The Labour Party's advocacy of universal provision of services to allcitizens flies in the face of genuine socialist politics and social justice,writes Noel Whelan.
Recent weeks have seen efforts by some of those who shape policy within the Labour Party to repackage their party as one in favour of the doctrine of universal provision - namely that there are some public services to which every citizen is entitled free of charge regardless of income.
In particular, they argue, this doctrine should apply to health and education.
It is hard to resist the conclusion that the Labour Party has selected its universal provision clothing from the wardrobe of left-wing ideologies at this time in order to justify its position in the recent debate about third-level fees.
It is not purely coincidental that among those advancing the case for the universal provision doctrine - most recently on this page last week - is James Wrynn, who was Niamh Bhreathnach's programme manager when, as minister for education, she abolished third-level fees in 1994. Labour's endeavour to dress the abolition of third-level fees in the doctrine of universal provision was then and is now an attempt to cover itself against the allegation of naked pandering to middle-class electoral interest.
Universal provision is utopian, wasteful and selective. Finite public resources can be best utilised by targeting them at those in most need and those most at risk of falling into need. Universal provision fails to accept that public resources are finite and shirks the primary function of politics, which is to decide priorities in the distribution of those finite public resources.
Labour argues, for example, that the State should provide education to all free of charge not only at primary and secondary level but now also at third level. It asserts that no limit can be set on the right to educational provision. However, does it follow that some day the State should also provide "fourth-level" education free even if only a select few can afford the time out to avail of it? Will the State some day fund the millionaire businessperson's MBA?
Universal provision also assumes limitless tax revenue. It fails to recognise the damping effect which increased taxation has on enterprise and growth capacity. Heavy taxation restricts job creation and jobs are the best means of giving people a stake in society. Even if tax receipts could be increased to the level the Labour Party wants, there would still have to be a prioritising of how the increased funds would be spent.
The advocates of universal provision advance it as some kind of panacea for the problems of our health and education systems. However, they fail to recognise that the public provision or funding of services sometimes creates its own problems. It can give rise to lack of competition and, within this protective framework, can lead to bureaucratic empire-building, decision-making based on political expediency, and other drags which reduce the quality of service.
The advocates of universal provision are also selective in the State services to which they argue it should apply. According to Maslow's pyramid of needs, food and shelter are the two most basic human needs.
It would be absurd in the extreme to argue that the State should feed and house everyone and then pay for it through taxation. Instead, the State targets resources to those unable to feed and house themselves through means-tested social welfare provision. Even where the State directly provides housing it does so only to those most in need of housing as determined by a local authority housing points system.
It is precisely because targeted provision is more efficient and equitable that it has gained widespread political acceptance in this country. In recent years this has been supplemented by a policy of seeking contributions from those service users who can afford to pay, so that the overall pool of funding available for targeting can be increased.
User contribution is a philosophy advanced not only by those who favour third-level fees but also by new left movements like the Green Party with its "polluter pays" doctrine.
So, for example, those who need to avail of waste disposal should pay for waste disposal; those who use more, pay more. When originally introduced, household refuse collection was free to all. Now the trend, supported by a legislative framework introduced, ironically, by Dick Spring, is for local authorities to charge those who can afford to pay through bin charges.
Similarly, those who use roads pay more through annual motor tax, vehicle registration tax, and, on the basis of use, through tax on petrol. This meets some of the cost of road maintenance. When roads are improved dramatically through the construction of motorways or bridges which shorten journeys, then the State sometimes seeks a more direct contribution from road users through tolls.
The most self-righteous assertion of those who favour universal provision is that they, and they alone, have the interests of the disadvantaged at heart.
Those of us who support the targeting of resources are as committed to social justice and, in fact, have more in common with the traditional left wing and Labour Party position. Targeted provision coupled with user contribution is a more just use of finite resources.
Noel Whelan is a former Fianna Fáil adviser and author of a number of books on politics