Mr. Frank Flannery:

I wish to offer my sincere thanks and those of my colleagues for the opportunity to come before the committee to discuss what is - both in our opinion and from an objective point of view - an extremely important matter. During this discussion, we will outline some of the reasons why it is important. I will begin by introducing the other people in our delegation.

Ms Loretta Glucksman has come over from the United States today to be here, which indicates her view of the importance of this issue. She is the chair of the American-Ireland Funds and the head of the Ireland Funds worldwide. Ms Caroline Casey is founder of the Kanchi Foundation and also co-founder of Change Nation Ireland, of which the members may have heard. It has been a very strong initiative in the social economy during the past few years. Ms Deirdre Mortell retired a few days ago as chief executive officer of the One Foundation, which has been a huge force, particularly in projects related to social entrepreneurship but also in terms of social issues in Ireland. It has been very influential, including in areas such as children's rights and human rights generally. Mr. Paul O'Hara is a European director of Ashoka, which is another of the modern international social driver forces around social entrepreneurship, the social economy and objects to promote social cohesion. He is also co-founder of Change Nation. That puts in context of the background of the members of the delegation. When it comes to the questioning the real experts here are my colleagues rather than myself. My background has been in not-for-profit world and I know that extremely well, but I am not as knowledgeable about the philanthropic or fund-raising world. I am learning about that since I was asked to chair the Government's Forum on Philanthropy and Fundraising.

We represent civil society. We believe the not-for-profit sector is an undervalued part of the Irish economy. It employes approximately 102,000 people, which is more than the ICT and pharmaceutical industries combined. That gives members an idea of the scale of its impact. We also believe it is a very good place to invest money because expenditure in this sector is closed; there is virtually no leakage out. The employment it gives is local and the goods and services purchased are local. It has a really good, positive benefit. It has never historically had the benefit of an IDA-type or Enterprise Ireland-type of initiative or any of that type of official backing. It has always hung on as a adjunct to social service activities, Department of Health activities and so on. It has never been promoted but yet it has developed a great internal rigour, strength, lasting "stick-at-ability" and long-lasting, very solid activity. The type of employment it gives is not all highly specialised jobs; rather, it is ordinary people who are employed in this sector. It contributes very much to an aspect of Irish social development, which sometimes, in the rush for hi-tech this and hi-tech that, might be forgotten.

The political establishment has always been a good friend to our sector. I know that from my own life because I worked with governments of every political persuasion and I know that all the major political parties in Ireland have a very good feeling for the types of the organisation and social principle we represent.

The best Taoiseach in terms of the world of disability, which was the area of my major life's work, and the man who took the greatest interest in it, brought in a national disability strategy and the Disability Act was the former leader of Fianna Fáil and former Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern. If I was to pick who did most as a political leader for the disability area, I would objectively have to say he was the person, in my opinion, who did the most. The Sinn Féin Party, which is newer as a major force in our politics, would have a good feel for our sector in the way that it contributed to the work behind the peace process and developing conflict resolution and cohesion in communities. Through its meetings of what used to be Co-operation North, later Co-operation Ireland, the Glencree Reconciliation Centre and all the more modern and recent activities across the island, including throughout Northern Ireland, it has helped to develop, underpin and provide the foundation for the peace process.

The current Government has made some good moves which we greatly welcome. One is the appointment of the Minister of State, Deputy Seán Sherlock, with special responsibility for innovation, enterprise and jobs within two Departments and in that respect he has a special responsibility for the social economy and its development. That at least recognises the existence of this piece of our social map, which we welcome. The Forum on Philanthropy and Fundraising was set up by the previous Government, and a former Minister Pat Carey, who many of us know and fondly remember, made a particular contribution to it. The current Minister has given it a very good push forward and we have got to the stage of having a report published and agreed at Cabinet level. Now we are in the business of trying to implement a number of recommendations of that report, of which there are four. That is the stage we are at now. As well as identifying the strength, importance and the strategic value of the not-for-profit sector in our economy, the report also identified the growing crisis within it in terms of the financial resources to underpin it. Consequently, it recommends that we find ways to increase fund-raising from an average of €500 million to €800 million in a few years time. That, by any standards, is a challenging target in the current economic circumstances.

One of the reasons we are here is that there is a concept of a cliff in terms of philanthropic funds in Ireland. I know that is a bit clichéd but there is undoubtedly a cliff. The two major philanthropic funds in Ireland are closing down virtually at the same time which has never happened in any country. Atlantic Philanthropies - which members know and of which they will have had experience, in terms of the projects it undertook brilliantly throughout all of Ireland in our educational sector and in all other aspects of our society, including social change and human rights, in a much deeper way than people think - is closing down. The last grants are going out in 2013-2014 and then it will wind down. The One Foundation, which has expended more than €80 million in Ireland during the past ten years is also closing down this year. We are reaching a situation in which €50 million to €60 million per annum is being pulled; these are resources that are supporting 80 or more organisations all over Ireland. A great deal of this work has been done quietly and it is only when it happens that we will know the full extent of it.

One of the suggestions the forum made was that, as well as running a campaign to increase the overall giving, we should develop the educational capacity and professional integrity of fund-raisers on the grounds that one will not get good giving unless one has got good asking. It was also suggested we make sure the Charities Act, which has been on the stocks for some years, is implemented - that is something this sector wants to ensure is done, and we do know why it has not happened yet - and that all other aspects to do with the whole area of regulation and accountability are implemented, which would give a sense of security and integrity for givers to give. We have been also asked to set up a social innovation fund, largely supported by philanthropic funding but with some Government assistance to get it started. That is the fund which will begin the work of replacing the Ireland Funds and the One Foundation. At least it will be a start, and we hope it will be a significant start and not the only one in that it will inspire other similar activities to come into the system in order that we can have the beginnings of a new generation of trusts and foundations giving grants, which can pick up where the others are leaving off. Otherwise we are just looking at a black hole.

That would have a very depressing impact on a huge range of areas in our society.

That is the background to this discussion. What we are doing in our Giving Campaign is asking everybody in Ireland to give 1% of their time or money to a cause they believe in. In other words, we are promoting the concept of giving - that everybody does whatever they can. We want that principle to apply not just to the citizenry of Ireland but to the corporate life of Ireland. In other words, we want every company to give 1% of its profits to a cause it believes in. We are not dictating how it should be done. Inward investment companies which constitute such a large part of our corporate reality and who carry out magnificent philanthropy within their global corporate structure do not do enough of it in Ireland. Some hardly do it in Ireland at all. If they came up to our minimal standard of 1%, what a difference it would make to the resources behind the social economy and to social cohesion projects of all kinds. That is part of our message. We will have further discussions with the Government as to how that might be further stimulated. It is not included in what we are saying today but it is very much part of our agenda. We want the people of Ireland's time or money. We want corporate Ireland and companies involved in inward foreign investment to get behind this campaign. We notice that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Defence has introduced a scheme to attract foreign nationals who want to invest or set up a business in Ireland. Under the scheme, they can invest €500,000 in a philanthropic project or else put it into a business. That is very interesting. It is slow getting off the ground but we notice that in the past week or so, the Department has revised the terms and made it a bit easier for the inward investor to come in. That is aimed at people from China, Russia, India or Japan who would like to come and we want to attract them to do business in Ireland.

We do not want this campaign to leave anybody out. We feel that everybody should be challenged to come forward and do whatever they can. We were thinking mainly of how we will fund the social innovation fund. Our friends in the Ireland Funds were looking at a jobs generation scheme which they have designed on an Israeli model that has a world purchase to it and which they want to introduce here. It was felt that there was a certain part of our population that could do more. We were thinking of those Irish citizens who are largely living abroad because of the way their tax affairs are organised. Taxes are not a matter for us. We do not make the law. It is for the Government to decide on this matter, but we look at what the reality is. We said there could be extra money here. I am speaking as somebody who is looking to find money to invest in these causes. We made a proposal that people in this category who have the capacity should be asked and challenged to do more. We think many of them will have the capacity by being what they are and where they are. We asked that they be requested to make a donation of €5 million to a cause the Government can nominate and to pay an additional super levy on top of all taxes they pay in Ireland on Irish earnings for ten years and in return, they would get a certain benefit. I am not a tax expert. This benefit would not be fiscal and there no tax element to it. It is just a trade-off of a bit of extra time in Ireland for a contribution of €1 million for ten years to the Irish Exchequer and €5 million to a fund like the social innovation fund or such other objectives the Government might wish to nominate from time to time.

That is a very simple concept. It is very easy to leave this population aside. First, we have a crisis on our hands. Second, when we ask the ordinary people of Ireland, who are doing so much already and who have a well-deserved reputation for being generous givers, to do a bit more, we should not leave anybody out. The people of Ireland may not be planned givers but they are undoubtedly generous givers. We should throw the challenge out there fair and square. If this was to work and one in ten of the people about whom we are talking took this up next year, which would be a small enough take-up, that would create a fund of €200 million for the type of objectives about which I am talking. Over the lifetime of the scheme, it would give the Exchequer €400 million. If perchance 400 of them - there are that many or more of them - became involved one would be talking about creating a fund of €2 billion and an ongoing ten-year income stream of €400 million of completely new money with not one cent of displacement. It is worth thinking about. This kind of money is fresh new money coming into the economy. If one does what the Government has recently done or what is often done, namely, put an extra tax on spending or levy a property tax and take money out of people's pockets and earn €400 million that way, one must bear in mind that had one not taken that money from those people, they would have spent it somewhere else in the economy. That €400 million is not extra. Much of it is displacing income one would have received through purchase taxes, VAT, excise duties or other taxes. This money is objectively worth much more than the money one raises internally because it is external money coming in and is entirely additional and clean.

That is the proposition we are putting to the committee. I thank members for listening to us. I hope we will have plenty of opportunities to add value when answering their questions. I will be relying on my colleagues to do that. I have basically said enough. If anyone wants to ask me any particular questions, I will try and answer them. What we are doing is pretty penal and punitive. My biggest question going around talking to experts and different kinds of people has been whether anybody will pay this. I cannot say with absolute certainty how many or who will pay but various financial advisers have told me that we might get some. All I would say is that if it is made available, we will certainly go out and sell it. We will put up that challenge fair and square to all the people concerned and see what it brings in. We think it could be one part of a solution. It is only one part of a range of proposals we are trying to put together but we think it could be an important one. We think that in principle this segment of our population should not be left out of this challenge to do more.