Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)

When speaking last night, I stressed some of the detail of the impact of this Social Welfare Bill. In conclusion, I want to suggest something else which I have noticed over a long period of years in this House, namely, the reluctance of those responsible for social policy to explicitly state what are their assumptions about the people who are recipients.

It is very clear from what we have heard so far from the Minister that there is no acceptance of the concept of a floor below which nobody would be allowed to fall in terms of some kind of citizenship. Over the years, when I was in my other life and lecturing in this area, there were usually three models of social policy. The first was where one regarded it as a residuum of economic activity - one spent what one had left over to spend. The second model was when one assumed the economy operated in a way that required compensation - one had to correct the effect of the economy - and this was usually the basis for most of the insurance driven policies. The third was the great proposals following the Second World War, introduced by a British Labour Government, which argued that one should have an egalitarian emphasis and, therefore, there should be a floor below which one's citizens should never sink into poverty. This is the view of the late and great Professor Titmuss and others in Britain.

What is very clear is that the present Government is following the miserable notion of a residual theory of its population and, therefore, one finds this in the second last paragraph of the Minister's speech, where it is stated: "It is important for each of the savings measures to be considered in the context of the overall economic situation and the need for immediate action to reduce the major gap between public income and expenditure." In other words, all of those who will be affected by this Bill must pay for the gap that was created by shabby and outrageously neglectful Governments and several institutions responsible to the State, as well as irresponsible behaviour by speculative builders, assisted by equally treacherous bankers with no commitment to the public good. The public good having been betrayed by all of these, do they pay for the situation? If the goal is as stated in the second last paragraph of the Minister's speech, and if there is a gap to be bridged, do they bridge that gap? No, they do not. We have just been debating how the poorest of the poor will pay at Christmas.

Right through this Bill, there is another streak, namely, the extraordinary emphasis on an anti-young people ideology. I support the elimination of any and every obstacle to a person who wants to get back to education, enter training or upskill. However, if that is the case, why does a person have to remain two years unemployed? What we have in the Minister's speech are a few deceitful camouflages, suggesting, for example, that a few hours in pre-school is a better and more efficient way to substitute for child supplement. This Bill is an outrageous use of the poorest people, who have no choice and no discretion, as pawns to pay for those to whom the Government will not turn its attention. This is why the Bill should be opposed.

See this speech in context