Ms Fran Bennett:

It is really important for us to emphasise that for those people doing a certain number of minimum hours of work, the means test used to be very different from the means test for those people out of work. This was because, although tax credits were a means-tested benefit paid by Revenue and customs, they were actually a means-tested benefit. They worked as though they were like the tax system. Therefore, they were based on an annual income test, in theory. That caused some problems because it meant that people could get overpaid quite easily and therefore had to pay that back, in theory. However, in practice, claimants could actually tell the Government that their circumstances were changing during the year. What that did, crucially, was give some stability for people with income from earnings, because they were basically getting a predictable amount of income. Also, it had quite a large disregard, which was subsequently reduced but it was still quite a large disregard, for the additional income that could be earned during the year before that counted for the means test, as has just been described so well by the committee member. That was there for a very different way of treating those people who either were working 16 hours or more, depending on circumstances, but there was quite a divide between those people and the people out of work who had a much more frequent means test and were paid fortnightly. That is one thing. Disregards worked differently for people who were in work on tax credits.

Another issue is that it sounds to me as though the disregard in the way it works in Ireland is a partial individualisation of the means test. In fact, Professor Millar has written about the Australian system which has a similar partial individualisation. That would mean that incentives for second earners were also improved, although as our colleague said, at the moment only €60 a week is allowed. However, in the universal credit system there is one work allowance per couple because the Government's priority was to have one earner in a couple in work. This is because, as Dr. Brewer said, the problem was worklessness, which was seen as the major issue. Therefore, at the moment the work allowance is one per couple, which means that for second earners the incentives are not so great as they are for first earners.

Briefly, on digitalisation, subsequent to what Professor Patrick was saying, the Government talked about digital by design rather than digital by default. Therefore it introduced, for example, funding for Citizens Advice to give some help with the first month of claim of universal credit.

That is probably online and possibly by phone, but it is not usually face to face. There is some help for face to face, though. In theory, someone can go into a job centre and get help if he or she cannot fill in an online claim form, so we must acknowledge that there is some help available, particularly for those who are being moved compulsorily from other benefits onto universal credit, but the primary point that people have been making, namely, that it is digital by design, is right.