The EconomistApril 14th 2018 Britain 512 The second effect is on investment.
Since the financial crisis depressed wages,
it has made sense for many firms to rely on
labour rather than capital—ie, to hire a per-
son to do a job instead of buying a robot to
do it. But with labour getting pricier, more
companies seem to be choosing machines
over man. Business investment as a share
ofGDPhas edged up since the end of 2016.
It is now above the average of the past de-
cade. Investment incomputers is booming.
In 2016 purchases of industrial robots rose
for the first time in five years. As Britain’s
capital stock gets more sophisticated,
workers can become more productive.
The country’s banks, which are healthi-
er than they have been in some time, have
helped business investment along. The lat-
est figures show that lending to non-finan-
cial firms is growing at 3% a year, far faster
than in the post-crisisperiod. On the other
side, banks appear less likely than they
were to show forbearance to underper-
forming businesses that have no realistic
chance of paying back loans. The rate of
business failures has been edging up,
points out Paul Hollingsworth of Capital
Economics, a consultancy. That allows cap-
ital to be moved away from unproductive
outfits and towards more productive ones.
Britain still has a long way to go. Its
workers are some 15% less productive than
others in theG7. A particular concern is the
economy’s long tail of slothful firms. Ac-
cording to one calculation, a third of British
businesses have seen no productivity
growth at all this century. If Brexit ends up
causing trade and investment to decline,
productivity is bound to suffer in the long
term. But if the latest trends continue, dou-
ble-manned traffic lights will look increas-
ingly out of place. 7P
EOPLE used to joke, “Welcome to
Guernsey, please put your watch back
50 years,” recalls Tony Lee, who moved to
the island in the 1970s to work as a doctor.
The British crown dependency off the
coast of France, formerly part of the an-
cient duchy of Normandy, is a conservative
place (its politics are characterised by “in-
ertia”, notes one politician). Only in 2015
did all shops gain the right to trade on a
Sunday, for instance, and its narrow lanes
are dotted with churches. All this makes it
an unlikely place forthe trailblazing intro-
duction of a controversial policy.
Nevertheless, in May the island’s par-
liament, the States of Deliberation, will
vote on whether tolegaliseassisted dying.
If its 40 members come down in favour, a
working party would examine issues like
whether to restrict the right to those with
terminal illnesses, and how doctors’ ap-
proval might work, before returning with a
fleshed-out proposal in 18 months. Such a
vote would set Guernsey on the path to be-
coming the first place in the British Isles to
legaliseassisted dying—and,in doing so,
raise thorny constitutional questions.
Politicians on both sides expect the vote
to be close. Gavin St Pier, Guernsey’s chief
minister and the lead signatory of the as-
sisted-dyingrequête, which is similar to a
private member’s bill in Westminster, says
campaigners have learnt from other is-
landers who recently voted in favour of as-
sisted dying—in Hawaii—and are focusing
their message on personal freedom, ratherthan death. #MyCareMyChoice runs the
favoured hashtag.
But the island’s churches remain pow-
erful, and they have been supported by
those farther afield. “Let there be no death
clinics in Guernsey,” declared the Bishop
of Portsmouth in a letter read out on Easter
Sunday. “I appeal to Catholics to mobilise.
Speak out against this proposal. It is never
permissible to do goodby an evil means.”
They are allied with politicians who warn
that introducing assisted dying would clog
up the island’s small bureaucracy. EmilieYerby, a left-leaning deputy, worries about
“a mess of Brexit proportions”.
It would certainly not be easy to lead
the way. The first hurdle is presented by the
medical profession. Doctors in Guernsey
are regulated by the General Medical
Council (GMC), the official British body,
which directs practitioners to follow the
law as it stands, and has not said what it
would do if the law in Guernsey changed.
Some think it might continue to block as-
sisted dying, even if there is a change of
law on the island, in order to stay in line
with the rules of the mainland. In re-
sponse, campaigners point out that the
GMC allows doctors to follow abortion
laws in Northern Ireland that are stricter
than those in the rest of the country.
Either way, the introduction of the right
to die in Guernsey would probably require
legislation in Westminster. England’s law
on suicide, introduced in 1961, makes it ille-
gal to encourage orassist a patient to end
their life, and is rare in being extraterritorial
in effect (so that a citizen who commits a
crime abroad may be charged at home). Mr
St Pier believes that Parliament would
have to pass primary legislation to avoid a
constitutional wrangle, since Guernsey
has the right to govern its domestic affairs.
Assisted-dying campaigners are watching
closely, as such a law would have ramifica-
tions for other parts of Britain with de-
volved powers.
These hurdles give succour to those
campaigning against assisted dying. The
issue—a tricky question for a legislature of
any size, let alone a body of 40, all of
whom are independents—has caused
angst among the island’s 63,000 residents.
But the requête’s proponents make no ex-
cuses. As Hunter Adam, a retired doctor
and former health minister, says: “It’s not
about doctors. It’s not about churchgoers.
It’s about what people want when they are
coming to the end of their lives.” 7Assisted dyingAn island entire of itself
ST PETERPORT
A small crown dependency faces up to a big questionSt Peter Port seeks the keys of the kingdom