Jersey's Overseas Aid - Christian Aid - Submission - 22 December 2007

Christian Aid

IN JERSEY

SUBMISSION TO CORPORATE SERVICES SCRUTINY PANEL

REVIEW OF JERSEY'S OVERSEAS AID

CONTENTS

1. Introduction
   1. Remarks to the panel
   2. Christian Aid
   3. Christian Aid in Jersey
   4. Note on this submission
2. Observations on the Background to Jersey's Overseas Aid programme
   1. How it started
   2. The humanitarian motive
   3. A model programme?
3. Christian Aid's Response to Review issues b) and c)
   1. The issues:
   2. Christian Aid's official response on these matters
      4. Christian Aid in Jersey's Response to Review issues a) and d)

1. Introduction
2. The background to the 0.7% target
   1. the 0.7% target – its origin and acceptance by other nations
   2. the 0.7% target – and the Millennium Development Goals (MDG's)
3. "Political" questions
   1. Outline
   2. "Jersey did not agree to the 0.7% target – and also Jersey is not a country'"
   3. "How much does Jersey give and how does it compare to other jurisdictions?"
   4. "How do others perceive us?"
   5. "we should not do things just because others think we should"
   6. "government should not spend "our" money on this sort of thing"
   7. "does the public support this (increasing the Overseas Aid budget)?"
   8. In conclusion
4. The moral case for Overseas aid
   1. We are linked to the world and the people in it
   2. The Golden Rule
   3. Days of the Year – what are they saying?
   4. From a Christian perspective . .
   5. Because it is the right thing
5. Conclusion and recommendations

1. INTRODUCTION

1. REMARKS TO THE PANEL

1. My thanks to the panel for undertaking this review and inviting comments from concerned individuals and organisations. The opportunity is much appreciated.
2. This opportunity for dialogue between citizens and government is essential. We are working together to ensure that the wealth of the island economy is spent wisely. This process, insofar as it is about "public expenditure" is not, and should not be seen as, "you" (i.e. the Sates) spending "our" money – I return to this most important point below (see section zzz)

2. CHRISTIAN AID

1.2.1 Christian Aid nationally is the official development agency of 39 British churches. Their mission is as follows:

Christian Aid works in some of the world's poorest communities in more than 50 countries. It works where the need is greatest, regardless of religion, supporting local organisations, which are best placed to understand their communities.

Christian Aid believes in strengthening people to find their own solutions to the problems they face. In a globalised world, it campaigns to change the structures that keep people poor and challenges inequality and injustice.

3. CHRISTIAN AID IN JERSEY

1. Christian Aid in Jersey (CAJ) is a sub-committee of Christians Together in Jersey. We organise each year a house-to-house collection in May in which approximately 350 collectors take part. In most parishes, we reach at or near 100% of island households. We also organise each year Lent Lunches in 16 different venues across the island involving approximately 250 volunteers and thousands of paying customers!
2. The money raised annually climbs steadily, and has now reached £65,000
3. When considering the amount of public support there may be "out there" for increasing the help which Jersey gives to help the world's poor, it may be relevant to note that whilst most if not all the organisers of the Collection and of the Lunches are Christians and see their role within Christian Aid as part of their Christian discipleship, many of our army of volunteer helpers are not. (In the same way, not all of Christian Aid's staff are Christians.)
   4. NOTE ON THIS SUBMISSION

1. I make this submission as immediate past chairman of CAJ, and past chairman of the Jersey Trade Justice Awareness Project which was jointly set up by CAFOD and CA for the Make Poverty History year of 2005. The outline was circulated to the CA committee for comment and approval.
2. You might ask to what extent what I say reflects the views of 600 volunteers and a note on this is in order. Christian Aid's humanitarian ideals – to help those most in need in our world - have moved 30 odd organisers and 600 volunteers to physically do something about it. To give some idea of the commitment to Christian Aid's ideals around half those organisers attended seminars about trade justice held in 2005 as part of the efforts in Jersey to mark the year of MAKE POVERTY HISTORY – and trade justice is not the sexiest of subjects. In addition 200 copies of Christian Aid News are mailed each issue to islanders – I have no idea who they are, due to data protection – but all those people are reading quarter by quarter of Christian Aid's efforts on the ground in the field of development, working with their partner organisations, as well as about Christian Aid's efforts to tackle the causes of poverty. And one

of the causes is the sheer lack of capital to kick-start the process of development and hope. When you

have nothing to spare it is hard to build anything. And conversely, as example after example shows, whether it is in the field of Fairtrade, or micro-credit, or village development, tiny amounts of capital lead to dazzling rates of progress. And that is why I am here today.

2. OBSERVATIONS ON THE BACKGROUND TO JERSEY'S OVERSEAS AID PROGRAMME

I think before commenting on the specific points at issue in this Review of Jersey's Overseas Aid, it will be useful to look briefly at the historical context. What was the initial motivation, how in general does it work, and what have been its effects on the island?

1. HOW IT STARTED

1. When Jersey Overseas Aid started it was a modest programme (extremely modest at the start) of a moderately wealthy island. We were not then a "global player" in the sense that we are now, but we were doing very nicely thank you from our tourism industry and our emerging finance industry. The basis as I understand it ( and I have not looked at the submission from Jean Le Maistre, so my view is similar to that of the "man in the street" and based on what I have "gathered") was humanitarian – this is the right thing to do, to help lift people out of abject poverty. Self-interest, or "how others see us" was not an issue at that time, it was a moral decision.
   2. THE HUMANITARIAN MOTIVE

1. I believe this humanitarian motive struck a deep chord with islanders, partly for all the moral and instinctive reasons which I will come to in section 6 zzz but also and uniquely because of the wartime experience of Jersey shared by many residents either first hand or passed on to us through the efforts of so many to ensure that those years and their significance does not go forgotten.
2. There was real hardship here, real not knowing where tomorrow's supper was coming from'. Real sacrifices having to be made to ensure that family, or destitute and starving slave labourers, could get something, anything at all, to eat. The series of quotations in the pavement at Charing Cross are a moving memorial to this time in our not so distant history. And then towards the end of the War and in the immediate aftermath, the island was helped by Aid in the form of the Vega and the Red Cross parcels, and by debt cancellation from the British government. We were on our uppers, and we received the help we needed.
3. Then as the Overseas Work parties began, contact was created between islanders and poor people around the world. We all know someone who knows someone who has "been there and seen it" at first hand. Their first-hand experience has changed some lives profoundly, but has also contributed to the steady depth of humanitarian feelings in the island, which came to the surface so memorably in the aftermath of the tsunami, but which are in fact there all the time.

3. A MODEL PROGRAMME?

1. The Jersey Overseas Aid programme is held up as a model for others and rightly so. Jersey has no geo-political ambitions, we are not after "the oil" or "the timber" or anything else. We have no vested interests to please. The aid is channelled through reputable NGO's who in general, because they are specialised and expert, are following best practise in what is a complex field where it is relatively easy to make mistakes. I am convinced, from my personal experience of the quality of the partners with whom Christian Aid is privileged to work, that using experienced NGO's as Jersey does enables Jersey to have an effective and excellent value for money aid programme. And of course, it is often said, and rightly, that a pound spent in India or Kenya goes a lot further and achieves far more than it could ever do spent here.

2. So, we are in all these aspects a model for others and we are right to proclaim it as such. We have reason to be proud. And this is a profoundly good thing, when the citizens of a place have something that they can be genuinely and unashamedly be proud about.
   3. CHRISTIAN AID'S RESPONSE TO REVIEW ISSUES B) AND C)

1. ISSUES B) AND C)

These are as follows:

2. the Jersey Overseas Aid Commission's policies and procedures for the distribution of

its grant aid budget, and

3. the methods for measuring the effective utilisation of the Jersey Overseas Aid

Commission's aid budget by recipients

2. CHRISTIAN AID'S OFFICIAL RESPONSE

3.2.1 Christian Aid receives round £100,000 a year in grant aid from the Jersey Overseas Aid programme although the figure varies widely. I approached Christian Aid in London and I copy below their official response to these two issues:

Christian Aid's responses to points (B) and (C) in States of Jersey's Scrutiny Paper

2. Christian Aid has received substantial grants from the States of Jersey going back over 10 years. During that time Christian Aid has received grants for both our emergency and development work. We much appreciate the commission's ongoing commitment to our work and our relationship with the States of Jersey is an important one in the work of Christian Aid.

The Overseas Aid Commission's funding criteria for development grants is clear, concise and broad enough for applicants to meet successfully. The criteria allow us to submit a wide range of proposals from those countries in which we work. The proposal template and submission process is straightforward and we appreciate the opportunity to meet the members of the Overseas Aid Commission to discuss the projects during the meetings in London.

When an emergency happens the States of Jersey is one of the first donors Christian Aid contacts. The process of submitting an emergency grants is simple and Jersey Overseas Aid responds very quickly, which we greatly appreciate. The criteria for emergency grants are clear and concise and allow us to spend the funds where the need is greatest at the time.

3. The States of Jersey reporting requirements for a development grant are for a final narrative and final financial report at the end of each year. The reporting requirements are clear and concise.

4. CHRISTIAN AID IN JERSEY'S RESPONSE TO REVIEW ISSUES A) AND D)

1. INTRODUCTION

1. THE ISSUES

a) the States' policy for upgrading the Island's Overseas Aid budget in line with Gross

National Income (GNI ) and

d) the Island's Overseas Aid contributions in comparison with other jurisdictions I will take these two issues together in all that follows.

2. IMPORTANT NOTE

4.1.2.1 Christian Aid as a UK based charity operating internationally has no view whatsoever on these issues, recognising Jersey's independence in this matter. These comments about the Jersey Overseas Aid programme are the responsibility of the Christian Aid committee in Jersey.

3. OUTLINE

1. In writing what follows I feel constantly pulled towards stating the moral arguments for giving more aid. This is because this is what it is really all about. Will we help or won't we? But I feel it makes things easier to follow if I first look at the context around the target of 0.7% and then address the "political" or "tactical" issues which are often raised:
   2. THE BACKGROUND TO THE 0.7% TARGET

• the 0.7% target – its origin and acceptance by other nations

• the 0.7% target and the Millennium Development Goals (MDG's)

1. the 0.7% target – its origin and acceptance by other nations

1. The call to rich countries to spend 0.7% of their income on overseas aid to help poor countries to escape from poverty is 35 years old. The faint trail leads to Lester Pearson, the then Prime Minister of Canada who first proposed it, as part of a programme to tackle poverty, at the OECD in the late sixties, suggesting that all the rich countries should reach the target by 1975! Precise details as to when and exactly how it was endorsed by the UN are hard to find on the Internet. And yet it is referred to constantly in documents about aid and poverty. The many arguments surrounding it notwithstanding[1], about how it is measured, about tied aid,

military aid, about aid for political and not humanitarian reasons, and about poorly conceived aid, the 0.7% target has achieved iconic (that word again!) status.

2. As the benchmark, it has been re-endorsed as part of the "Monterey zzz consensus" in 2002, and it was again the measuring stick at the 2005 G8 Summit at Gleneagles hosted by Tony Blair. As a result of the whole question of global poverty having been moved up the global agenda by the Make Poverty History movement in this country and its global partners across the world, and as a result of continuing pressure arising from the perceived need to seriously attempt to achieve the UN's Millennium Development Goals (MDG's) many countries have set dates for reaching the target.
3. As the advert placed in the JEP{ to mark World Poverty Day 2006) stated: "Fifteen EU member states have pledged to spend 0.7% of GNI (Gross National Income) on Overseas Development Aid. Denmark, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Norway and Sweden have already reached or exceeded this target. Ireland has made a commitment to fulfil the target by 2007, Belgium by 2010, France and Spain by 2012, the UK by 2013, and Germany by 2015. In total this amounts to 0.56 per cent of EU GNI by 2010.

2. the 0.7% target – and the Millennium Development Goals (MDG's)

1. In the words of the UN website, "The eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) – which range from halving extreme poverty to halting the spread of HIV/AIDS and providing universal primary education, all by the target date of 2015 – form a blueprint agreed to by all

the world's countries and all the world's leading development institutions. They have galvanized

unprecedented efforts to meet the needs of the world's poorest" The goals are set out in a little more detail in Appendix 1 to this submission.

2. The MDG's were adopted at the UN Special General Assembly in 2000. They set targets in key areas of human development to be reached by 2015 and progress is monitored annually. The 2006 monitoring report shows that while some targets will be tough indeed to attain, none are unachievable if the will is there, and that in some areas major progress is being made. For example, women are gaining massively in political representation, which in turn has profound implications for the achievement of other goals relating to the welfare of women and children. In just four years the supply of treated mosquito nets to Sub-Saharan Africa has increased tenfold. Between 1990 and 2004 sanitation coverage in the developing world has increased from 35 % to 50%. This meant that 1.2 million people gained access to sanitation during this period.
3. The raising of ODA flows to 0.7% by all rich countries, and sooner rather than later, is one vital part of the package to achieve the MDG's. And when you think that the goal number one is to halve abject poverty by 2015, and not even eradicate it, it can be seen that the goals are really modest and not draconian. But these are what the whole world is lining up behind. Here is part of the closing declaration of the 2005 Special Assembly for progressing the MDG's:

"We, Heads of State and Government. . . reaffirm that our common funda- mental values, including freedom, equality, solidarity, tolerance, respect

for all human rights, respect for nature and shared responsibility, are essential to international relations. . . We reaffirm our commitment to eradicate poverty and promote sustained economic growth, sustainable development and global prosperity for all. . . We strongly reiterate our determination to ensure the timely and full realization of the. . . Millennium Development Goals.

We underline the need for urgent action on all sides, including more ambitious national development strategies and efforts backed by increased international support."

– 2005 World Summit Outcome, United Nations, 16 September 2005

4. The question I feel that this poses for us in Jersey is: do we feel that these goals are something that we too should play our part in achieving? Or do we stand aside?

3. "POLITICAL" QUESTIONS

1. Here is a list of apparently thorny "political" questions or issues: I will deal with each in turn:
   1. "Jersey did not agree to the 0.7% target – and also Jersey is not a country'"
   2. "How much does Jersey give and how does it compare to other jurisdictions?"
   3. "How do others perceive us?"
   4. "we should not do things just because others think we should"
   5. "government should not spend "our" money on this sort of thing"
   6. "does the public support this (increasing the Overseas Aid budget)?"
2. "Jersey did not agree to the 0.7% target – and also Jersey is not a country'"

1. It sounds plausible as an objection, Jersey is not a member of the UN, because we "are not a country" so why should we take any notice of a UN-endorsed target? Here are my comments. Firstly, the UK was a part of the OECD and then UN process which led to the adoption of the 0.7% target and its subsequent re-endorsement at intervals. The UK acts for this island in foreign affairs. And yet we pay no taxes to London to help the UK government to discharge

this obligation. So how will we fulfil our share?

2. Secondly, the very same independence which means that we pay no taxes to London has allowed us to become a fabulously wealthy island. Jersey derives most of its wealth from the Finance Industry. (It was not always thus, it used to be tourism and agriculture, but it is the case now) This industry is entirely dependent on our independence, on our ability to set our own taxes and frame our own laws completely differently to the UK and indeed to all other countries. All the talk of our "international personality" serves to show how important to us this independence now is.
3. This is a very important point as I am sure you can see. In addition, at a the same time aswe benefit from our "independence" from all other bodies and countries, we benefit from all kinds of services provided by the "mother country" – from the availability of higher education in a standardised form with internationally recognised qualifications, to the provision of foreign affairs, security and defence "cover". These hidden and vast benefits point to the 0.7% target being easier for us to achieve than for our parent country, and perhaps therefore also more morally binding rather than less.

3. How much does Jersey give and how does it compare to other jurisdictions?

1. So what is the level of our ODA? And How does it compare? A glance at the graph in Appendix 2 shows how our aid budget compares in amount to that of other countries. A more complete set of countries is shown in the JEP advert of 2005, at Appendix 3. It is clear that we are near the bottom of international donors. It is noteworthy, for example, that the UK gives roughly twice as much in proportion to its Gross National Income (GNI) as Jersey does, even though Jersey is about 70% richer per capita.[2]
2. The information in the above paragraph comes from the DAC – the Development Assistance Committee of the OECD, the world's leading forum for analysing, improving and reporting on official Aid. The amount of Aid given as a proportion of GNI is the comparison which they use, and hence the one which is the world standard. And it does seem an entirely reasonable way to compare, as it relates a country's giving with its ability to pay – the wealth of its inhabitants.
3. Of course there is an issue of the quality of our aid programme, sometimes referred to in order to justify the small amount which as an island we give. Some comments. Firstly, strenuous efforts have been made internationally to improve the quality of aid, and most overseas aid is now untied, and in the form of grants and not loans. So the supposed gap in quality may not be as big as we think it is. Secondly, if our programme is so good, that is an excellent argument for doing more of it and showing others the way forward. And thirdly, according to Brian Coutanche, even if we adjust the donor league table to take credit for quality, in accordance with the research carried out by Action Aid on this topic, we would still only contribute one quarter of the level of countries such as the comparable Luxembourg economy.
   4. How do others perceive us?

1. Now that we are so dependent on our Finance Industry which in turn is an industry more than usually dependent on good name and reputation, perhaps we should take the issue of the level of our overseas aid contribution very seriously. This is no doubt why Jersey's Overseas Aid programme is specifically mentioned in the strategic plan.
2. Perhaps many of our political and civil service colleagues on the various bodies such as the British-Irish Council or in the various negotiations within the OECD and the EU do not know about the level of our ODA contributions. But what if they did? What might they be thinking about us? The fact that it is precisely our independence of action that has brought us such

wealth makes the issue of ODA such a touchstone for how we are perceived. We are in every real

respect a country, our wealth stems from that fact, so we have to act like one. These problems would not be ours if we were a district of Hampshire County Council!

3. I would point to the danger of being seen to be behaving less than in the top drawer in this as in any other aspect. It might be instructive to the Panel if they looked at the reasons other countries have for having an OA programme, how do their governments justify the expenditure and what awareness programmes do they engage in for their citizens?

5. "we should not do things just because others think we should"

1. It smacks of political correctness, doesn't it? And as islanders we are jealous of doing things the way we want to. So any hint of doing things just to conform to some externally imposed view of what is right is seen as unwarranted interference. So the argument runs: giving OA, or more OA, or accepting the international target is merely conforming and therefore it is wrong.
2. But we have to be careful not to throw out the baby with the bath water. I agree that conformity, for its own sake is valueless. You have to be true to yourself. So it is wrong to accept the international target, or to increase our OA in order to conform and Jersey citizens will rightly bridle at this. But to accept the target because it is the right thing to do, and to recognise that its virtue lies precisely in the fact that it is an international target and that if everyone were to play the game then a significant stride would have been taken on the road to eradicating absolute poverty in the world, would be another matter. And to accept that it is in the island's best interests is another way of looking at it that does not imply that we are conforming for the sake of it. Whether for moral reasons, or for expediency, we decide.

.

3. To openly and positively accept the target would show that we accept the responsibility of being a wealthy island and that we want to be counted among the more generous and not among those who bring up the rear.

6. "government should not spend "our" money on Overseas Aid"

1. As I hinted right at the outset (in Para. 1.1.2) in a democracy, the government and the people are two sides of the same coin. The government is elected to do the thinking and deciding on matters which are better dealt with collectively, or to take off our hands the day-to-day decisions and work which we would rather be without, but which have to be done on behalf of us all (like planning applications, for example, or inquiries into bus service contracts!)
2. But this emphatically does not mean that we the citizens want no more part in anything. In a modern democracy, expertise, enthusiasm and ideas reside everywhere. And so when it comes to the spending of the wealth of the community, we rightly want our say. And of course government acknowledges this, and consultation is taken for granted on all major matters. Hence this Review.
3. So what of the notion of "our" money being spent by "them"? I believe this is an unhealthy view, setting up as opposites what should be working together. As soon as you accept the morality and need for taxation, then you have accepted the principle of collective expenditure for the common good. This expenditure will express collective goals: whether it be providing the best education for our children, provision for sport and culture, policing our laws, or . . doing what we can to end the scourge of absolute poverty.
4. In another sense too, the notion of "our" money becoming "States" money is bizarre. Every penny that each of us earns and which ends up in our pockets is entirely dependent on the infrastructure and also the social capital which has been built up over the years and paid for by taxes. If "our" money had not become "States" money, then we would have no money anyway. Without the education, the traffic lights, the sewers, the telecommunications, the

shared values, the sport and leisure facilities, those profits and incomes would for the most part not

exist. The money goes round and round as in a huge cement mixer and some comes out here and some comes out there.

5. So the question is: is it right to support people who have next to nothing to escape from absolute poverty? It is truly a matter of our collective values, a case of whether or not we want to help.

7. "does the public support this (increasing the Overseas Aid budget)?"

1. So, what do you think people are thinking about global poverty? The question of whether there is underlying support for a move to increase ODA, perhaps even to the 0.7% target, is a vital one of practical politics. Because in spite of my image of people and government being two sides of the same coin, the fact is that decisions are still mostly driven from the government, and those who take them like taking them, so they want to stay on the right side of their voters and do not wish to upset them. I believe there are plenty of pointers to suggest that there is now a groundswell in the direction of accepting that poverty has to come to an end, and of accepting that we have to do what it takes, a groundswell stronger than ever before, and particularly in our wealthy, relatively well-educated and well-travelled community
2. Here are some of those pointers:

The phenomenal growth of Fairtrade in Jersey, reflecting an equally impressive growth rate in the UK and throughout the world. (40% year on year I believe) Every FT shopper is choosing to buy products where the grower or worker is guaranteed a proper income for his/her labour and skill. Coupled with that willingness is an awareness that a proper living income is simply not the case for most people.

The small army I referred to above who are willing to give up time and effort to collect for CA year after year

The huge impact of Make Poverty History on public consciousness that global poverty is a scandal and must be ended. A global movement for justice now exists spanning 80 countries. 3 million wristbands saying "Make Poverty History" were sold in the UK. OK, so each wristband does not reflect deep understanding of development issues – but that is not the point when measuring the public's willingness to go along with measures to do just that

– to "Make Poverty History"

The unprecedented response to the tsunami, again here in Jersey, but reflected on the mainland too, proof I believe that something has totally changed.

The particular experience of Jersey people, which I described above in Para. 2.2 – both the occupation years and then the work parties organised as part of JOA programme.

3. And a cautionary note on trying to establish public opinion by polling. It very much depends on how the question is put. You can get the answer you want, whatever that may be, especially in an area of inquiry such as this where immediate self-gain is balanced against other less tangible benefits, like a better world, and where the underlying issues are probably not that well understood.

8. In conclusion

1. I have called these various issues and questions "political". Some of them are objections to increasing the Aid programme. They sound like "strong arguments" and at a crowded parish hall meeting, it is these issues which might tend to dominate debate. But I suspect that they are not the real issues. I also have a feeling having written this, that the arguments themselves are not that strong at all. I would like to know your views. Do they stack up? And are they the real issues?
2. To my mind it is where these arguments come from and what purpose they serve that is

interesting. You can look at this question of Overseas Aid – spending some of our wealth to help

others - in two ways. You can start out from the position: this is all so difficult. People don't want to help. Raising this subject is difficult, and I don't have to anyway. There are so many problems at home. Why spend taxpayers' money by sending it abroad? Or you can start out thinking "Yes!"

3. Then it makes sense in quite another way. How can wenot help those who have nothing? When we have so much? How can we not send money to where it can buy 10 times more things and a hundred times more benefit than here? And it is ridiculous to say that we cannot afford it!
   4. THE MORAL CASE FOR INCREASING OVERSEAS AID

1. OUTLINE

Here are 5 good reasons at least for getting on with it and increasing JOA.

• We are linked to the world and the people in it
• The Golden Rule
• Days of the Year – what are they saying?
• From a Christian perspective . .
• Because it is the right thing

2. We are linked to the world and the people in it

1. It is a truism to say that we are linked to the world in a hundred different ways every day. You only have to take a look at your kitchen appliances, your car or bicycle, your breakfast table, the back or inside of your PC or CD player and reflect a moment on every phase of their construction to see the connections.
2. The world is one interlocking economy. So in some real sense, our wealth and their poverty are two sides of the same coin. We do not need to know, for the purposes of this argument, how the global economy works. The undeniable fact is that the world's economic system delivers great wealth and the good life to some and great poverty and stunted life opportunities to others. (see chart at Appendix 4) And in case you were thinking of becoming romantic about the virtues of the simple life (which there undoubtedly are) just consider for a few seconds the prospect of swapping places, from your position in the wealthiest 10% for someone's place in the poorest 10%.
3. It therefore falls to us to put this right. In a very real sense, our wealth is built on their poverty.

3. The Golden Rule

1. If we the rich were in their shoes and they the abject poor were in ours . . . what would be praying and hoping that they would do? This is the classic definition of justice. It is also the golden rule: "do to others what you would want them to do to you."
2. There is no answer that I can think of to this moral truth. Except to wash your hands of it, except to say, "I don't care about you"
3. In addition it is not only the golden rule, it is instinctive, so the person who denies its claims denies their own humanity. As a matter of public policy, is this where we want to go?
4. How can I say that it is instinctive? My son teaches in a Liverpool Primary school, not the toughest possible, but they are not saints either, and it is an averagely poor neighbourhood. My daughter was in Uganda at the same time on her gap year, so they linked up the children in the 2 schools. The immediate reaction of Max's kids on hearing from the Ugandan children was: "let's send them some pencils"
5. More scientifically, Professor Winston showed in his TV series on children, a year or two ago, that their sense of fair play is so strong that they will forgo immediate benefits to uphold "fair

play". They know that fair play is vital. Lord Winston pondered over this, surely looking after number

one and taking what you can get is the natural order of things? He explained the finding by reckoning that since our earliest days there has been survival value in fairness and the trust that goes with it. The group whose members play fair with each other will win out over the group whose members do not.

4. Days of the Year – what are they saying?

1. The Queen in her Christmas and Commonwealth day messages speaks usually of generosity, courage, willingness to sacrifice, etc. Why would she do this?
2. On Liberation Day we celebrate the freedom form oppression which that day brought, and we reflect on the need for tolerance in all our dealings and a culture of goodness, lest it ever happen again.
3. On Remembrance Day I personally am deeply moved every year as we stand there and remember the sacrifice which so many made for their fellows. And I pray for the conditions of Peace to come, otherwise we are betraying their memory.
4. When Beatha Uwazaninka, the woman from Rwanda who lost her mother in the genocide, killed by a neighbour, spoke to Hautlieu in November last year, this is what she said: "There are not many people in Jersey, but your voice is important. My message is please stand up to genocide and please let your voice be heard"
5. What are these voices saying to us? What are our values?

5. From a Christian perspective . .

1. In Christian terms there is no place to hide from the Spirit of God (Psalm 139 and elsewhere). There is no escaping the moral imperative. And there is "love thy neighbour" as a guideline. But I would like to share something a bit tougher.
2. I went to a funeral recently. The reading was from Luke 6 20-31, highlighted in her Bible by the woman who had died, a collector for CA and a helper at Lent Lunches.

"happy are you poor, the kingdom of God is yours "happy are you who are hungry now, you will be filled!

And a little later

"But how terrible for you who are full now; you have had your easy life! "How terrible for you laugh now: you will go hungry!"

Maybe Jesus was in an exalted state, we are told that he was, maybe he was speaking a little OTT. Maybe Luke is egging the pudding a bit.

But this thinking does run throughout the Gospels – wealth is dangerous. Wealth does not go with you when you die. Wealth becomes a god. Real riches and wealth are not the same.

This reading was underscored by the life of the person in question. This was how she lived, generous, warm-hearted. She passed those values on to her family too. Are these not the right values – is wealth not there to be shared?

6. Because it is the right thing

4.4.6.1 What carries on, what has lasting value is how others behaved, the example of their life and love. That is what carries on, that is what makes the future. We could always do something

because it is the right thing to do.

5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

1. We recommend that the States adopt in principle the target of allocating 0.7% of Gross National Income to Overseas Aid with a fixed date. 2012 seems to be the EU "average date" We should at the very least match in speed the commitments of the EU States we deal with who have also committed to the target, although we clearly can afford to go quicker.
2. We recommend that a body be set up to examine in detail the mechanisms of how this could be achieved, and how the additional funds would be handled. . It is important to "front-load" the aid if at all possible – a pound now is worth far more than a pound later.
3. And finally a quotation from p.1 of CIDSE Position Paper August 2005 "New Resources for Development" CIDSE is a Catholic umbrella organisation linking Catholic relief agencies from various western countries. It gives a glimpse of how things are stirring out there in the big wide world and how this matter of fresh financial resources to tackle poverty is so vital..

" The MDG undertaking requires substantial resources additional to the UN target of 0.7% of Gross National Income spending on Official Development Assistance (ODA) to be made available for development immediately. According to the Sachs report ODA will need to sharply increase to an amount of $73 billion in 2006 to $135 billion in 2015 if all countries are to meet the goals. This paper addresses some of the proposals to steeply increase

urgently needed resources. At the same time one cannot emphasise enough the need for donors to meet the 0.7 per cent of GNI target endorsed in Monterrey- one of the key recommendations of the Sachs Report. If these commitments had been kept, the current crisis of a lack of resources would not have occurred.

While there are a number of feasible options before donors, doing nothing is not an option. We are at a point in history when the international community has the chance of ending the scandal of millions on our planet living and dying without their basic needs being met because of the paltry amounts of finance made available by the world's richest to the world's poorest."

APPENDIX 1

THE UN MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS (MDG'S)

From UN fact sheet

APPENDIX 2

"AID AS A PERCENTAGE OF GROSS NATIONAL INCOME (GNI) FOR SELECTED DEVELOPED COUNTRIES"

Data from the DAC (Development Assistance Committee) of the OECD

NB I believe there is an error in labelling. Portugal should probably read Belgium!

Aid as a Percentage of GNI (selected countries) 0.8

0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0

EU (2004)UK (2004) EU (2010)EU (2015)

Jersey (2004) Ireland (20F0r4a)nce (2004)

Portugal (2004)

NetherlandLsu x(2e0m0b4o)urg (2004)

APPENDIX 3

"AID AS A PERCENTAGE OF GROSS NATIONAL INCOME (GNI) FOR A RANGE OF DEVELOPED COUNTRIES

Extract from advertisement placed in JEP to mark the year of Make Poverty History, Friday July 1st 2005 (the day before the Live 8 concert and the Edinburgh march)

APPENDIX 4

INEQUALITY IN TODAY'S WORLD

• Source: World Institute for Development Economics Research at the UN University

How household wealth is shared year 2000

100

80

60

the rest 40 the rich

20

0

2000

[1]

The UK government, whilst arguably not committing many of the sins on the list, or committing them less than others, is currently being held severely to account over their apparent policy of using official aid to push inappropriate privatisation on to poor countries in order to benefit British industry. The scrutiny is there, the debate is lively. But all this does not affect the issue of whether there should be a target for Official Development Assistance and whether Jersey should sign up to such a target.

[2]

(source: Jersey Gross Value Added (GVA) and Gross National Income (GNI) – 2005 page 7, States Statistics Unit)