Giving evidence in Parliament – daunting, but worth it

Katy Jones on her experience of giving evidence to a parliamentary committee

The government’s flagship welfare reform policy Universal Credit (UC) brings together what were previously separate systems of out-of-work (e.g. Job Seekers Allowance) and in-work financial support (e.g. Working Tax Credits). As a policy with implications for the workplace, the absence of employer voices in research and policy development in this space is surprising – an absence we have begun to address through a recent piece of research funded by the ESRC’s Productivity Insights Network.

Issues explored in this research resonate with some of the questions central to the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee’s Inquiry into Universal Credit, which is exploring the extent to which its design meets the needs of claimants in today’s labour market. After noticing the call for evidence on Twitter, I was considering providing a written response to the Inquiry (I wasn’t sure) when I got a phone call from the Committee’s policy analyst inviting me to give oral evidence.

This was quite terrifying: giving oral evidence (any oral presentation makes me nervous, no matter how many I’ve done over the years), which would be televised (yikes, my failure will be laid bare for all to see for the rest of time!) to the economic affairs select committee (I’m not an economist) to provide evidence on a range of questions, some of which I thought my specific research projects hadn’t necessarily provided the answers to. But the whole point of research is to make an impact – so I accepted the invitation.

In the run up to the evidence session, I prepped my response to the questions outlined in call for written evidence, and then additional questions provided a few days beforehand. The support of Manchester Metropolitan University colleagues was crucial here – both in offering suggestions, but also reassurance, helping me to realise that I could have an opinion on matters even if I had not personally researched them.

The evidence session itself was nerve-wracking, but I’m happy with how it went. Through drawing on my own research and knowledge of the qualitative evidence base, I felt I was able to complement the quantitative knowledge of the other panel member (Senior Economist at the Institute for Fiscal Studies). The Committee and their Assistant were welcoming and keen to hear about the evidence we brought to the table, and moral support was on hand from my colleague Professor Ashwin Kumar, who came along and took me for a much-needed cup of tea after the session.

The key things I learnt from this experience were to a) if invited to give evidence (try to) keep calm, and remember that you have been invited because of your expertise (ignore the imposter syndrome!) b) don’t feel constrained by the confines of the particular pieces of research you personally have conducted – you’re an expert on your topic and can draw on your knowledge of the wider evidence base and c) respond to Inquiries if you think your research is in some way relevant.

Dr Katy Jones is Senior Research Associate at Manchester Metropolitan University’s Centre for Decent Work and Productivity.