Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)

The Minister has departed from his market model in an extreme sense and he appears to be moving in the direction of an alternative model. I suggest the best way to approach social policy is from the model of citizenship. From a model of citizenship one will immediately find oneself moving towards the choice between the three options I specified earlier and going towards accepting the principle of universalism. The Government has my support, for example, in regard to the provision of child benefit. Any child in this country, irrespective of where he or she was born, should be entitled to benefit. I think we can agree on that. If one accepts that principle of universalism it is ridiculous to become involved in projected costs.

At the other end of the life cycle is security in old age. If one accepts the principle of universalism and one wants to be able to include all citizens who are vulnerable over a certain age, again one has to make choices. In between, one has special categories, including those with special needs but also those who are in long-term care relationships with those with special needs. It is only by accepting the moral purpose of citizenship and the general principles of universalism that one can provide for all of these categories.

One can do so in the most efficient manner possible. Social policy studies show that every time one starts qualification schemes for different kinds of benefit there is a crucial threshold which one passes where the cost of vigilance begins to exceed the benefit being transmitted. In some cases it is simply wasteful. This argument does not stand up at all — that if one makes universal provision those who are well entitled to make a contribution should be making that contribution and one has operated in a regressive manner. One always has to balance against that, the enormous bureaucratic nightmare one is creating. Even benevolent intentions are frustrated in the sheer cost and mechanism of ensuring vigilance in schemes.

The research is most interesting where this has been studied such as in Scandinavia, for example. I am anxious to be positive in what I say. When one looks at social protection expenditure as a proportion of gross domestic product we are second lowest in Europe but it is very high in countries like Sweden. Studies show that the nearer one goes towards universal provision and to redistribution models, the fairer and more efficient it works out over the long term.

Those who are at the interface of dealing with people who operate the system provided by the Government for those citizens in need have very difficult tasks. I urge the Minister to seriously look at the giving of discretion in regard to particular cases. While we must have full legal accountability and while we may all take Ministers to task — it is correct that we do so — at the same time cases arise that are not just simply anomalies, they are ones in which it is appropriate to have discretion if one is to fulfil the spirit of the legislation.

An interesting shift is taking place in regard to the powers being given to the Pensions Ombudsman, in that he can take a decision without waiting for the completion of the internal dispute resolution mechanism. That should be a model for several other areas in regard to social welfare reform. Given the element of trust involved, this would also improve the quality of the process within regional, district and local offices where people are dealing with citizens often in a very stressed condition.

I have not come across any published evidence that suggests any of the social care environments we need for children, those with special needs, or the elderly, are provided by the market. They simply are not. This is a role of the State, which is incredibly important, and the State must decide whether it will act in an interventionist way by being consciously redistributionist, as outlined in the Titmuss model, which is the one I favour.

See this speech in context