with women who have experience of termination in Jersey were carried out by the Centre for Reproductive Research and Communication, and the F.O.I. (freedom of information) states: "It is recognised that it is situated within B.P.A.S., the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, which has a clearly stated  public commitment to protecting and extending women's reproductive rights and choices" and it goes on. That is online for Members to read if they want to, and members of the public. The thing I would just add there, the consultation, I think as the Assistant Minister said, it did not start from a point of asking if abortion should be legal. It already is legal. It started from a point of asking people for their experience of lived experience and what they thought should be done differently. So the first consultation highlighted the absolute need for change, the second provided more detail on what people thought those changes should look like. I think it is really important that we close the feedback loop when we are asking people for their views, particularly where it is about such a sensitive topic and we are asking for people's personal experiences. Closing that feedback loop is vital for trust and public engagement, and you close that loop by providing thanks and feedback and publishing results and by explaining clearly what happens next. But by far the most powerful way to close the loop is to take action based on and informed by that public consultation. People are much more likely to take part in public consultations in future if they see how their contributions are helping to influence policy and decision-making. That is exactly what we are doing here today as well. Another aspect of this proposed new law I would just like to comment on, and it is not in the 1997 law but is a welcome addition, is the ability of the Minister to use regulations to designate an area around a termination clinic as a safe access zone. In those areas certain activities will be banned, such as intimidation, harassment or obstruction. Obviously we would hope it would never be needed but there are examples around the world that show it is important that we have that provision, should it be needed. I would like to ask the Minister if there is capacity for that regulation to be extended to fertility clinics in future, should it ever be needed in Jersey, or if consideration could be given to that in future. Because increasingly in countries such as the United States, we are seeing anti-abortion campaigners that are targeting fertility clinics and I.V.F. (in vitro fertilisation) procedures. Since the overturning of Roe v Wade, and subsequent concerning developments in the U.S. (United States), there are some who now categorise embryos as children. Their view being that life begins at fertilisation. That position could, and in some place is, impacting on fertility treatment and patients. For those individuals it is raising questions about the storage, testing and, particularly in this context, the discarding of unused embryos, which some campaigners are now categorising as abortion. We do not have embryos currently stored or transferred in Jersey, but the people who are receiving treatment are here and receive pre and post-

embryo creation treatment locally. Again, we hope that that kind of intimidation would never happen here and the risks will be very low, but it cannot be ruled out. I would like fertility patients to know that their Government has their back, should it ever be needed. I think the Minister has covered quite clearly the service limitations, and set that out unapologetically as well. I think that is important. The proposition does not shy away from explaining that that proposal does not automatically expand service provision. Of course, in an ideal world, I do not want women to have to travel for such procedures and it does come with extra costs to them. But it really does not mean we should not support this law today or that it will necessarily lead to new pressures on resourcing and funding to provide such services because the reality is, as the Assistant Minister set out, even in the U.K. people often have to travel to specialist clinics for later stage terminations. I acknowledge that Jersey is a small jurisdiction and this is a specialised procedure. Changing the law as proposed without a guarantee that service provision will be extended will still have positive benefits. It will reduce stigma associated with such decisions, and that is a really important point. This is back to the people going through this experience; it will reduce stigma for them. It will give clinicians clearer guidance within which to work and it will allow greater flexibility through future regulations and orders. Finally, I want to comment on the 22-week limit in the law, as I think my panel chair, Deputy Doublet , did yesterday. I want to thank Deputy Hilary Jeune for bringing this to our attention, and Deputy Jeune has given me her permission to say that as well. In future, I would like us to consider a carve- out in the law, which would allow a person who has had a potentially serious medical issue identified at their anomaly scan - typically at 20 weeks - time to make an informed and settled decision without being rushed by the 22-week deadline. In reality, the deadline is 21 weeks and 6 days, and if you consider the timings about when scans take place - so you could be 20 weeks and 3 days when you have your first scan - how many days does that really give them to digest the information, maybe seek counselling support, research possible outcomes, seek further tests or medical opinions, and all of that alongside trying to come to terms with what may be a diagnosis, discussing with partner, with families. Other jurisdictions I believe have such carve-outs, and actually places like the U.K. do not need it at all because they use the 24-week limit instead. I want to just highlight a letter sent by 120 foetal  medicine  experts  who  are  affiliated  with  the  U.K.'s  distinguished  Royal  College  of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. It was sent to M.P.s (Members of Parliament) in May 2024 concerning abortion amendments tabled to the Criminal Justice Bill. They were talking about exactly this situation because some of the amendments were seeking to bring the 24-week limit down to 22. The letter states: "As medical professionals who care for patients who need later gestation abortions we are alarmed that these amendments have been tabled to the Criminal Justice Bill. They would have a catastrophic impact on the care that we are legally allowed to provide our patients, as well as on women's ability to make decisions about their pregnancy. While the numbers of women affected is small, if passed, those amendments will deprive the most vulnerable and high-risk girls and women of access to essential and potentially life-saving healthcare. It will force other women to make a decision to end or continue a much-wanted pregnancy before the diagnostic pathway is completed. This goes against best practice guidance and basic medical care decision-making." The letter explains that tests which may follow a diagnosis from an anomaly scan can fail to give definitive results or may need to be repeated. This means that if the gestation limit was reduced to 22 weeks, in the U.K. context, a woman will have passed the abortion time limit before she has even received a diagnosis and will result in her having no time to come to terms with the diagnosis or to consider her options. That letter is online, and I am willing to send it round or it is there for others to see. Conscious of time, but the same letter also highlights that 90 per cent of abortions occur before 10 weeks, and those who do present at 22 to 24 weeks who are not having an abortion due to foetal anomaly are frequently very vulnerable. It states: "If their ability to access safe abortion care up to 24 weeks is removed, this can have a lasting detrimental impact and may even be life-threatening." It says that research shows that the common reasons, other than foetal anomaly for needing an abortion at later gestations, included domestic abuse, particularly abuse which has worsened during pregnancy,  health  problems  of  the  woman  herself,  both  mental  and  physical,  a  change  in circumstances during pregnancy, such as the loss of a partner or a serious illness diagnosis for an

existing child, late detection of pregnancy, often as a result of health conditions, young women under the age of 18 who may not have realised they were pregnant or concealed it through fear. They conclude: "Reducing the abortion time limit from 24 weeks to 22 weeks will target these especially vulnerable women and girls, forcing them to continue with a pregnancy that they do not want, which can have a detrimental and lasting impact on their health, safety and well-being. No one would want to underestimate the difficulty in making a decision to end a pregnancy at such a late stage. However, forcing someone to continue an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy in these circumstances may put their life at risk." I think the law here today is a significant improvement on what exists already, but I do think it could be improved yet further. I hope that this can be addressed in the not-too-distant future. I would be interested to hear from the Assistant Minister about why the 22-week limit was chosen rather than 24 weeks. She did explain in her opening about the viability concept but, in my research, it is not as clear cut as perhaps she makes out. Did we ask in the consultation about 22 weeks or 24 weeks; or just 22?

3. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

There have been some excellent speeches so far. Deputy Stephenson highlighted the final speech that Deputy Miles gave yesterday, and I think that if we were not already thinking along those lines certainly it crystalised some of my thoughts, but also actually said some of the things that I would have wanted to say very eloquently about the difficulties that this is not completely a black and white area, especially when those comments related to disability. My concern here, having read the comments and the Minister's proposition, and I also congratulate the Assistant Minister for proposing this yesterday in the way that she did, is that I am mindful of the opening comments of the Scrutiny Panel, which says that the termination of pregnancy has been legal in Jersey since the 1997 law, but they say that this law was already considered out of date at the time of its introduction as it largely replicated the U.K. 1967 Abortion Act, which restricted access to termination based on limited prescriptive grounds such as distress. My concern today is that we are proposing a Termination of Pregnancy Law, which is already out of date now, before we even adopt it. Deputy Stephenson has started to take us through some of the reasons for that, and I will outline those concerns. I do not want us to get into a scenario where we are trying to replicate an A-level ethics class, so I hope that will not happen. What I would say though is that the starting point, and Deputy Doublet touched on it in her comments when she was representing the panel's work and I think her own thoughts on the issue around viability, do need to be unpacked, I think. Because if the premise for this law is largely built on the concept of viability of the foetus or of the potential baby that is yet to be born, I think that is a highly problematic starting point for legislators, and I will explain why. Deputy Stephenson did say that there are already those in the community who hold a view, which is absolutely their right to, that life begins at conception. Indeed, I know the 1,001 Days, which there are a lot of champions in this Assembly, I think it was actually a policy of previous Governments to support the 1,001 Days, which is the first 1,001 days up until the age of 2.

[10:00]

If you do the maths, of course, 2 years, 2 times 365 does not give you 1,001 days. That is because the first 1,001 days also includes the period from conception. Clearly, pregnancy in itself, if you are going to have a baby and that baby is going to grow up, hopefully, into a young person and an adult, all of that 1,001 days is an important period. On the other hand, we are left with the question of these arbitrary dates, which seem to be based on science rather than necessarily the starting point being women's rights. I think that is the nub of the issue here. If, for example, a foetus were to be considered viable not at 22 or 24 weeks, but actually in the future at 5 weeks or even at 3 weeks, if it was possible in the brave new world scenario to take that embryo or that foetus and actually say: "We can make sure this survives", what are the implications for that for future legislators and for women's rights? So looking at this legislation, I think the major flaw here is that it has not started through the right end of the telescope. It started through, I would say, a pseudo-scientific starting point, which is probably actually largely being led by community pressure from the religious right rather than

from the starting point of what is best for women and what fundamentally supports women's autonomy over their own bodies. If it had started from that point I think it becomes a lot more straightforward to legislate for women's rights and control over their own bodies. It makes me very uncomfortable, and I hesitated as to whether to say this this morning because one does like to keep some things private, but I think I have mentioned in this Assembly maybe before, and I have certainly written about the fact that my mother was relatively old when I was born. She was 46 at the time. It is not entirely uncommon for that to happen but it is fairly unusual, so I was an unplanned pregnancy. My mother was also deeply religious, she was a practising Catholic, and she said to me after I was born that at the time there was quite a lot of pressure for her to have an abortion. I think she even said from the medical profession that people were saying to her: "Mrs. Tadier , you have got to be careful at your age, your son might be severely disabled." Those words were not used. If I were to repeat the words that some told her, it would not be either parliamentary or acceptable these days. My mum made her choice and she stuck by it - and I know what some Members might be thinking; I hope not - and that has stuck with me. Because if we get into the argument about .. and I listened very carefully to the panel's comments about this 23 plus 6, and there is quite a .. and I do not disagree with limits, by the way. I am not saying that after 24 weeks. I think that there do need to be limits. There are wider ethical considerations in all of this. But I think what we are doing here, we are selling this law to us as if we are making great progress. But it is behind what the U.K. is allowing at the moment. They have a 24-week limit, as I understand, and it is up to the woman to decide whether she wants a termination. I hope that is not an oversimplification. What we are doing is we are reducing that so it is already a lower starting point. We are saying after that point it has to be severe foetal anomaly. Then of course there is this question, which has rightly been raised by Deputy Stephenson and the panel saying there is this problem then if you get your 20-week scan and an anomaly comes back, but it is not a severe one, it is not a serious one that is going to affect the likelihood of the baby surviving or the health of the mother, then it becomes a matter of choice. I think that then takes us into some very grey areas. I did read the comments saying that there was a case that the U.K. court ruled on about the rights of disability groups and that terminating, for example, an unborn baby with Down's Syndrome, does not affect the rights of disability groups. It is not an impingement on human rights of disabled people. But I think it does lead to some very difficult questions that we do not need to ask as legislators. I think, again, if it comes down to women's choice, because we know that there are so many reasons that women might choose to have a termination, so many of those factors are not necessarily to do with internal considerations, but actually external ones, environmental ones. I think this leads me on to the next point, is that I am concerned that we are setting up a new law but we are not setting up the commensurate provision in Jersey to be able to deal with that. I want to read through a quote that the panel put in their comments from the Minister, and I think from the Health Department. I think it is just easier to read this part so I do not lose any context, and I will try and do it as quickly as I can: "The panel broadly supports these provisions but stresses that the on-Island workforce is unlikely to be able to provide such procedures when the law comes into force. The proposition section acknowledges that Jersey's limited specialist workforce means later stage terminations, particularly those related to foetal anomaly, will continue to require travel to the U.K. with associated stress and trauma for women. This was discussed at the quarterly hearings, and the Minister and officer responded to the questions in the following way." This is a direct quote: "We cannot force .. you are referring to people in the hospital service being prepared to carry out terminations after a certain period, because I think that is the difficulty that we are referring to. At the moment, we do not have a team of people who are prepared to do that. I do not think that it is reasonable, but we cannot insist that people undertake that work. If, over the course of time through the recruitment process people come on board that are able and are qualified and prepared to undertake that work, then that is a provision that would be available. But at this point in time it is not something that people that are doing the work are prepared to offer, then that work has to take place off-Island." That sounds remarkably cavalier and vague to me. It sounds like we are bringing in this new law. There might not be people at the hospital who can do it because they are not trained, and they may not want to do it. The consequence of that

suggests to me that not just after the 22-week period, but actually a lot sooner than that, women are going to be forced to travel routinely off-Island for their terminations - terminations which are not free at the point of access anyway, which I think is wrong - but also there will be presumably an associated cost with that. Then the Minister goes on: "Even in the event that we are not able to recruit a workforce that can choose and safely deliver terminations, it is nevertheless the case that amending the gestation limits does help remove some of the stigma that is associated with terminations." What we are hearing here is this is a great thing to do just from a theoretical point of view, but I am interested in the practical implications of what we are going to see here. It is important, because amending our law provides legal certainty for our clinicians in Jersey when they refer to the U.K., and that is particularly important because, at the moment, in our law we have a 24-week limit for termination in the case of serious foetal anomaly. If a serious foetal anomaly in Jersey was to be found at the moment, that woman was post-24 weeks and the clinician would wish to refer the woman to the U.K. where she could, in their law, have a post-termination on the grounds of a serious foetal anomaly, my concern with this perhaps has not been mentioned yet, but we have spent the whole week .. not the whole week, but we spent, a lot of yesterday debating very important V.A.W.G. (violence against women and girls) legislation. Yet here we are debating ostensibly women's rights. My point is that if a vulnerable woman who may be in an abusive and coercive relationship cannot have a procedure on-Island at whatever stage and for whatever reason and is being referred to the UK, she may not be in a position to travel if she has a partner who is coercive and abusive. What does she do? If you can get access on-Island, you can probably do that fairly furtively, can you not? You can go off to work, take some time out. Your husband, your partner does not need to know where you are, and that can remain private. If you have to start booking travel to go to a clinic somewhere in the U.K., you have then got to start telling your partner why you are going to be away. You may not even have financial control over your bank accounts. You may not have any economic financial independence. I think this has not been thought through from a woman's point of view. I think it has been thought through from a fairly cold, clinical, scientific but also from that ethical point of view where a lot of voices have come forward probably that do not even support a woman's right to termination in the first place. I think that is why we have been left with a highly problematic law. We are in a difficult position here, because I think we have to make a decision on what is before us. I certainly do not criticise the Scrutiny Panel because I think they have also been put in a position where this has been lodged towards the end of a term, and they have made recommendations, but had they had more time I have no doubt that they would have put amendments in, and that we would have been able to consider this law in the light of some improving amendments. I do find what is in front of us problematic, not least - mostly actually because of the practical implications - that we are putting something in place. I think if this was in any other sphere, if this was an education proposal that introduced theoretical rights but did not actually give a practical recourse to those rights or in any other domain, I think Members would be looking at this and saying to the Minister: "This is not good enough."

4. Deputy Sir P.M. Bailhache of St. Clement :

I am a member of the Health and Social Security Scrutiny Panel, but I do not share all the views of the majority of that panel. The chair of the panel has put the argument, as indeed I think did Deputy Tadier , on bodily autonomy, the woman's right to choose. But that does not seem to me to be the whole of the story because there are other human rights involved, namely the right of the embryonic child to life. Even for those who accept, in part at least, the bodily autonomy argument, there is a tension when it bumps up against the right to exist or the right to life. I am not well-enough informed to state how close to viability is 22 weeks, but 2 things do seem to be clear to me. The first is that termination at an advanced stage of pregnancy is a difficult matter, both ethically and surgically. Secondly, the surgical difficulties are such that a termination cannot be performed in Jersey beyond, as I understand it, 12 weeks. All such terminations have to be performed in the United Kingdom. The reason for that is that the expertise for this kind of surgical procedure cannot be sustained by a practitioner based in Jersey, because the numbers are not sufficient to enable that expertise to be

sustained. Any termination over 12 weeks, therefore - I have this from one of the consultants at the General Hospital - is performed in the United Kingdom. My question to the Assistant Minister, when she attended upon the Scrutiny Panel, was what the point of changing the law, to which the Assistant Minister's answer was: "It is a question of stigma", which is the word that Deputy Tadier used as well. But I am afraid I do not find that particularly persuasive. I must say that in my view of all the emotions that a woman in this situation might experience, the idea that the law in Jersey is different from the law in the United Kingdom, and going to England involves some kind of stigma, seems to me to be not valid.

[10:15]

I think there is a logic to maintaining the period during which a termination can be performed in Jersey at the period which, in practice, it can be done. For that reason, although I support a number of the other changes to the law that are brought about by this Bill, because I do not support the elongation of the period in question to 22 weeks, I am not going to support this proposition.

5. Deputy L.V. Feltham of St. Helier Central :

I did want to give the Assembly some comfort, as a member of the Women's Political Advisory Group, that all of the considerations made by the Assistant Minister were taken and informed by the views of women. I switched my light on after Deputy Tadier 's speech because he was suggesting that it was coming from elsewhere. This is very much something that we took very seriously. The Assistant Minister for Health and Social Services, and I know the previous Government, have been working on this for some time, and consultation has been very important. I did take issue with some of the things that were said by the Connétable of St. Brelade that were questioning the integrity of that consultation. The consultation was robust, and that was despite attempts from off-Island lobby groups seeking to influence what was happening here on this Island. It was really important that that consultation was robust in that way. I wanted to give the Assembly the assurance from my point of view, as a member of that group, that the consultation was good. Obviously this is a matter of conscience, and the Women's Political Advisory Group as well was given very detailed information about the terms of pregnancy, the weeks, the different options that may be available to put into this legislation that is ahead of us today. For me, searching my own conscience, the assessment of viability of life seemed to be the correct point for this piece of legislation. Other people may choose to take a different view. This is absolutely a matter of conscience. I listened carefully to the Constable of St. Saviour yesterday and his view, and we spoke yesterday after the session. I did share with him my view is that, as science change and viability of life changes, we need to be able to adapt our legislation accordingly as well. I wanted to give him my assurance that as a member of the Women's Political Advisory Group we had considered those matters. I would like to thank Deputy Miles for her speech yesterday, which I think was very powerful. I know that people, when they find that they may have a child with a disability, have to know that support is available for them. It is really important that they are able to take decisions in the knowledge that they will be supported by our community. I absolutely back up what she had to say there, and I will do whatever I can in my role to ensure that that support is available. I also wanted to touch on what Deputy Stephenson said about support for the wider family and the need for counselling. I did want to seek assurance from the Assistant Minister for Health and Social Services that there will be support for wider family members, because this of course is not just a decision that is necessarily taken by one person or affects one person. It can affect a broader number of people. I will share a personal story here, because I have visited personally a centre in Australia where terminations did take place, not because of my own situation. I hope that better care is provided now there and will be provided here. My situation was I was in the situation where I had had a miscarriage, and that was the only place where I could get the medication that was required. The similar medication that is used in early stage terminations. Reflecting on that visit, what I saw there were lots of different families and people. There was a story to each of those situations. What is really important to me about this legislation is that this is modernising legislation. It is about reducing stigma. It is about ensuring that people get the right

level of care as early on in their pregnancy as possible, that they get the right medication and access to right medical treatment and, as I said, counselling. There is a family and there is a person behind each one of these decisions, and I think it is really important that we remember that. I do want to give assurance that, from my perspective, I think we are coming to a good place with this legislation. Again, I want to give Deputy Tadier assurance, this is based on modern legislation. Modern legislation is looking more at viability of life, and I think what we would find is older legislations were the legislations that had the longer period of weeks in them, because as obviously science and facts change we need to move in relation to that. We need to think about the medical professionals involved, as well as the impact on the families. I do urge everybody to support this piece of legislation. It is greatly needed. We need to modernise our outdated termination of pregnancy legislation. It has been informed by women's views, and I think that that is very important.

Deputy M. Tadier :

Would the Minister take a point of clarification, sir? The Bailiff :

Would you take a point of clarification?

Deputy L.V. Feltham :

Yes, Sir.

Deputy M. Tadier :

Will her department be liaising with the Minister for Health and Social Services to make sure that women, especially those who have terminations before the 22 weeks who need to travel, are supported if they do not have the financial means? Would she also encourage the Minister to consider actually bringing doctors over to Jersey to perform terminations so that women do not necessarily have to travel to address those issues about coercion that I spoke about.

Deputy L.V. Feltham :

Yes, I am already in very active conversations with the Assistant Minister. She and I worked very closely to ensure that people not only have access to termination services, but also contraception services as well. Something that we agree on is that access to contraception needs to be improved as well. So yes, absolutely, I would continue in those conversations and provide more practical and immediate help where that is appropriate. With regard to traveling doctors, I think that would be more of a medical, because obviously if it is an early stage termination, what we are talking about is effectively medication. So there is no need to travel off-Island there. I could not give any guarantee around whether it would be a good idea or not to have a doctor travel rather than the person seeking the termination, on the basis that I do not know if we would have the effective equipment or anything like that. But at the very heart of this has to be putting people's well-being first. Therefore, if that was the better thing for us to be doing, the most efficient and effective thing and in the best interests of people, then I would certainly be open to that.

6. Deputy R.J. Ward :

I thank the previous speakers. I think Deputy Stephenson mentioned a few things that are very poignant as well. All of the speakers, particularly the women speakers in this Assembly who have spoken on this topic, and I thank them for that. Deputy Stephenson said that men are involved in this as well. Yes, apart from the obvious, which we will not go into, but yes they are. But there is key point for me as a man which is, I do not understand the experience of carrying a child, I never will. I do not understand fully the experience of having to make that significant decision, and I never will. But what I have to be and what we have to be as men - and I have said this before and I will say it again, I am sure - are allies and supportive in that decision making. Yes, of course, I can have a view. In any relationship, you would discuss and you would talk about the rights and wherewithal, but in the end, it is a woman's right to choose. I enter this debate from that simple position, that this is the

woman's right to choose about her body and her future. I think this law, it does updates and it does do so in the right way. It is important that we do that. We have talked a lot about stigma. I think stigma is very important in our society and I would disagree. Again, my understanding of that experience would be limited because I cannot go through that experience. I cannot go through the experience of being the person who has to make that final decision. But I have to try as much as possible to empathise and understand. That is the important point of this. I will not talk about Article 17 because that is for the Articles in Second Reading. But I will talk about a principle that I have, and that is simple: healthcare should be free at the point of need for everybody. We are wealthy enough as a society to ensure that that can happen if we get our spending right and our taxation system right. I believe that we should be supporting that. Yes, I did bring the proposition to make travel off-Island paid for, and I stick by that because we need to as an Island. It is a cost as an Island. It is important that we provide that support for anyone travelling to have treatment elsewhere because we cannot provide everything on-Island. We need to do so effectively and as sensitively as possible. But we will come back to Article 17. I think you probably know what I would say about it, because I have already asked the question of the Attorney General. I just want to make sure that I make that point. There is an issue as we go forward about modern science and how we need to adapt to greater understanding, greater medical intervention, greater medical care, and understanding of both genetics and in-vitro treatments of developing human beings. So we need to be adaptive. This is the first part of adaptation of this law, which brings it forward from 1967. I would say to Deputy Stephenson to finish off, there is another significant event in 1967. A very significant birth but we will not go into who that was. So I will urge Members to support this proposition. I think it is the right thing to be doing at this time.

7. Deputy M.E. Millar of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity :

I just want to address one of the comments that Deputy Tadier made, hopefully to assist the Assistant Minister. I hope she does not think I am standing on her toes but I am sure what I am going to say is correct. Deputy Tadier was critical of the fact that, at the moment in Jersey, we do not have the specialists who can offer a late-stage termination. Again, this is in the realms of council perfection. Yes, it would be wonderful to have specialists who can do everything on the Island but we simply cannot do that. It is not just a question of money because a medical specialist becomes a specialist by doing the procedure day in and day out and continuing to do the procedure day in and day out. The last thing anybody would want would be to go under an anaesthetic and for the surgeon to get halfway through the procedure and then think: "Oh, I have forgotten what to do with this bit" or: "I am not familiar with that" and: "Oh, I have not seen one looking at that before" and then to rush and look at Google to find out what to do next. Even if we did recruit a specialist who could do late-stage termination of pregnancy, these will - I am sure we all hope - be very rare occurrences. If someone came here in January and if they are not called on to do the procedure by December, they are no longer a specialist. Medical treatments are you can only rely on muscle memory so far. People have to be doing these treatments all the time to maintain their C.P.D. (continuing professional development) and maintain their skills. Late-stage termination is a highly technical this is from the discussions we had at the women's health steering group.

[10:30]

Late-stage termination is incredibly risky for the woman. It is a very difficult thing. It is not the same as a c-section, so it has to be done by a specialist. The Minister for Social Security has already said that they will work to make sure if there are vulnerable women who need to be helped to get away from the Island to have a very late-stage termination, that support will be provided to them by whichever agencies may have to be involved. It is not something that we can ever realistically promise to have a specialist on call. I agree with Deputy Tadier , there could well be times where we could bring specialists to the Island for periods of time. Whether you can do that on-call, I do not know. But recruiting specialists is a challenging area because we just do not have the bodies and the frequency of procedure for people to maintain specialism. I had not been going to speak apart from

making that observation, but I spoke with a friend on the weekend about this. I am told that the availability of termination of pregnancy on a legal basis really can be a critical factor for women's health across the board. The example that I was given is that there are parts of America where termination is very much more restricted. Where doctors are refusing to treat pregnant women for other conditions including cancer, including where those cancers will become terminal if not treated. Even if the woman and her partner want that treatment, they will not provide it because they are frightened that it will induce a termination, it will induce loss of the pregnancy, and that they will then be criminalised for inducing abortion. That is a dreadful state of affairs. It is important that termination is available not just for the reasons of a termination but for women's health more generally. I just ask people to fight on that.

8. Deputy J. Renouf of St. Brelade :

I had not planned to speak on this. We have had some truly excellent speeches, particularly from Deputy Miles and Deputy Stephenson , which probably confirmed me in that decision. However, I was moved to stand because of the comments made by my fellow member of the Health and Social Security Panel. In particular, Deputy Bailhache 's view that the question of stigma is - I think I have got the phrase he used right - not valid. All I would say about that is I think I would prefer to take a woman's view about the question of whether stigma is a valid argument in this circumstance. I would also add that it was pretty clear from my recollection of the reports that the stigma facing women it is not just the question of the stigma facing women, it is the difficulties facing medical professionals who have to help women achieve termination in the U.K., when it is outside Jersey's legal limits. Those questions were legitimately raised. So I think on both those grounds, I would gently disagree with Deputy Bailhache and say that stigma is an issue. I think that reason for changing the law is therefore valid. I do agree there are significant tensions within the law, and I think the Assistant Minister acknowledges this. The most significant tension for me is around the lack of provision in Jersey and the need for women or families to pay for an abortion because they have to travel to the U.K. I accept that we will not provide in the Island in the foreseeable future the kind of specialised service. But it is a cost barrier, potentially, and that is troubling. It does mean that important decisions about health are being made partly in the shadow of a financial dimension, although I accept that there are hardship grounds available. Therefore, in the most extreme cases, hopefully that will not be a problem. But it is troubling that decisions on this issue will be partly determined by money. However, I do accept there is a pragmatic element here. It does make me wonder though, when we consider all of these questions that have been in this debate, how these laws would have been framed right from the beginning if it were men who got pregnant. We might think that they might have been designed in a different way. But overall, I think this law is a pragmatic response to the situation in which we find ourselves in terms of the limitations of what can be provided in Island, limitations within the Health budget. The issue raised by Deputy Stephenson concerning potential carve-outs beyond 22 weeks in situations of foetal abnormality scans should be looked at in the future. But in the meantime, the principles of this law are a welcome update and therefore I will be supporting them.

9. Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence :

I would just like to refer a question to the Attorney General please. We have not heard much mentioned about the rights of the unborn child, the rights of the foetus. On page 22 of the draft law, in the appendix to the report, we are given notes from the Law Officers' Department and we are told that they are for the information of States Members and should not be taken as legal advice. But it does refer to Article 2 of the E.C.H.R. (European Convention on Human Rights), the right to life. The Convention states: "Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally, saving the execution of a sentence of the court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law." It then goes on to refer to some cases that have been considered by the E.C.H.R. One in France where the decision was that the unborn child is not regarded as a person directly protected by Article 2 of the convention. That if the unborn do have a

right to life, it is implicitly limited by the mother's rights and interests. I think really that has been the overriding theme during the speeches that we have heard over the past day and this morning. We are really considering the mother's rights and interests. What I would like to know from the Attorney General - and I note that actually he did comment on this for the Law Officers when he was S.G. (Solicitor General) - there is another reference made to an application in the United Kingdom where someone was concerned that her ex-partner withdrew his consent to the storage and use of jointly- created embryos. In that instance, the court found that under English law, an embryo did not have independent rights or interests and could not claim or have claimed on its behalf a right to life under Article 2 of the E.C.H.R. We then read in Article 6 or number 6 of this advice to us: "It follows from the principles above that the draft law does not give rise to issues of compatibility with Article 2 of the E.C.H.R." What I want to have from the Attorney General is legal advice. which we read this is not legal advice, it is information for States Members. So is the legal advice to States Members that the foetus does not have any rights? I am asking this for certainty, so that is my question to the Attorney General. Does the foetus have any rights?

The Attorney General:

The question arises within the context of the European Convention on Human Rights. The ultimate arbiter of what that convention means is the European Court of Human Rights. The guidance that is set out in the report I am happy to adopt and repeat as legal advice to the Assembly because it accurately sets out the position that the arbiter of the Convention on Human Rights has thus far taken and that, therefore, reflects the position for the purposes of this debate. The Article 2 right, and perhaps I should just clarify; I think when I previously commented on competing rights it was in the context of assisted dying where a person is, as it were, living outside the womb. But the approach that the European Court of Human Rights has taken, and it is set out in the guidance, is this, that in the absence of any European consensus on the scientific and legal definition of the beginning of life it is within the margin of appreciation that States enjoy to determine the extent of protection accorded to the right to life of an unborn child under national law. So, that is the position as far as the European Convention is concerned. It is a legal issue. It is, of course, different from an ethical and moral issue about the right to life.

10. Deputy D.J. Warr of St. Helier South :

I just rise to say just a very small piece in all of this. It is around shared responsibility for pregnancy. Because both partners participated in conception, I do believe that men do have a moral stake in decisions about continuing or ending a pregnancy. The concept of shared moral responsibility in relationships needs to be recognised. I was pleased to hear the Minister for Social Security reference this in her speech, recognising that important family decisions should ideally be joint ones. In my opinion, there is a moral argument that excluding men entirely risks undermining the emotional significance of the decision for them, especially if they desire parenthood. The idea that men can experience grief or loss when a pregnancy ends is real. I would therefore like to see reference to counselling for partners, something not currently referenced in the law, thank you.

Deputy M. Tadier :

Sir, would the Member take a point of clarification? The Bailiff :

Would you accept a point of clarification?

Deputy D.J. Warr :

Not really, Sir.

11. Deputy T.J.A. Binet of St. Saviour :

I certainly was going to make a point of not speaking at all here but I was a little bit concerned by some of the things that were mentioned by Deputy Tadier , and I just wanted to stand up to assure Members that my Assistant Minister has been put under no pressure from me whatsoever on any of this. Basically, I view this as territory for women to deal with and, as I say, I have kept a distance though I have kept myself informed, and I was very grateful to Deputy Millar for clarifying some extremely important points about the complexities that are involved in finding clinicians that are (a) suitably qualified, and (b) actually prepared to carryout terminations after 12 weeks because having spoken to the lead clinician in the Island and knowing a little bit more about exactly what is involved it is not an easy business at all, and I think Deputy Tadier would perhaps do well to be informing himself of some of those difficulties. I also took some exception to what Deputy Bailhache said and I think that was very well covered by it has been covered and I am very happy with that. I would like, to if I can before I finish, thank my Assistant Minister for all the good work that she has done.

12. Deputy K.M. Wilson of St. Clement :

I will not take much longer given some of the points have already been made by previous speakers but clearly also want to acknowledge my thanks to the Assistant Minister for bringing the legislation forward in its current form. This is a very sensitive piece of legislation and I do not believe there is any legislature anywhere in the world that does not face controversy of some kind when debating this.

[10:45]

But I come to this as someone who has been responsible for delivering and providing women's health services  that  did  include  termination  of  pregnancy  services,  which  were  freely  available  and responsive to need, and so I want to bring some of that experience to how legislation in this area impacts upon those who are affected by it. One of the parts of the legislation that I looked at is in relation to consent, the matter of consent in under 16 year-olds and where best interest and parental consent feature. I just would like some further clarification, if I may ask for how the current proposals will address the very difficult issue of trying to respond to somebody as young as 11 when in this situation, and I have been in that situation where there has been an 11 year-old unable to really comprehend the enormity of what is involved and what is happening to them, and more so, what it would mean for the rest of their life. That is very different to engaging in a discussion about consent with a 16 year-old who has been fully informed and knowledgeable of the decisions that they wish to make. That said, I fully support the autonomy of young people, but I would like to ask whether the Minister thinks that the law has gone far enough in protecting and upholding the rights of the child at such a young age in this and whether there are any other further safeguarding issues that we do need to consider here? Particularly, for those children who do not have parents who can provide any parental consent or who are under the care of others. I broadly support removing the outdated requirements, and I accept it is not an issue to resolve around the precise limits and the criteria that have been used for the dates at which a termination can take place. But I would argue that it is not only, as Deputy Tadier has pointed out, a women's right issue to choose, but how and in what way she makes that choice. There are so many other issues that inform this decision, and when it comes to later pregnancies, in particular, there are serious clinical issues to consider that affect both the well- being of the woman and the foetus and the choice that follows thereafter. That brings me to the issue around the workforce because I am concerned that we are, or it seems to be that we are designing a law around the availability of the clinicians we have now. I do want to seek some clarification from the Assistant Minister as to whether or not the law is written in a way that would allow anybody to come to practise termination of pregnancy, particularly for women in the later stages of pregnancy, because I think we should be thinking about that in the future as to what kind of service we want to provide to women in this position that prevents them from having to go off-Island. I also accept all of the clinical arguments around the safety and the practice, but I do think that that is not particularly a reason why we should not create the conditions in the law to enable later termination of pregnancy to happen on the Island. I also want to tackle the issue of people have mentioned reducing the stigma of the termination of pregnancy, and I think this is a very interesting choice of language that we continue to use. The concept of stigma was developed by a sociologist called Erving Goffman in

the 1960s and he defined stigma as a socially constructed mark of disgrace that reduces a person from a whole and usual person to a tainted and discounted one. I just want to leave Members with that thought because I think the principle of the idea that we are talking about termination of pregnancy as a law to address the stigma associated of it, I think I would like to see whether there was room in the law, in the principles, to talk about this in terms of a traumatic healthcare event. It is a healthcare need, it is a healthcare issue, and I think when we start to change the language around this then I think we start to address some of the concerns and some of the lack of understanding that people have about the reasons why women seek termination. I also think that the law at the moment as it is written does provide for dignity, confidentiality and respect, but I would ask if the Assistant Minister could address that point in terms of the traumatic elements of this, rather than the stigma elements of this, so that we can start to move away from the notion that termination of pregnancy is a mark of disgrace. So, I welcome the law coming forward and the Scrutiny Panel's work on it but I think, like others have expressed, I cannot help feel, through the commentary from the Scrutiny Panel in particular, that we have just about managed to squeeze through the threshold for changes that women were seeking. For me, the key is to the effective implementation and operation of the law and how it will be achieved. It will be important to make sure that the clinical pathways and access to service issues are addressed and I certainly look forward to seeing this going forward.

The Bailiff :

Does anyone else wish to speak on the principles? No one else wishes to speak, I call upon the Assistant Minister to reply.

13. Deputy A. Howell of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity :

I would like to thank the Assembly for its respectful consideration of this complex and sensitive subject. I would like to thank all those who have worked so hard to bring this Draft Termination of Pregnancy Law to the States for debate, and I thank all those Islanders who took part in not one, but 2 consultations. I do not intend to respond to everything that has been said, but I would like to address the following. In response to Constable Lewis , while hearing his concerns about the 22-week gestation limit there are many other jurisdictions, including the U.K. that permit terminations up to 24 weeks. The 22-week limit has been very carefully considered by many of us for very many hours, in fact years I think, and decided upon. I believe there are examples of babies born just after 22 weeks who have survived, but the proposed law is providing for termination on any grounds before 22 weeks. In 2023 92 per cent of terminations in Jersey were early terminations. They took place under 10 weeks' gestation, and that is what we would really encourage any women in this position to do, to go early. Data suggests that the number of these later stage terminations will be extremely small. In answer to Deputy Doublet 's question about the counselling service, I can confirm that anyone requesting a termination is informed about counselling before they proceed and they can access the service whenever they need to, before and after, and I take on board the fact that there is a partner, and if they are affected that we will provide support for them as well because I do understand that it is their grief. But I think ultimately it is a woman's decision. Termination continues to be a paid for service in Jersey, and this is just because we are going to be doing work on the contraception on the Island as part of the women's health strategy, and we will look at this. But at the moment I think it would be not a sensible idea to make any changes. I did make some changes when I came into my post and I made exemptions for under-18s, for full-time students, women in income support households, and any woman who has a medically necessary termination, regardless of gestation period, and also anyone whose pregnancy is as a result of sexual assault, incest or rape. In regard to the safety zones around the clinic, it probably could be extended to I.V.F. clinics; but I hope in our Island that we will never need to have a safety zone. I do not want to become like the United States of America. [Approbation] I think we are very fortunate living in an Island that we all respect one another. I am just trying to think whatever else we need to say. We will be closely monitoring and evaluating the service going forward, identifying or removing any ongoing barriers to access and revisiting the issue of extended gestation periods for non-serious abnormalities as identified by

Deputy Jeune . I think the scans perhaps at 20 weeks, perhaps it is something that we need to look at. Perhaps they should be slightly earlier. I am not sure whether that is something that could be done and then there would be more time. I thank Deputy Doublet for her comments about remote access for the termination clinic for women who may be in coercive or abusive relationships but our preference is to see the woman in person for her safety. A woman will be able to contact the clinics directly herself by email or phone and we want all women to know that there is support available to them through F.R.E.E.D.A. (Free From Domestic Abuse) and Dewberry House. In relation to Deputy Miles 's comments, I would say that we all greatly value anyone with a disability on this Island. We all agree that Ellie was an inspiration on Strictly Come Dancing and that we all saw her ability. Jersey is enriched by all who live here. Everyone is unique, precious and valued. I have a wonderful sister- in-law who has severe learning difficulties. Our family love her to bits and we all benefit because of who she is. In adopting this law, we will be bringing forward new provisions that better reflect current societal values, take account of changes in clinical practice and meet the needs of women who are faced with making a difficult decision. For many, if not all, probably the most difficult decision they will have to make. I do not want women to continue to have to cite distress or to have to feel stigmatised, although I understand that is not what Deputy Wilson is saying. She says we should not be saying that. I realise it is a medical .. something that happens and it is very unfortunate. I do not want anyone to fear criminalisation, and I would like to go back to Deputy Wilson 's comments. At the moment, if a child, a young person, has capacity then they can make their own choice, and if they are younger then it will be the person who is in charge of their well-being who will be making the informed decision with them. I think it is a very difficult decision for a young person. So I know from today's debate that some of us hold different views about termination. Indeed, I may be one of them. But it is nevertheless our responsibility to provide a safe, effective, legal framework for terminations and to provide safe, efficient, kind and compassionate care. We know that the Island supports change. Updating Jersey's legislation in this important area for women is necessary and carefully considered. Sir, I commend this draft law to you, and I call for the appel.

The Bailiff :

The appel has been called for. Members are invited to return to their seats. [11:00]

I ask the Greffier to open the voting. If all Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, I ask the Greffier to close the voting.

Deputy K.F. Morel of St. John, St. Lawrence and Trinity : Sir, if I may, it is Deputy Morel .

The Bailiff :

Did you vote in the

Deputy K.F. Morel :

The chat was taking a very long time to come up. I was trying to engage before the closing of the voting. If it is not too late then my vote is pour.

The Bailiff :

Right. The principles have been adopted:

The Bailiff :

Deputy Doublet , do you wish to confirm your panel do not wish to scrutinise the matter further, on her behalf?

Deputy L.M.C. Doublet of St. Saviour (Chair, Health and Social Security Scrutiny Panel): We do not wish to call this in, Sir.

The Bailiff :

Assistant Minister, how do you propose the Articles in Second Reading?

2. Deputy A. Howell of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity :

Please may I take them en bloc, Sir?

The Bailiff :

You may. There will be a separate vote on Article 17, as you have indicated you wish. Are the Articles seconded in Second Reading? [Seconded] Does anyone wish to speak in Second Reading on the Articles?

1. Deputy R.J. Ward of St. Helier Central :

Just on Article 17. After asking the Attorney General, a Minister can set fees at zero and I want to put on record that I do believe that healthcare should be free at point of access for everybody. That is the way in which we have a healthier society and a better society.

2. Deputy I. Gardiner of St. Helier North :

Just to follow up on Deputy Ward , and I also thank Deputy Moore for raising this Article 17, and if the Minister would consider to take a vote on Article 17 separately I would welcome because I truly believe this needs to be free at the point of access.

3. Deputy K.L. Moore of St. Mary , St. Ouen and St. Peter :

This point is important about the fee. The Assistant Minister in her proposition has outlined the charging that she intends to introduce and therefore, especially as she did not refer to it in her summing up, the Assembly is left with no option other than to accept initially the charging system that the Assistant Minister has outlined in her proposition. Unless this Deputy is going to commit to an alternative avenue right now, how can the Assembly vote for Article 17 if they feel that this should be a free service when balanced against other services that are offered for free? I do feel that the Assembly is in a tricky situation here, and it is a very serious point of principle for many of us. So I hope that the Assistant Minister will be able to set out her view and whether she proposes to make any changes to the proposed charging scheme before we vote on Article 17.

4. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet :

Apologies, I did not manage to inform the Assembly that I needed to be away for a medical appointment but I am grateful to be able to join online, and I just wanted to pick up on something that the Assistant Minister gave some clarification that I wanted the certainty around the availability of the counselling and whether that would be available genuinely in short order to people who requested it, so within a few days or a week for those who need that. I also feel that the charging .. I would like to take that separately as well, and if the Minister could respond to another point about the charging. Would she include single parents in this if there were still to be charges; would she exempt single parents and anyone experiencing abuse?

5. Deputy H.L. Jeune of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity :

I also support taking this separately but I was wondering if .. of course, we are talking, and the Attorney General read out Article 17 where it is not just about the fees for the services of termination or related services but about the counselling, and I was just wondering specifically if the Assistant Minister could talk about the proposed .. what she has in mind in regards to charging for counselling services because we have heard of course .. but in the Article 17 it says specifically: "Provide for fees to be charged for termination services, termination-related services or counselling services provided in connection with the termination services." So although I am hearing the Assistant Minister is saying that at the moment they are free, of course in voting for Article 17 it could give the Minister, by order, the ability to charge for counselling services as well is my understanding. I just wanted to get some clarification for that.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

Sir, is it possible to ask a question at this stage? I know I spoke, I missed something out.

The Bailiff :

A question for the Attorney General?

Deputy R.J. Ward :

No, of the Minister.

The Bailiff :

No.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

I thought it was not but I thought I would give it a try. Thank you, Sir.

The Bailiff :

No, you cannot.

Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

Sir, just a point before Deputy Ward finishes his speech

The Bailiff :

He has made his speech already. That was a question he is not going to ask.

Deputy M. Tadier :

Was that a speech though, or a question?

The Bailiff :

He has made his speech already.

Deputy J. Renouf of St. Brelade :

I am not sure if I want to speak but I would like to just clarify something with the Attorney General The Bailiff :

Yes, you may do that.

Deputy J. Renouf :

in relation to his previous point of clarification on this. It is clear what the fee-making power in Article 17 says, but can he clarify if the practical effect of deleting Article 17 would be to effectively make all termination services in the Island free, or would it only apply to late termination services. Can he just clarify what the actual effect of it would be in the broader picture, if you see what I mean?

Mr. M. Jowitt K.C., H.M. Attorney General:

I think I can only advise on the law, not necessarily practical effects, which I think are not matters for me. This is a statutory process so it provides certain powers as part of that process. Those powers do not exist outwith the process because it is a statutory process. Article 17 gives a permissive power to the Minister by order to charge fees for termination services and counselling services in connection with termination services. If that is removed the Minister does not have a power in law to charge because this is the law that sets out how the system works. So that will be the practical effect. If there is a termination service, unless there is a statutory power to charge for it, the Minister will not be able to charge for it.

6. Deputy J. Renouf :

Just for final clarification. There are no other statutory instruments available that might not be sitting in this law that would give the ability for the Minister to charge for this service? I really want to nail the real effect of this.

The Attorney General:

That might take some research because I do not have immediately at my fingertips every piece of medical legislation involved. I think the better answer will be the one I have already given, which is that this sets up a statutory procedure and it is this law that one looks to, to see what fees can be charged or not, and not outwith the ambit of this law. So, I cannot for certain guarantee that answer is the right one, but applying first principles it really ought to be because this law sets it out.

Deputy C.S. Alves of St. Helier Central :

I am just seeking some clarification. Currently there is a charge which is outlined on the gov website as £185. If this is voted against and falls away does that charge automatically also fall away? Basically, what I am asking is what is currently in place to allow this charge to be happening currently, at this very moment?

The Attorney General:

I would have to look at the existing Termination of Pregnancy Law; that might take a while.

6. Deputy J. Renouf :

I think these questions have hinted at a great uncertainty that sits here around the situation where we vote on Article 17. I do not have anything to say about the other Articles, but I do have significant concerns that we might vote against Article 17 without knowing the full implications of doing so. I have enormous sympathy with the as I said in my short speech earlier, I do think there are significant issues of equity raised by the charging of fees for terminations, and I think there is a place to address them. There should be a place to address them. It feels to me that that is a significant budgetary issue. I think it would be interesting if the Minister could address the question of how much the what the financial effects of not charging would be, because clearly it is a paid for service and therefore, if it becomes a non-paid for service, we will effectively be making quite a significant budgetary decision sort of "on the hoof", so to speak, and that does not feel .. I do not feel particularly comfortable with that. So, I am waiting further clarification from the Attorney General, if he is able to provide it, but I do feel like I would be very reluctant to vote against an Article in this law without understanding the full implications, notwithstanding the fact that I do have a lot of sympathy with the principle that there are barriers to equal access implicit in the charging for termination. However that is the current situation, and this debate was not set up as a debate about whether or not we would be removing charges for termination, and I feel uncomfortable that it might extend into that territory without us understanding the full implication.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

May I ask for clarification of the speaker?

The Bailiff :

Are you prepared to give way? Deputy J Renouf :

Yes.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

Is the speaker aware that there were 280 abortions in 2024, each at a cost of £185, if everyone was charged; so therefore £51,800 is the cost for those abortions, though some were not paid?  

The Bailiff :

That is not really a point of clarification. Deputy J Renouf :

No, and I have seen different figures in terms of the travel into the U.K. costs as well that are implied so, as I say, I think we do not really have clear clarification at the moment and, in the absence of clarification from the Ministerial team, is what I would take as being the definitive on that.

Deputy K.F. Morel of St. John, St. Lawrence and Trinity :

If I could ask the Attorney General, in Article 17 the ability for the Minister to apply fees, that is a wide-ranging ability is my understanding, and the Minister himself could choose to apply, for instance, a zero-rated fee for residents of the Island, but apply fees for non-residents, for example. Does Article 17 give the Minister those sorts of powers, those wide-ranging, flexible powers to apply a range of fees and not necessarily just one fee?

The Attorney General:

Yes, it is broadly drafted so that is possible.

7. Deputy M. Tadier :

What we are seeing here is lots of Members standing up trying to find innovative ways to interpret Article 17 to ask the Minister not to charge fees. The simple thing to do is just not to vote for Article 17, then the Minister does not have the ability to charge fees. The Attorney General has already told us that a zero fee cannot be charged across the board, because that would not be a charge. So, we cannot get away from this fact that this is a political choice here that we are making today, and  effectively  the  recommendation  from  the  Scrutiny  Panel  has  been  that  these  charges  - reproductive healthcare - should be free. It is also a party position by the way, I remind my party colleagues who are also Ministers, and that the simple thing to do here is simply to vote against Article 17, then the Minister will not have an ability. Because this Assembly - we get the strange scenario where Deputy Morel is asking a question saying could we charge zero rate for local residents. I did not necessarily know that these terminations are going to be marketed, so to speak, to non-residents. Although, of course, you might then have that very strange situation where somebody who has not been here long enough also needs those services and would be charged, versus there would be an equally emergency need, or whatever other need, and then we are starting to discriminate against women based on how long they have been in Jersey.

[11:15]

I think the simple thing here is simply to vote against Article 17, and that sounds like what a lot of Ministers want to happen anyway. I would ask the Minister to clarify, because Deputy Ward ingeniously got up and stated some figures, so he believes that there are currently 280 terminations that took place in 2024, all at a cost of £185 which, if you do the maths on that, adds up to £51,000. Now if there are other, if those figures are not accurate, it is up to the Minister to tell us, but it seems to me that if we cannot find around about £50,000 or that ballpark figure in an annual budget of over £1 billion, and we are taking women's rights seriously in this Assembly, as I have said during this

week we have been focusing on V.A.W.G., but what about more general women's right? I think £51,000 is less than £1,000 a week, is it not? I do not know what that divides up by 100,000 people living in Jersey. I think that this is a strong message that we can send to the Minister. This should be a free service. The other point I think is counselling is really important. I am really glad to see that the counselling services are required. I did ask a woman who is close to me, I said: "Is that the right thing to be in the law, the way it is worded, is it right that it is worded in that counselling service must be offered to a woman?" I said: "Could that be seen as that the necessity of that, the obligation of that, should it not just be that counselling services are offered rather than required to be made, i.e. there is a leaflet over there if you want some more information?", and she said: "No, it is absolutely right that Government and doctors should be providing the opportunity for counselling if women want it." What that does also mean, of course, is that on the one hand it might mean that they can do the counselling afterwards, but it means that they are able to do it in advance. It also might mean that they talk through the issues which are not just physical health issues, but there might be social and financial issues that they think about, and it might mean that they change their mind one way or the other, and I think that is also valid. I think there is a greater cost here rather than just a financial one. So, I think if all of these services in the round can be taken as being available to women and without any financial barrier, I think that is something that should be worthwhile.

Deputy L.K.F. Stephenson of St. Mary , St. Ouen and St. Peter :

Could I ask a question of the Attorney General? Does the 1997 law include any reference to fees at all, because my reading of it online is that there is nothing there currently, in which case I would like to know how the legal position for charging fees currently, where that stands?

The Attorney General:

I am about to apologise to the Assembly. I do not think the advice I gave earlier was necessarily correct. It is right there is no order-making power to charge fees in the existing law, and there is no Ministerial Order that I can find to charge fees. I understand that fees are charged across our health service as a matter of policy, so I do not think the advice I gave was correct. What Article 17 does is provide the Minister with a power, if he or she wishes it, to set fees for this particular service, but I understand that generally across the health services, as I say, fees are charged as a matter of policy, and it is on the basis of user pays. I apologise for not being clearer about that earlier.

Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Mary , St. Ouen and St. Peter :

Could I just follow on from the advice of the Attorney General, so what that means The Bailiff :

Are you speaking now?

Deputy I.J. Gorst :

No, I am asking a question. What that means is that even if this Article should be voted down, the Minister would have the ability under general policies to charge for the service.

The Attorney General: Yes, I think that is right. Deputy L.K.F. Stephenson :

Could I just add a further clarification, but would it mean that it would send a clear message from this Assembly to the Minister about views?

The Bailiff :

That is a political question, I think. Assistant Minister, you have your light on locked, but you are going to reply at the end, unless you are going to do something unusual?

Deputy A. Howell :

Sorry, Sir, I thought it was about that time now. The Bailiff :

No, well it may be soon, I do not know. Does anyone else want to speak in Second Reading? I call upon the Assistant Minister to reply.

8. Deputy A. Howell :

I would just like to repeat what I said earlier. Termination continues to be a paid for service in Jersey under health policy, but I have made a commitment to review all the contraception services that we offer on the Island for women, and the termination of pregnancy, but I do not think we should be making any of these decisions on the hoof. I do not know what the figures are. I do not know what the implications are. I want the best for women and girls on this Island, but I say we should not be voting separately on Article 17, and I am going to ask for the appel to be called and to call for everything en bloc.

The Bailiff :

Members are entitled to call for a vote on a separate Article. Deputy M. Tadier :

Sir, could I ask for Article 17 to be taken separately please? The Bailiff :

We have already agreed that that will happen. That is the request of Members, so there will be a separate vote on Article 17. The appel has been called for. Members are invited to return to their seats. The first vote will be on Articles 1 to 16 inclusive, and I ask the Greffier to open the voting on Articles 1 to 16. If all Members in the Chamber and remotely have had the opportunity of casting their votes, I ask the Greffier to close the voting. I can announce that Articles 1 to 16 have been adopted:

The Bailiff :

We now move on to a separate vote on Article 17 entitled "Fees orders" and I invite the Greffier to open the voting. If all Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, I ask the Greffier to close the voting. Article 17 has been adopted:

The Bailiff :

We move on to the balance of the Articles, Articles 18 to 24 inclusive. I ask the Greffier to open the voting. If all Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, I ask the Greffier to close the voting. I can announce that the balance of the Articles have been adopted:

The Bailiff :

Assistant Minister, do you propose the matter in Third Reading?

3. Deputy A. Howell :

Yes, Sir.

The Bailiff :

Is the matter seconded in Third Reading? [Seconded] Does anyone wish to speak on the Articles as adopted in Second Reading in Third Reading?

1. Deputy L.M.C. Doublet of St. Saviour :

I just wanted to reiterate my request to the Assistant Minister now that Article 17 has adopted and there will be charges, would she exempt single parents and anyone experiencing any type of abuse from those charges?

2. Deputy A. Howell :

I would like to reply to Deputy Doublet that we will be looking at all the charges for contraception and for termination, and I say that I will do that. But before I call for the appel in Third Reading, I would like to take a moment to thank the Scrutiny Panel for its comments on the draft law. I would also like to extend my particular thanks to the members of the Women's Health Political Advisory Group who have provided their wisdom and advice and supported me in the development of this draft law, and for all the officers who have worked so hard on this for a very long time. I would like to thank you, all of you, my fellow States Members, for your thoughtful and informed contributions. I now call for the appel.

The Bailiff :

The appel has been called for. Members are invited to return to their seats, and I ask the Greffier to open the voting. If all Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, I ask the Greffier to close the voting. I announce that the draft law has been adopted in Third Reading:

3. Agreement between the Government of Jersey and the Government of the Kingdom of Bahrain: Elimination of Double Taxation (Taxes on Income) and Prevention of Tax Evasion/Avoidance (P.17/2026)

The Bailiff :

The next item is the Agreement between the Government of Jersey and the Government of the Kingdom of Bahrain: Elimination of Double Taxation (Taxes on Income) and Prevention of Tax Evasion/Avoidance, lodged by the Minister for External Relations. The main respondent is the chair of the Economic and International Affairs Scrutiny Panel. I ask the Greffier to read the proposition.

The Greffier of the States:

The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion to approve the text of the Agreement between  the  Government  of  Jersey  and  the  Government  of  the  Kingdom  of  Bahrain  for  the Elimination of Double Taxation with Respect to Taxes on Income and the Prevention of Tax Evasion and Avoidance, as set out in Appendix 1 to the accompanying Report.  

3.1   Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Mary, St. Ouen and St. Peter (The Minister for External

Relations):

Before I deal with the substance of the proposition, I would like to state our condolences and support to the Kingdom of Bahrain in the wake of ongoing attacks they have experienced from Iran and its regional proxies, which have caused multiple civilian deaths and casualties. It is an established

process that the Minister seeks the approval of the Assembly prior to taking the steps to bring double taxation agreements into force. This procedure was further codified with approval last month of the Draft Treaties (Jersey) Law, as treaties signed under an entrustment from the U.K., D.T.A.s. (Double Taxation Agreements) are covered under Article 2 of the draft law. D.T.A.s are agreements between 2 jurisdictions that are primarily designed to protect taxpayers against the risk of double taxation of income and provide certainty to tax treatment for their cross-border activities. Widening Jersey's network of bilateral tax agreements for the benefit of Islanders and Island businesses is a key part of the common policy of External Relations, and has been pursued by successive Jersey Governments. Engagement with Jersey's financial and related professional services industry has demonstrated support for Jersey delivering a wider network of D.T.A.s, especially with jurisdictions such as Bahrain,  where  business  flows  are  well-established  and  where  there  is  regular  exchange  of professionals. The Jersey Bahrain D.T.A. is the 16th full D.T.A. Jersey has signed. It builds upon our treaty network in the Gulf, which as has been identified in the ongoing work of the Financial Services  Competitiveness  Programme,  remains  a  vitally  important  region  for  Jersey  from  a commercial perspective.

[11:30]

Bahrain already has D.T.A.s in place with 45 other jurisdictions including the U.K. So, it should also be noted that the completion of a D.T.A. was outlined as an objective in the Government-to- Government  Memorandum  of  Understanding  signed  between  Jersey  and  Bahrain  in  2023. Negotiations over the D.T.A. took place in a co-operative manner and were helped by both Jersey and Bahrain using the O.E.C.D. (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) Model Tax Convention as a basis. The agreement, which Members will have seen annexed to this report, represents a modern and balanced treaty which incorporates updated international standards on tax transparency  and  anti-avoidance  measures,  and  the  ongoing  developments  regarding  the implementation of the O.E.C.D.s Pillar Two framework were also reflected in the negotiation of the text and its accompanying side letter. Under the terms of the D.T.A., Jersey individuals and companies in Bahrain will not suffer from punitive double taxation whereby income can be taxed in full in both the country where the activities take place and in their country of tax residence. These provisions will remove barriers for individuals and businesses operating between the 2 jurisdictions, and encourage greater levels of investment into, from and through Jersey. This, in turn, is anticipated to bring benefits for the Island's financial and wider services sector, with potential to create more businesses and support more jobs in Jersey over the longer term. The conclusion of the D.T.A. comes at an important moment in light of the planned U.K. G.C.C. (Gulf Co-operation Council) Free Trade Agreement in which Jersey hopes to participate. The expected growth of trade and investment under the F.T.A. (Free Trade Agreement) can multiply the benefits of the D.T.A. Taken together, the agreements will reinforce Jersey's value as a conduit for capital flows in the triangle between the U.K. and G.C.C. It is vitally important that Jersey continues to make its business environment as attractive as possible for international businesses, and by expanding the Island's own treaty network, this will help to safeguard our competitive position. Upon receipt of confirmation that Bahrain has completed its equivalent procedures, the agreement will enter into force. We anticipate entry into force to occur before the end of the year, allowing the agreement's provisions to take effect from 1st January 2027. I commend this agreement to the Assembly and I am, of course, grateful to the Scrutiny Panel who have scrutinised myself and my department on this matter and the treaty itself. I propose the treaty to Members.

The Bailiff :

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

1. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

Just briefly and on behalf of the panel, we are grateful to the Minister for having provided briefing materials to this and having engaged in and replying to correspondence. The panel did question the Minister in written correspondence on the rationale for the double taxation agreement with Bahrain

specifically. The Minister stated that engagement with Jersey's financial and related professional services industry has demonstrated support for pursuing a wider network of D.T.A.s, especially with jurisdictions such as Bahrain where business flows are well-established and where there is a regular exchange of personnel. The Minister said that without a double taxation agreement in place, Jersey firms and individuals operating in Bahrain could be subject to punitive double taxation. While the personal and corporate tax regime in Bahrain is relatively low, the D.T.A. does provide additional long-term certainty on this point. The panel did ask, as it often does, about the economic benefits. So, we do see D.T.A.s being passed routinely. When I say "routinely", that does not in any way mean that the tax agreements themselves are in any way easy and without complexity, and indeed not unique in every case, but I think it is important for us to ask what does this bring for our local community and what are the economic benefits of signing up to this D.T.A.? So, the response we got from the Minister was: "While these benefits can be challenging to monitor and measure directly, the D.T.A. will act as an important enabling factor for increased business flows. We have engaged and we believe that there is important commercial activity, and we will continue to monitor the impact of D.T.A.s through industry consultation via Jersey Finance". So, I think it is important, especially when some of these economic benefits are not always visible, that there is some form of K.P.I.s (key performance indicators) in place and that the Minister does give us regular updates when there is evidence of financial benefit to the Island from these. It is perhaps unsurprising that the panel also asks - it is almost like a tick-box exercise that we have with some of these jurisdictions that we do business with - about human rights considerations with regards to the Kingdom of Bahrain. So, the panel did express concerns regarding the state of human rights in Bahrain and sought clarification from the Minister on how this had been considered. The Minister advised that in the Government's view, progress in this area is most effectively advanced through constructive engagement at both political and commercial levels. The Minister confirmed that while in Bahrain he had reaffirmed Jersey's commitment to upholding the rights and freedoms of individuals around the world, with senior U.K. counterparts and the Bahrain Ministers. The Minister further commented that further progress is always possible and that he remains committed to engaging in constructive dialogue with partners, including Bahrain, and on strengthening human rights standards. So, while the panel acknowledges the Minister's response to its questions on this matter, it remains concerned about the state of human rights in Bahrain and believes that this should be monitored closely. We did not really ask whether Bahrain had any concerns about our human rights in Jersey, but that is probably beyond the remit of our panel. In conclusion, having reviewed the agreement and the information provided by  Minister  and  his  department,  the  panel  is  satisfied  that  the  agreement  is  consistent  with international  best  practice  supported  by  appropriate  transparency  provisions  and  aligned  with Jersey's economic interests. The panel is therefore broadly supportive of the agreement.