Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Members who participate in the meeting remotely are required to do so from within the Leinster House precincts only. I welcome the witnesses. Before I start I wish to explain some limitations to parliamentary privilege and the practice of the Houses as regards references they may make to another person in their evidence. The evidence of witnesses physically present or who give evidence from the parliamentary precincts is protected pursuant to both the Constitution and statute by absolute privilege. However, a number of today's witnesses are giving evidence remotely from a place outside the parliamentary precincts and as such they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as witnesses physically present. Such witnesses may think it appropriate to take legal advice on this matter.

Witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against any person or entity either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

Witnesses participating from a jurisdiction outside the State will already have been advised that they should also be mindful of their domestic law and how it would apply to evidence they give. Their decision as to whether to take legal advice in relation to the evidence they propose to give should also have been informed by this.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person or entity outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

The committee will now consider the consolidation of social assistance payments with regard to a single means test and the experience of the universal credit system in the United Kingdom. We are meeting with academics and witnesses who have expertise in this area from the United Kingdom and who will share their insights and what they have learned from the roll-out of this system. Universal credit was introduced in the UK to replace the following benefits: the child tax credit, housing benefit, income support, income-based job seekers allowance, income-related employment support allowance and the working tax credit. There has been significant criticism of this scheme, including the complicated nature of it for citizens, a reduction in the payments made, the length of processing time from application to the receipt of the first payment and the impact of tax credits for an individual.

This is the fifth meeting in a series the committee is holding on the theme of means testing in the social welfare system in advance of the committee's report on the topic. I welcome to the meeting Professor Jane Millar, professor in the department of social and policy services at the University of Bath; Ms Fran Bennett, associate fellow at the department of social policy and intervention, University of Oxford; Professor Ruth Patrick, professor of social policy at the University of York; and Dr. Mike Brewer, interim chief executive of the Resolution Foundation. They are all very welcome this morning. I now invite Professor Millar to make her opening statement.