Sir, – Daniel O'Sullivan (October 5th) argues, as do many others, against universal benefits, and in favour of targeting State benefits toward poorer people. There are a number of arguments against this position, which need to be carefully considered before any changes are made.
First, universal benefits ensure some level of quality. Powerful social groups will not tolerate poor services. One good example is the education system. Almost every child goes to a State primary school, and these are mostly pretty good. The area with the least satisfactory public secondary schools may be south Dublin, which has the largest number of fee-paying schools.
GPs provide services to everyone, public or private, in the same premises. By contrast, look at the public and private hospital systems.
Second, universal benefits support some level of social solidarity. Almost all of us pay tax, but not everyone draws the dole. However, all parents get child benefit, which plays a critical role in reducing child poverty This is already shamefully high here, but without this universal benefit it would be far worse. Universality protects the benefit. Services for marginal groups can easily get slashed in hard times, eg the extra educational supports for Traveller children were among the first cuts of the recession. I’d ask that we consider carefully, case by case, the pros and cons of universality. – Yours, etc,
Prof ANTHONY STAINES,
School of Nursing
and Human Sciences,
Dublin City University.