Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am not surprised by the data outlined by Deputy Pearse Doherty and to which Mr. Flannery referred. I was working in the McKinsey Dublin office when this work was done and I have been using those data. Sadly, we are less charitable than we believe. We have our moments. For example, the Irish gave more to the Darfur crisis per capita than any other nation on Earth. This is something of which to be proud. As a percentage of our net income, however, we do not do well. Our corporates are a disgrace. I have worked in philanthropy in the UK and the US. As per the 2009 McKinsey report, our corporates give €1 for every €12 that corporates in the UK give. The private sector in Ireland should be ashamed of itself. I hope that the various ideas presented at this meeting on a national giving campaign will make this obvious. Our corporates benefit from a variety of measures. For example, they enjoy one third less taxation than the rate in the UK. Even benefitting from that, they still only give one 12th what corporations in the UK give.

Sadly, our rich people are some of the meanest rich people in the world. The McKinsey analysis is a wonderful bar chart that shows the number of philanthropies established as a percentage of high net worth individuals of the population. An interesting graph that is not included in this documentation shows some European countries. At the bottom on its own, almost in need of its own scale, is Ireland. Mr. Declan Ryan was generous in funding the One Foundation. Mr. Chuck Feeney was also generous, as were a few others. Our rich people are in their own category of mean. It is not that they are 10% worse than the average. They redefine a new level of mean. A bunch of them do not even stay in the country to pay their taxes.

It would be great if this information got out and we started calling it as it was. We believe that we are a wonderful, gregarious and charitable nation. We are not. We have our moments, but we give less, our corporates give much less after paying much less tax and our rich people are the meanest rich people in Europe. I will not do well for political funding for the next election, but we must call it as it is.

This proposal is a practical solution. I am happy that the various members of the forum have suggested that it does not sit well with them, as it does not sit well with me either. I would prefer it if the people in question lived in Ireland and paid their taxes like everyone else. However, it is what it is.

I will ask a few specific questions. How would the distribution of the funds be prioritised? Let us take scenario C of the proposal. If 40 people participated, we could have investment of $200 million - I presume that is US dollars - in business and charities and extra revenue of $400 million to the Exchequer. That is a huge amount of money.

The proposal is called a job and social cohesion initiative, which sounds good. Selling it would be good politically, as everyone likes jobs, but my understanding is that it would take over from philanthropic money. Straightforward, good, valuable, local job creation is not what the One Foundation, the Ireland Funds or other bodies fund currently. They fund philanthropy and community-based measures. For example, they target disadvantaged youth, recidivism and so forth. As we know from Mr. O'Hara of Ashoka and Ms Casey, they also target social entrepreneurship. Would this initiative replace the philanthropic funding or would some of that funding drift towards straightforward and valuable, but non-philanthropic, non-social cohesion, job creation?