Beware ‘in principle’ decisions

WE HAVE a decision on waste – how the cost is split between three charges has been decided.

With the public mood as it was, I was not surprised the States opted for the ‘cheapest’ option, which has the lowest cost per bag of £2.50 with some capital costs from reserves.

Originally a significant part of the current strategy was the ‘polluter pays’ principle whereby those who generate most waste pay the most. The inconsistency of deputies who supported ‘polluter pays’ when the strategy was agreed voting for the non-polluter-pays lowest price per bag option now the costs are known demonstrates the dangers of a decision without details.

Some deputies expressed the view that the fixed annual charge is wrong because it neither relates to the amount of waste created nor a person’s ability to pay. One deputy commented on the apparent unfairness of a person recycling everything and putting out one black bag a month still paying a high annual charge. This is a fair point, but the missing piece of the jigsaw is: who pays for the recycling?

The costs of recycling were at best downplayed during the consultation process, so it’s not surprising that many people still think recycling has a net zero cost. For all recyclates, which are all still a type of waste, the costs exceed the amount received when they are sold. There is a net cost which somebody has to pay. Who and how?

Originally charging for recyclates was included, but that was dropped amid concerns it could dissuade people from recycling, leaving us with a system that was supposed to be ‘polluter pays’-based but where the charges are not borne proportionately by the people who generate the waste.

The result of not having the detail when agreeing something in principle.

UNUSUALLY, I was stopped in a shop by a gentleman who disagreed with comments I made in my previous column .

He challenged my use of the term ‘assisted suicide’, suggesting suicide is where a person who is not dying wants to die, whereas ‘assisted dying’ is where the person has a terminal illness.

Sound reasonable, except that many of the places included in the requete allow assisted dying in non-terminal situations, making the use of ‘assisted suicide’ appropriate.

Most significantly, he suggested that I did not know enough about the subject.

I surprised him by agreeing.

I have spent time researching this subject and probably have a level of knowledge at least equal to the average deputy, which he thought was too little to write a column yet sufficient for deputies to agree to approve changing the law to allow assisted dying.

That lack of knowledge was precisely the point I was making, exemplified by them not even agreeing what ‘assisted dying’ actually means.

Mr Doug Wilson made a comment relating to the Policy & Resources Plan and the prioritisation of policy development, noting that: ‘nobody expects this project to jump the queue’. He is wrong in that suggestion. Assisted dying is not in the P&R Plan, nor the recently released update report. This requete would force the States to progress assisted dying irrespective of what they have planned; it jumps the queue.

If it didn’t jump the queue it would be in the plan and there would be no need for the requete.

At the time of writing, the biggest written contribution to this debate by Deputy St Pier was a page in the press. A contribution playing towards people’s emotions and mainly trying to justify assisted dying by comparison with the legalisation of abortion. Using that logic, because we can drive at 35mph on road A, we should be able to do the same on road B.

Surely each situation needs to be considered on its own merits and its own risks.

Things Deputy St Pier failed to address in his article.

Failing to address these issues prior to the debate may be a political masterstroke. By not recommending anything specific, he has total flexibility during the debate.

During the debate, deputies will express concerns and support. Perhaps one will not like, say the Belgium model, to which a signatory to the requete, perhaps Deputy St Pier in his summing up, could explain that nothing is settled and the review may not recommend the Belgium model, so there is no reason for the deputy not to support the requete. In any case, it can always be blocked when it returns.

Another deputy may say they do like the Belgium model, to which the reply could be that it is possible for it to be chosen so the the deputy should support the requete.

That is what is so politically astute about a proposition to approve changing the law before there are any details of how the law will be changed – because there are no details, there is less to object to so less reason not to support it.

But, fast forward 18 months to the follow-up debate and I expect deputies to be told that they have already approved the change, they had an opportunity to reject the change and so should not do a U-turn.

A proposition to investigate and report – fine, but a proposition to agree to change the law without knowing how it will change, even in principle, is putting the cart before the horse.

The last time the States approved a significant policy without any real details was solid waste – we all know how well that has turned out.

Finally, the Press reported Lord Falconer’s letter to Deputy St Pier downplaying the legal obstacles. Is that the same Lord Falconer who tried and failed to get assisted dying through the UK parliament?