Ms Deirdre Mortell:

I want to reply to a couple of questions which were not answered previously. On whether anyone has been able to do a risk assessment, I can just speak for One Foundation which is supporting approximately 20 organisations in the current year 20% of which are seriously at risk of closure or are becoming so small that they really can no longer make an impact. Approximately 20% have successfully replaced our money and will be fine and 60% are currently busy cutting back, hopefully in strategic ways that will allow them to grow again very quickly. Cutting back means cutting services and jobs which fundamentally affects the missions the organisations are trying to achieve. That is just a quick and not very representative view but it does give an indication of what is happening. A total of 80% of the 20 organisations are at risk in one way or another.

To return to the broader agenda, we have talked a lot about whether we have the meanest rich people in western Europe, where our corporations stand, whether we give at all and what it all means. We have danced around the issue of whether we have a giving culture and, if we do not, how we can build one. There are short-term issues and long-term issues. We need to build a giving culture and it must have a broad base across the population involving individuals, corporations and others. We have referred to the plan that has been prepared for investment in Irish jobs. We have a plan that is based on international evidence and we have a group of people promoting the plan. Today’s meeting is part of the process of selling it.

We must build a giving culture but that will not happen overnight. Second, we have a short-term problem, due to the need to find €50 million to €60 million in the next 12 months to 18 months. That is why we have come forward with this proposal which might not be popular but if the committee does not like it we would like to know what is plan B. We do not have a plan B. There is a need to focus on the short term and the long term as the short term leads to the long term. We must get to a sustainable level but there is a short-term pot of money that we might be able to get through a short-term measure. I do not think it creates dependence. That is not our goal.

We talked a lot about super-rich people and all the tax forgone. If we could have got the data on the tax forgone, we would have presented it to the committee. We do not know the amount involved, how much money those 400 people make or how much tax they would pay if they did come back home to pay their tax and what the benefit would be. Therefore, we do not really know how much we could get and how much we could deploy for good causes. If the committee could get the data that would be great as it could better help shape our plan. In the meantime it is important that we have taken a shot at what might be the price point. It might be too high or too low. Much of the debate suggests that it might be too low but there is an equal risk that perhaps it is too high. The fact that we do not really know is something the committee must not forget in reaching its conclusions. Perhaps that is why a trial would make sense.

I encourage the committee to give due consideration to the issue. The "Why now?" question is very strong given the recent removal of money from the system. It is important to bear in mind the good that could be done. The first step in that direction is to build a giving culture.