SPEAKER_00 0:37

Hello, you're listening to the Philanthropisms Podcast. This is the podcast where we try to put Blunt B in context. I'm your host, Rodery Davis, and this week I am joined by Rory Brooks. And Rory is a philanthropist, as you will hear during uh the interview. Uh he also does a number of other things, including being on the board of the charity commission for England and Wales. Um, but the reason that I got Rory on the podcast, um, which I could have done many times before now, I think, to talk about his own philanthropy, uh, is to talk about a new project that's just launched called the Giving Record, which uh I've also been involved with and working with Rory on. Um and so actually this takes the form of a conversation where I'm asking Rory some questions, but also I'm giving some of my thoughts as well and input, particularly around the Giving Record. Um as you'll hear, the Giving Record is essentially a new project where we've tried to collect stories about the impact that philanthropy has around the UK, particularly told from the point of view of the organizations and the groups that have benefited from it. So there's a whole range of stories on there, uh, both large and small, all kinds of different cause areas, different places around the UK, that kind of try to bring home what philanthropy actually is, or at least what you know most philanthropy actually is, and the difference that it makes to places and to people's lives. Um, and hopefully they're really readable stories. I think they're hopefully quite inspiring. I certainly found them very inspiring to uh to pull together and to write. And I spoke to loads of great people in the course of doing that. Uh, and the aim is to share these stories, but also even more so to inspire people to share other stories, which we also hope to then collect over time so this grows into a much bigger repository that can sort of help people to understand what philanthropy is in the modern UK, what role it plays, um, and what kind of difference uh it makes. So we talked about all of that and about kind of why Rory uh had got involved and how he and I had worked together and what some of the thinking was. Uh, we also talked about Rory's own philanthropy story, kind of how he had got involved in philanthropy in the first place. Uh, and we talked about how that had developed beyond focusing on uh specific cause areas to focusing on actually encouraging philanthropy itself as a focus of his philanthropy and kind of why he had decided to do that. Um we talked a bit about the form that had taken, particularly the work he's done with the charity commission, but also uh engaging with the government through the philanthropist reference group, uh, and as a result, what his views were on the role that government plays when it comes to building uh the culture of philanthropy and kind of encouraging philanthropy. Um, and then we talked a bit about what the sort of wider context for philanthropy is, how you know it's perceived in the UK, whether people like the word philanthropy, whether they understand it, whether they view it positively. Um so uh yeah, really interesting conversation. It was great to have a chance to talk to Rory, um, great to have a chance to sort of talk about the Giving Record project. Um, as you'll hear in the conversation, I've put links in the show notes to places where you can find out more about that. You can go to the website, you can read uh all of those stories. If you find yourself inspired, please do submit a story of your own and uh hopefully it will end up on there. Um and yeah, without further ado, let's go into the conversation with Rory and I will be back at the end for the usual little bit of housekeeping. Okay, great. Well, I'm here with Rory Brooks. Hi there, Rory. Good morning, Rodri. How are you? I'm very well, thank you. Um, and yeah, great to have you on the podcast. Um it's a bit of an odd one, as I'll I'll probably have explained in the intro, although I haven't recorded that yet, so there's a bit of sort of time travel going on here. But this is a conversation with you about philanthropy and particularly about a project that you're involved in called the Giving Record, but I'm also involved in that, so this is going to be very much a kind of conversation rather than me just grilling you about it. Um I really want to talk to you a bit more about your own kind of background in philanthropy and your approach to it. I think that'd be really interesting. But maybe the best place to start, um, particularly so that we tell people the stuff we want them to hear up front in case they decide to uh switch off after a bit, uh, which I'm definitely sure they won't, um, is yeah, to talk a bit about the giving record. So, what what in your own kind of words is the giving record? How did this project come about and why, you know, why did you get involved in it? Well, thanks, Rodri.

SPEAKER_02 5:05

And it's a great uh privilege and a pleasure to be talking with you on this this morning. I think the the giving record arose from the idea that a lot of philanthropic uh activity has taken place in the UK over a long period of time with a lot of outcomes, and nobody knows much about it. And I think we're broadly the big issue to try and expand philanthropy, have more and better philanthropy in this country and encourage more people to do it. And the lack of storytelling seemed to be quite an obvious gap in helping people make this accessible and easy to do. So the gathering of stories is a complicated business and um takes a bit of time and dedication and resource. So, having realized that I think there was a need for it, I needed to turn to somebody who could best execute that. And that person, of course, Roderick, is you yourself. And so we basically, this is a small piece of philanthropy. Um I think to be honest, without putting words in your mouth, we shared a view about the lack of storytelling. And once we got the uh so I was going to be the donor in a modest way to make this work, and you were going to be the engine room to make it happen. And as we speak today, uh we are just prior to the launch, which is taking place in two or three days' time. So probably by the time this goes out, we're going to have a live and living thing.

SPEAKER_00 6:30

Absolutely. And we'll be able, I'll be able to put a link in the show notes to places where people can see the website, which is the kind of the main output, as it is, for the Giving Record. And there's a collection of stories there, as you say, about the about philanthropy and about the impact of philanthropy. And I guess it's worth saying as well, the idea is that that's a starting point, and that this, you know, our hope is very much that people are inspired by what they see and want to share more stories. Because as you say, the idea is that we know there are all kinds of stories out there about philanthropy, you know, doing all kinds of things around the UK at all kinds of different levels, all sorts of different causes. And we want to try and capture as much of that as possible. Um, and and so, yeah, as we say, it's kind of there's a call to arms to people if they see what we've done to submit their own stories, and obviously there's kind of a way for people to do that as well.

SPEAKER_02 7:19

But what I one of the many things I like about it, and also you, Frankie, you write so well, is the diversity of the stories. So we've got stories from all corners of the United Kingdom. Uh, we've got stories which are deeply structured, deeply planned, uh, we've got some very large gifts, we've got small serendipitous stuff, um, and all of human life is there, and different objects of where the philanthropy is going. So I think there's a great variety in the stories that you've put together. And as you say, we want this to be a place where people can add their stories. And what we're going to launch in a few days is please come and tell us, i.e. you, some more stories that that would be applicable. So we build a giving record that is a live uh document. And we hope, I think the other point we want to make is that um these are now public access documents. So people can use them, take them, copy them, print them, do what they like with them. Um and so if it suits their purposes, so for example, uh philanthropic advisors or banks who want to talk to potential philanthropists and say, listen, we've got an hour a room full of stories here that you can show you a pathway to what good philanthropy looks like.

SPEAKER_00 8:31

Yeah, absolutely. And I think that's one of the things for me as we I went through these conversations that really sort of stuck with me was that sense of showing people actually what philanthropy is. Because again, I think I I mean I heard this from people that I spoke to, and I I guess you hear it all the time. There's this sense that even amongst people doing philanthropy, they often sort of feel, you know, they they kind of downplay it a bit. They're like, oh, it's not really, you know, what I do isn't Bill Gates, it's not, you know, because that's the kind of template that we've been given is that philanthropy is only philanthropy if it occurs at that kind of level and that sort of scale. And then actually, there's this huge body of people doing all kinds of amazing things around the country, both in terms of giving and in terms of the work that it's supporting, you know, at a at often a lower level, although it, you know, some of the stories we've we've captured are pretty significant gifts as well. But it it just sort of goes unrecorded or kind of unremarked. And it, you know, part of the effort is to just bring some of that to light.

SPEAKER_02 9:28

Yeah, I mean, there's there's quite a lot to unpick in what you've you've just said, Rodri, but I run into the issue for, especially for emerging philanthropists, about scale is does it do it does it make a difference? And the answer is yes, all contributions make a difference. And the way I try to phrase this is that scale is relative, but generosity is a constant. Every action from the very small philanthropy and the very small act of generosity to the very large foundations are have a common thread of just trying to make life a little bit better for people. And people should be aware that they're joining a movement of generosity and not worry much about scale. Everybody can make a contribution.

SPEAKER_00 10:12

And and I think as well, I I've sort of thought this in other conversations I've been having, that there obviously people are think about scale because they're they're aware that some of these challenges that they're trying to address are enormous. And so, you know, when they have resources that they want to deploy and they want to have impact, they want to do it at scale from the start. But then the the sort of flip side is actually it's often the things that happen at that more human level that really kind of make sense to us and speak to us as as humans, and that's the thing that first captures people. So I think that balance between doing things that sort of scale in your yellow cleria or that kind of um actually is in contact with individuals and then sort of taking that and developing it into something much bigger is is really important.

SPEAKER_02 10:56

Yes, I I I completely agree with that. And I I think we as a country underestimate the community cohesion effects of small charities and small giving. Uh, they are the sort of bind weed that holds as that holds communities together. And you can get to scale by starting small and working up to something bigger. And uh most people have uh uh a limit to how much they can give, and that's fine. Um and providing that they feel that they're achieving their goals of social transformation or whatever it is they're trying to do. Um, another issue that relates to that is what are of philanthropic what are the benefits philanthropists are entitled to have. And uh there's a there's a very hair shirt view that says it's completely altruistic that you have no benefits from this at all. But speaking for myself and other people who've engaged in this practice, um there is an immense degree of personal satisfaction in having brought some change uh to somebody or something that makes life better. You have immense satisfaction from working with a large number of people who are dedicating themselves to social betterment. And I think that it's very satisfying and riching on a personal, on a personal basis. We still have a problem in a national sense about talking freely about philanthropy. And that comes as back, brings us back to the giving record as a way to make stories popular and to make it more to make the practice more normalized.

SPEAKER_00 12:26

Yeah, absolutely. And I think what you say there about the rewards of of philanthropy, I think often when you say that, immediately people think about not necessarily financial rewards, but the very obvious kind of, you know, it's status burnishing and you get kind of personal benefits in that way. But but actually, I know when I uh did uh the book with Beth Breeze, the um uh Rich Expectations, where we kind of interviewed lots of donors, they would talk a lot about reward, but it was often in the terms that you're talking about. It's actually, you know, personal satisfaction and a sense of doing something, but also that ability to engage with people who are out there just doing all kinds of amazing work to try and make their communities and the world a better place. And and I got a little taste of that, I think, just in doing these stories. You know, it it was the start of the year, so it's sort of January, it's dark and grey and whatever, and there's a lot of bad things happening in the news. And I found, you know, I would go and do these interviews with lots of people running amazing organizations all around the UK doing great work and come away really enthused and sort of optimistic because you're just talking to people who are trying to get on and do things. Um and I think that's you know, that's an important part of the story about philanthropy.

SPEAKER_02 13:33

Yes, I I uh not surprisingly, I agree with that. It's also very energizing. Uh there's I I feel a lot of energy coming off the page from the stories that you've written. And I think I just want to go back to another focus, because we've talked about donors and philanthropists. The way that you've approached these stories, or with which I completely agree, is it's about more about the outcomes, more about the transformations, more about the changes and the benefits that take place to people than about the donors themselves. And uh this gets to quite a complicated relationship that the British have about uh giving and wealth uh uh and the related matters, and there's quite a lot of modesty there. So the pride and satisfaction one can take can be quite private. It's not necessarily a public, a public thing, but um we do need to get more people feel more comfortable that philanthropy, to put it bluntly, is part of the day-to-day conversation.

SPEAKER_00 14:29

Yeah, absolutely. And I was going to touch on that about the fact that in most cases, what we've tried to do with these stories is, as you say, to sort of tell the story of a particular uh charity or a community group or an arts organisation and sort of and why philanthropy has made a difference to them and how, rather than starting from the donor, um, which is often what happens when we tell stories about philanthropy. Um, and I don't think I can particularly take credit for that. I can't quite remember at what point in the genesis of all of this it happened, but definitely it was a conversation between the two of us that we sort of decided at some point, oh, that sounds like a good idea. And and I think I found that it I mean, it really feels like it is the right approach because I I think it it allows you to tell stories, as you say, that have that sort of energy about the people actually doing the work. But also I think it allows for stories in which, you know, occasionally the donors that we talk about are not named. You know, the the story of their gift is being told and the difference it's made, but they don't actually want that to be uh kind of made public for whatever reason. It might be, you know, religious faith, it might just be that they kind of are very per you know, private and and personal. And then in other cases the donors are very much part of the story and sort of happy to be so. So I think it's kind of good that it allows to tell those different types of stories as well.

SPEAKER_02 15:46

Yes, I uh and if if if I may, I think this um moves the subject on to philanthropists and their sense of mission. And uh it it there are two ways of this. One is somebody has the capacity to be philanthropic, both time and and and money. Um, and he's definitely got a mission. There was something happened in their family that they don't want to happen to other people. It's often personal and painful experience, which they don't want to have inflicted upon others, and they have a, from day one, a strong sense of mission about what they want to achieve. But there are others who say, I'd like to make a contribution, but I don't quite yet know what it is. And I have to say, Elizabeth and I, my wife and I, fell exactly into that camp. And one of the things we're trying to do generally is make philanthropy more accessible, um, less jargon-driven, more um uh easy to do. And I think we're we're making good progress on that. But the finding mission can be quite daunting. Uh, getting good advice is very important, um, being able to talk to people. But the way that we eventually we looked at it was there's a huge um series of opportunities out there, um, helpfully in this country, statutory defined by public benefit tests. And let's go and talk to lots of people in lots of areas and and find out where inspiration lies and what resonates with us. And eventually you come to a place where you go, I can see the intellectual, the the the rigor behind that, I can see the purpose, I can see the mission, I can see the outcome. And the other part of me goes, I feel really great about this. When those two coincide, you found your mission. And it's not that there's no rush, it can take a bit of time. And I will just basically I summarize it by saying, enjoy the journey. Ask a lot of questions. People aren't going to be so frightened to talk to you because they would like to attract your capital. So you will get people being open to you. Uh, but enjoy the journey and then eventually find one or more missions.

SPEAKER_00 17:50

Yeah, absolutely. And I want to talk uh a bit more about your sort of your own background in philanthropy and kind of how you you decided what it was that you wanted to focus on, and and particularly I think some of the bits where you've focused on sort of encouraging philanthropy more broadly as a cause area, which I always think is a really interesting thing for philanthropists to do. Um but just before we do, we've we've sort of touched in a couple of places there on different ways in which you know both you and I hope that the stories we've collected in the given record will, you know, inspire people to do things, whether that's kind of donors to start getting involved, or whether it's you know providing uh advisors with um material that they can use to kind of inform how they talk to their clients. Just to kind of bring all of that together, what what are the kind of key things that you hope that this achieves as this collection hopefully grows over time?

SPEAKER_02 18:37

First of all, I hope the number of stories will expand and over as as time goes by, they will increasingly reflect what society feels is important from time to time. It'll be a barometer of what uh what needs to be done. But I think the overall uh issue, if we go back to the mission of more and better philanthropy, is to make philanthropy less mysterious to people, more accessible, more normal, and um uh um and frankly more expected. So uh we I I I I resile from comparison to the United States, because I just I often get asked, do we want to be more like the United States? My answer is no, I'd like to be more like the UK, but just more and better, please. So uh um I I think that um helping people get to uh mission is the first thing, is is how how do we do this? Getting good advice. And so if you if you discover that you've got some means um and you go to your bank or your banker and say, you're looking after my money, could we please talk about philanthropy? I and they'd say we don't do that, I would suggest you go and find another bank. And find a bank that does talk about this stuff because, and I think this is coming through in younger wealth that's either being inherited generated or being inherited. These these now I can say successive generations are have a much more holistic idea about a complete engagement with society. They know some of its business, they know some of its social, um uh and some of it is is much more circular. So I think that is almost much more in the bones of next generations than it was in ours, where frankly, we were reconstructing the world uh from rubble. So so I think I think I think that it's quite I think that's quite optimistic. And you and I know that there's been various fads in uh philanthropy. Uh for example, I gather that um effective altruism is back with a vengeance. It is, apparently, yeah. And and and um impact measurement and uh uh trust-based giving. I like the fact that successive generations are finding their way and wanting to do philanthropy, express it. It shows commitment, engagement, thoughtfulness, and I have no judgment about how they no particular judgment about where their thinking leads to, but it does prove that people are thinking hard about it, and I think that's terrifically encouraging.

SPEAKER_00 21:06

Yeah, I I would agree, and I think as long as we all retain that openness, as you say, to understanding that there are different ways of going about this, and then not all of them will be for you, but you have to kind of recognise that different things work for different people. But there is that fundamental core of these are all the people who have decided to take it upon themselves to try and do something for the public good with their assets, and you know, that is to be welcomed. Um, I wanted to come back as I was saying too, um, you know, you mentioned already that uh your own philanthropy that you do through the f the foundation that you run with your wife Elizabeth. Just be interested to kind of hear a bit more about how it was that you got started. Because as you say, there was there's always something, there's a moment that kind of starts you off on this journey and what it was that got you from where you were then to where you are now.

SPEAKER_02 21:56

So I think the the the the question has two Sort of parts. The very practical first of all, there's capacity that you've got to start with somewhere. And then recognizing that we were giving to some local charities. And there were clearly kids in our neighborhood who really weren't getting a good start to life for whatever reason. And we could contribute to that. My father died of cancer. We made some donations to one of the cancer research charities. And so we realized after a while that we actually enjoyed doing this, but we needed to be much more structured and thoughtful and strategic about that. And we needed some help. And then that led to what is the structure by which that gets that done. And so that led to us going to our lawyers and talking about creating the foundation that was put together in 2005. So that at the practical level, um uh at the more sort of profound level, it has a lot to do with the influences in your life. I I I'm I don't have a faith, but I was brought up strongly in the Catholic religion, a faith. And you know, giving generosity, charity is an important part of the moral values of that uh of that system. And I I have to say that must have been an influence. My then my my mum did delivered meals on wheels for the WRVS for 25 years, and school holidays I'd go around and accompany her and see her visit decrepit people in decrepit places. That made a big impression on me, the loneliness and the isolation and the lack of capacity, and the almost, almost the smell of poverty was made a big impression. We went to spent the first years of our marriage in the United States, first day with my employer, walk in and say, What percentage of your salary are you going to give to United Way? I mean, pretty much the first question with their pen hovering over 10%. So that became automatic. And then living in the United States, although we were living like church mice, uh, it was, you know, you saw a lot of people doing a lot of giving, and that that was an expected part of things. So a whole range of more uh subtle uh foundational influences, I think, led us quite comfortably to think that this was a reasonable thing to do. And in terms of our own practice, we've obviously moved towards some very significant relationships. And one of the most interesting things for us is Elizabeth has her goals and I have mine, and they do sort of intertwine at certain points, and we back each other up on our on our separate philanthropies. But at some point I decided that promoting philanthropy itself was a philanthropic act.

SPEAKER_00 24:42

Yeah, and and that that I think is so interesting. And I I mean I don't know because it's difficult sometimes to sort of self-analyse your own motives or why you decide to do things. They're just a kind of complicated end result of a whole bunch of different things. But you know, I I still think the the number of donors that I know who have got to the point where they see that that kind of promotion of philanthropy or trying to grow philanthropy as uh kind of possibly you know the the most powerful thing they can do with some of their own giving, you know, it's still a very small number of people, and maybe it always will be a small number of people. So I'm always sort of fascinated about uh about uh kind of why that is. What was the first thing that you sort of started doing where you know it was less, here's a cause area that I'm interested in, and you thought more, hang on a minute, I could be putting a bit of my time into kind of promoting philanthropy more broadly or encouraging others.

SPEAKER_02 25:33

Uh thanks, Roger. That's a that's a great question, but a pretty straightforward answer. Um we've been giving to my university, Manchester University, uh giving to your own university. That's another hangover from the United States. Um, and that relationship was growing in uh in strength and in depth. And in 2012, uh the government asked put together a commission to um investigate how philanthropy might be more engaged by the university and higher educational sector. How could philanthropy serve universities and how should they go about it? And this became famously known as the Pierce Report. And there were about five people on the panel. And I was uh asked to be the donor representative on that panel. And uh I have to say the output from that report and its and its successor reports has been very successful. Um, we now know that 10 years, more than 10 years later, that even after the end of the government's match funding program, in constant pounds, there is more than twice as much money being granted to universities now as there was then is testimony to capacity building, um, which was about written about in the report. So that made me realize that being a philanthropy representative of philanthropy and expressing their interest into this report was a very good way of increasing philanthropy. And I I can say I've contributed to significant, uh made a small contribution to a significant increase in university, uh university giving. So that started that rolling. And then I had the opportunity to do two or three other small things. And then at the end of my business career, when I was exiting the business, um, I realized there was a possibility to apply for a position at the charity commission to be the person, a person on the board member who actually represented philanthropy. And this was a complete departure for the commission. And um I was fortunate enough to secure that post. The important things, not so much that I occupy that post, the important things that the post exists because it gave permission for government to say, actually, or the departments of government, yes, we could do this. Let's get on it. And this current government is terrifically engaged in this process.

SPEAKER_00 27:53

Yeah, absolutely. And I'd be really interested, given that that involvement that you'd have, um, around your sort of take on what the role of government is in relation to philanthropy. I mean, I, you know, cards on the table as somebody who spent quite a long part of my career as a sort of policy wonk around philanthropy. I clearly think they do have a role, and I think sort of policy levers are very important. But then I know, you know, I sometimes speak to other people who say, actually, you know, philanthropy is totally separate from government. They don't really have anything to do with it. The best thing they can do is just sort of stay out of the way. So, what's your sense of what government can ideally do in terms of playing a role in in building the culture of philanthropy?

SPEAKER_02 28:31

Well, um, Rodri, it sounds like you're probably better to better place to answer that question. Well, I have my own views, but no, you're we're we're we're we're we'd love to hear those. I'm sure your our audience would love to hear those too. I just go where we are with the current government. This current government has expressed certain social missions that it wishes to achieve during its term as government. Some and many of those missions are ones that are attractive to philanthropic capital because they are very consistent with the public benefit tests rules. So, for example, rough sleep ending rough sleeping and homelessness, to begin to take a very topical example. And uh we know that treasury capacity is some is now quite constrained. And it is in the interest of government to find alternative forms of capital that can be applied to these issues. So, and they could that could be impact financing, which has some form of financial or partial financial return, partial social return, to philanthropy, which is a hundred percent social return and is a well-established practice. So the the the government has moved to saying we want to learn how to engage with this. It's got various uh talked to various groups of people. Um, but there's a complicated places that philanthropy is a very, very diverse group of people and not particularly coherent. Uh, and it's a bit terrifying if I'm asked, you know, what does philanthropy think about X? Because you know I could talk to 200 people and get 300 answers. Um so the government then formed something called the Office for the Impact Economy uh about a year ago to be a portal by which private capital philanthropy, impact finance could be applied to the social missions of government. And at that point the table turned because prior to that it was everybody saying, Who do we talk to in government? And the day that office was formed, the question turned around and it was right, we're government, who do we talk to in philanthropy? And so there have been various responses, and the senior actors in this, of which there are quite a number, but in particular, uh Beacon now through NPC, uh Charizet Foundation, CAF, uh and um forgive other names that I haven't mentioned, um, are um put together numerous things, including there's a National Strategy Working Group, which those uh which um uh NPC are now through uh Castovi are now leading, making recommendations to government about how to smoother mechanics, how to make this less cumbersome, more frictionless to get money to go to government missions and to increase philanthropy, in philanthropy generally. Now we've we've climbed a lot of the mountain here with quite a lot of the base work has been done, but we need to get to the top and plant a bunch of flags, which is a lot more money flowing. And we haven't quite got there yet. And there are still some testing moments to find out whether the language of one and the language of the other can be perfectly matched. But um, you can't fault this government for effort. They're trying really hard, and the level of engagement is just of a different order than it was even two or three years ago when I first got engaged in this practice.

SPEAKER_00 31:46

Yeah, which is, I mean, really encouraging to hear. And I would I would say, I mean, I think apart from I I my sense over having done this stuff for years is is like obviously there are kind of concrete policies that people want to see, and and sometimes when those come in they'd be great, particularly if they're things like match funding that involve actual money and sort of provably work. But actually, often it's it's the other things that are more about signaling and narrative. So it's a sense that the government actually is aware of philanthropy and thinks it has a role to play, and just the way that it kind of messages that, and then the practical steps it takes, as you say, like putting in place an office for the impact economy and having sort of named people in government whose responsibility it is. I do think that it doesn't solve all of it, but it does go a long way towards demonstrating that this is taken seriously.

SPEAKER_02 32:33

Yes, I um because many of the arms of government are relatively new to this, um, they haven't lived with the history of successful philanthropy over a long period of time. And I think one of the things I would like to encourage is that there are plenty of examples already existing, some of which are the stories we're telling in the giving record, of the kind of practice they want to encourage. And so they're not starting at ground zero, they're starting with a big corpus of active philanthropy taking place in the country, and they can easily um point to some successful uh projects which they are now leading. And this in particular is built around place-based philanthropy. So we know what's happening in places like Blackpool and Grimsby and Stoke and others, and how do they make that systematic? But let's not let's not start from not starting from ground zero. There's a base that they can build on, and there are some quick and easy wins. And I think from taking a sort of more political view, it's important that they can show to the political world that this is that some successes can come reasonably quickly. Because if the if the well, we've got to build an immense infrastructure and we won't see any results from this for X years, then that people are going to start losing attention. But there is stuff happening on the ground today, consistent with their social mission, which government is behind, and they should take credit for being part of this.

SPEAKER_00 34:00

Yeah, absolutely. And I and I think that you mentioned there the sort of place-based focus. And I do, I think for all sorts of reasons, it's a useful lens. I guess pragmatically, it sort of works for politicians, and particularly this government, because you know, uh a lot of the problems that they're dealing with are things about the kind of imbalance of the economy within the UK and the need to devolve political power and sort of rebalance and find new identities for uh towns and cities that have kind of struggled as their you know traditional economic um base and industrial manufacturing base has declined. And so there's all of those issues, and so focus on place makes sense. But I also feel as though it taking a place-based approach or looking at that level makes it easier to share the kinds of examples of philanthropy or appreciate them of the kind that we've been trying to collect in a giving record that I think um shed light on the the value of philanthropy, not just in terms of the the outputs that it delivers. Because I think sometimes at a national level, if you if you engage with government and talk to about philanthropy, they they understandably think about it in very instrumental terms. It's kind of how does it, how is this a way of financing things that we would otherwise want to do? And then that misses out all of that wider value about the role that it plays in communities and the way in which it can kind of you know reinvigorate local areas. And so I think it really helps to kind of bring out some of that that additional value.

SPEAKER_02 35:26

Yes, I I I agree with that. And I and I think the their the understanding that they're building on something that is already alive and well will make it easier to to to uh make that uh a transition. So in in in response to the you know, the government setting up stalls saying who do we talk to in philanthropy, in conjunction with uh Beacon MBC and with CAF, we set up something called the Philanthropist Reference Group, a an unformed no-budget entity, which is about 15 philanthropists, um, like our stories in the giving record from all corners of of the of the union who are there to have conversations with government, who the government can talk to to say, how do we approach this? How do we do that? Um, what's what's your read? Because their problem is we don't know who to talk to. Well, now they do. We we put this up at the end of last year, and we have, I wouldn't say been inundated, but we've had a very strong response from government saying, we do need to talk to you about this, how how can we help out? And I think the messages that are coming through is that the earlier that philanthropy is engaged in the design of a program, the more likely it is to be susceptible and acceptable. And if the goal at the end of this is if you know for every pound the government puts up, he can get another pound from the private sector. I mean, that that's a that's a fantastic win because not only does it diminish the financial contribution, the burden of financial contribution, but it engages the community in the solution to the problem. So I think that there's a huge win both at the economic level, the the social level and the contribution level. Uh, and I hope that we, the PRG, can play a part in facilitating that to happen.

SPEAKER_00 37:12

Yeah, absolutely. I'm really interested in that, in terms of obviously as a focal point for government having established that, it makes things a lot easier. What's been your experience so far of acting as a focal point in the other direction for philanthropists, essentially? Because it always strikes me that you know one of the challenges of a group that is trying to act as that focal point is, as you've already said, philanthropy is incredibly diverse and disparate. And there are lots of people with you know very strong uh kind of opinions and values doing all sorts of different things for different reasons, and probably trying to, you know, bring them together or corral them in any meaningful way is going to be very difficult. But have you found that just by offering that sort of point where you can have contact with government, you've been able to engage philanthropists who might otherwise not have been having those conversations?

SPEAKER_02 38:00

I I uh I would deeply like to answer that question with an affirmative yes, but I think it's a little early. Uh come back in a year, let's do this in a year's time and I'll I'll say yes definitively. I think it's a little early. We don't have much resort, and we resource. We exist off the goodwill of CAF, who provide all the secretariat work for which we're all immensely grateful. And I think there is a uh shall we say a 180 or 360 degree view that a group like this could could take of whether the philanthropist reference group will ever have the capacity or resource to do that. What we are doing is we're going out and talking to banks, we're talking to law firms and helping them promote this to their to their to their clients. And I'm and uh a number of us are speaking at smaller private events to encourage them to be helpful to the philanthropy and encourage people to start their philanthropic journey. Uh so I've been on the stump about three or four times with audiences between 50 and 150 in the last two or three weeks doing that. So I think we're doing that in a very uh soft way, uh, but we want to encourage professions that are in contact with wealth, um asset management banks, uh, the law firms, to integrate philanthropy and social engagement as part of their total asset offering. And we're sort of winning one institution at a time, but we're not far away from a point where young wealth is going to come in, basically turn around and say, so what are you what have you got to show me? And they say, well, you've got this, that, that, that. And if that doesn't include their portfolio doesn't include philanthropy, they're going to lose the customer to somebody who who does. And I I think that is making slow uh but steady, but steady progress, frankly. The there was one other thing about it going on, which is attracting philanthropic capital to our shores. Do you want to talk about that a bit? Yeah, please do, yeah. So there is a statement out there that goes along the following lines. The UK is the best place in the world in which to uh conduct philanthropy and exercise philanthropic capital. I don't know that's completely true, but I've said it a few places and nobody's contested it yet. So I'm happy to have that contest because obviously it'll elevate the subject. But we are a very good place under any circumstances, and just the fundamentals, long-standing practice, huge infrastructure built around it, a public benefit defined by statute. So if you know if you're giving to a charity or a university or a cultural institution, it meets the nation's definition of what constitutes a national benefit. You've got a regulated charity sector. So you've got uh rule of law, um, uh freedom of speech, and uh a whole range of other services, quite still quite a convenient place on the planet. Uh, a large number of charities, especially a large number engaged in international aid. And so uh I think that there's a place to be able to go to places like, for example, the United States, and say, actually, uh, have you thought about relocating some of your philanthropic capital in into the UK? Because it's a great place for dispensation. And there are certain pressures arising in the United States which were frankly unimaginable a few years ago. And people are having some thoughts about this. And we are getting to the point where roadshows are taking place to solicit some of this capital. Um, and it's not just the United States, but other places which feel less comfortable than they did. Uh, the issue here is if you want to participate, you have to sign up to the rules so that you can benefit from the rules. But there's a there's a um charity is very well-defined uh place. I say this is a board members of the largest regulator. Um, and I I think it's better conducted than in most other places. And we have such a huge range of charities, large and small. But if you look at the cancellation of USAID, you know, the the British charities and and some others are very good places for which philanthropy can substitute for parts, some of those programs.

SPEAKER_00 42:16

Yeah, absolutely. And I think in the context of, as you say, USAID uh kind of being dismantled, I mean, one of the other things at the same time, and I've talked about this on other episodes of the podcast with people, is we're also seeing enormous growth in other parts of the world in terms of centres of philanthropy, particularly in Singapore and Hong Kong. And they're very much, you know, not backward about coming forward and wanting to position themselves as centres of philanthropy precisely to capture some of that kind of global philanthropic wealth. And so in that context, you know, as you say, the UK, um, it would be daft in a way not to take advantage of all of the benefits that we do have. Um, you know, are like most things, I mean, our charity sector is by no means perfect, but it it does have a lot going for it in terms of the longevity that it has, and the fact as you say, that we have you know separate charity law and a separate regulator, unlike even the US, which you know some people listening will know, but others won't. All all of the the kind of regulation there is dealt with by the tax authority. So all of the sort of designations around uh the organizations that you give to, it's essentially a tax matter. There isn't kind of separate public benefit tests for it. And I think that's a real strength of what we have in the UK and something we should probably shout more about.

SPEAKER_02 43:30

Um I agree. Uh and you've you used the phrase that uh our charity sector isn't perfect. I'm sure that's true, but it's a heck of a lot more perfect than not having a charity sector at all. So I mean, I I so I mean it it it it it's an i it and it's an ingrained part of our society and is representative of a nation that cares, and a representative of a nation that wants action and represents a nation that is generous. And I they're I I I you know they're they're great part of Great Britain.

SPEAKER_00 44:06

Yeah, absolutely. And and I just want to to kind of build on that a second to ask one thing I'm interested in is we're talking obviously here very much, you know, freely using the word philanthropy, and this is all framed around philanthropy. Um but I I guess in the context of the UK, where do we stand at the moment in terms of how people feel talking in those terms, both I mean, amongst wealthy people themselves uh and also kind of more broadly in the public? What's your sense of what the perception is of philanthropy as an idea and even more so as a word? Is you know, I I hear very differing opinions on this. Do you are you happy calling yourself or being called a philanthropist, for instance, or do you prefer other terminology?

SPEAKER_02 44:46

I was astonished many years ago to find myself being called um a philanthropist, my wife and I have been called philanthropists, but I'm happy to wear the name. You know Rodery very well that there's quite a lot of debate and um uh contemplation about whether philanthropy is is the right word, and everybody's thinking about what what might come better. I I am very happy to own this word, and I think we should also all just get up and continue to own it, um, because it's longstanding, it expresses what it does, uh people have a reasonably good idea about what its intentions are, and I think turning around and trying to find some alternative. I don't if there was an obviously better alternative, we'd have it by now. And I think we just got to be a bit more forthright and own it. So why do is uh does do you think I think your question implies that there is discomfiture at this word?

SPEAKER_00 45:40

I well, I would say based on conversations that I I had, and particularly I'm thinking about some of the interviews that we did for the book that I mentioned with with Beth Breeze, I there there was a range of opinions. There were people I think exactly who's who felt as you you do, that you know, actually it's a word with very kind of long-standing tradition, and actually etymologically, you know, the fact that it means love of humanity, I think is very kind of appealing to some people. Uh and I think there were others who felt perhaps that they weren't so comfortable the word because they felt that it had connotations or implications that were more sort of associated with uh you know large figures of the Victorian era and the endowment of sort of grand buildings and that kind of thing. And then there were others who sort of sat somewhere in the middle thinking, well, it's not perfect, but it I can't really think of what a better word is, and so at least in a pragmatic sense. Um and I suppose that will always be the case, but um but it's just sort of interesting to know as you say, I guess, that maybe we need to engage with these questions, but at the end of the day, we need to not let them stop us getting on and just doing things as well. Well, exactly.

SPEAKER_02 46:45

And I think that uh you know better than most that there are some critiques of philanthropy out there. And I don't think philanthropy necessarily represents itself uh on that. And I've often felt, well, we should win these critiques, we should have those arguments, and we should we should win them because they're a test of whether what we're doing has substance and and and and meaning and and and posit and is positive. Um philanthropy is basically going, right? No, I I think we'll just get on with it and just keep keep keep sending the money. And uh that's a response, actually. I I um um without going too deeply into this, I think some of the critiques are are expressed more around American philanthropy and around exactly the points you made. Public benefit isn't so well thought through uh and and and defined. And uh there's an argument that for that says, well, it's not accountable. Well, it is actually, it's accountable to the charities who get the money. Um it's it those are matter of the those accounts have to be filed at uh with the charity charity commission. So that there is accountability in and of itself, but what I think that critique is concerned about is well, you can choose any cause you like and call it philanthropy. But in this country you can't. If you're not giving to a public benefit uh an organization uh under the umbrella of public benefit, you're not engaging in philanthropy. You're engaging in something else. So there's something almost definitional in this UK about philanthropy going to good causes.

SPEAKER_00 48:19

And I think it's an important point, and again, not to get too much into the weeds, but I think you're right that there are elements of some of the kind of critical arguments about philanthropy that are quite specific to other contexts, particularly the US, and we need to be clearer about sort of distinguishing what's going on in the UK, not to sort of have a kind of well, we're all right, Jack mentality, and everybody else, you know, can go hang, but I think just to make the point that it's often more complicated than people think. And I and I guess the other thing, bringing back it back slightly to the giving record, was again one of the things about being involved in the project and kind of collecting those stories that that I found really interesting in a way and kind of rewarding was that I know I spent a lot of time engaging with critical arguments about philanthropy, and I I do think you know it's important to do so. And I think there are elements of those critical arguments, you know, some of which are are valid and need to be taken on board by anyone who has a kind of shared interest in getting better philanthropy, as we've been talking about. But then there are also elements that are you know either overblown or misdirected or need to be pushed back on. But also, more fundamentally, you know, those stories, what they remind me of was the reality that a lot of philanthropy is just about people who care about something, getting on and wanting to do good. And it's not, you know, it's not all of this kind of complex theoretical stuff. It's just about that. And as long as they do it with due care and attention and humility and sort of think about what they're doing, fundamentally what's happening is lots of good things are happening in the world, and you kind of you do need to come back to that, you know, repeatedly to remind yourself, I think.

SPEAKER_02 49:52

Rodri, can I uh bottle that last statement and sell it? I know I think it's a I think it's a great encapsulation. Let's not make this too complicated. Um, and this is about this is it also addresses the issue of accessibility. Um the the British are pretty good at having clubs which are quite clicky. And by while on the one hand, while they're inclusive, they're also terrifically exclusive. And we mustn't be like that. We mustn't talk in jargon too much, we mustn't make this too complicated. We must get this back down to the basics and make this easy, natural for people to do. We have a very complicated national relationship with wealth. Um, not all of it, we can be in that conversation a long time, but I don't approve of all of that, the thinking about it. But we mustn't make the, especially the early philanthropic acts lonely, awkward, or difficult. They should be supportive, warm, and comforting. Um the beneficiaries play a part in that, uh, the social surroundings play a part in that. And this brings us back again as to one of the reasons why we're putting out these stories, because it's people trying to do good things to improve outcomes. And I think those stories do it a lot. And I hope that we, you, Rodri, through these stories, make put another uh brick in the wall of the national acceptability of philanthropy as part of our national conversation.

SPEAKER_00 51:17

Yeah, absolutely. I think that's a great place on which to sort of pull things to a close. Um, and just remain to say thanks ever so much, Rory, for coming on and having a chat. It's really good to have you on the podcast finally. Um, I'll put links in the show notes, like I said, to places where people can find the giving record, read the stories, and you know, if they've been inspired and want to share their own stories, as you say, there are kind of details about how they can do that, and we would love to encourage people to do that more. Um and yeah, we hopefully maybe let's come back in a year or so's time and we'll be talking about how overwhelmed we are with great stories about philanthropy.

SPEAKER_02 51:51

Well, well, Rodri, in conclusion from my side, it's been a great privilege to work with you and get to know you better. I'm enjoying this journey a lot. I don't think our journey's over, and I'm really grateful that you brought me onto the podcast today. Oh, thanks very much, Rory. Okay, all the best. Thanks, Rodrigo. Thank you.

SPEAKER_00 52:15

Okay, great. Well, my thanks again to Rory for coming on the podcast. It's really great to have a chance to chat to him. It's been really good working with him on the Giving Record as a project, um, and really hope that that kind of takes flight and continues to grow over the coming months. And you can certainly help do that. Um, if you're listening to this and you know of a great story about the impact that philanthropy's had on a particular charity or an arts organization or a university or a community group, um, and you want to share that, please do uh look at the Giving Record website and sort of follow the instructions for doing that. Um, and yeah, hopefully we can kind of gather together loads more of these. Um, if you're interested more broadly in reading about issues to do with philanthropy in civil society, as ever, check out the Why Philanthropy Matters website. Uh, loads of articles on there and sort of guides to issues around philanthropy, all the back issues of this podcast, uh, lots of news updates and that kind of thing. So plenty of content to dig through. You can also find my contact details on the website if you want to get in touch, uh, either because you've got suggestions for topics we could cover on the podcast or people I could speak to, or indeed, you know, anything else vaguely sort of philanthropy-related that you want to sound me out about, please do uh feel free to do that. If you want to follow me on uh social media, you can do that on LinkedIn as well. Uh, I tend to do plenty of updates and thoughts and bits and bobs on there, so that's probably a good place to go. Uh, I am also on Blue Sky, but I don't really do very much on there, so unless somebody can convince me that it's worth investing more time on there by engaging with me, then uh that will probably continue to be the case. If you like the podcast, uh please do leave us a nice review, a five-star review, ideally, wherever it is that you get your podcasts, because that will really help bump us up the uh the ever-changing algorithms, uh, or do it old-fashioned. Uh, if you like the podcast and you know somebody else you think would like the podcast, why not just tell them in a you know a real human uh in real life conversation? Because that would also help, I think, as well. Other than that, it just remains to say thanks ever so much for listening, and I will see you next time. Bye!