If the financial criteria question is about the percentage of children and the percentage of mean household income, those are not common across the four measures in the Bill. Two of the measures have a 5 per cent threshold; one of them does not have a threshold at all at the moment, because it depends on the longitudinal study that is being developed about persistent poverty; and the other has a threshold of 10 per cent. They are not consistent, so here I am responding to the amendment, which adopts the same 10 per cent criterion and 60 per cent of median income, which applies to the before housing costs target. Obviously, if the amendment were different, we would have to consider that, but the fundamental issue is how we best cater for and represent issues of housing cost in the data and targets that we consider. Our point is that by considering a low-income figure and a material deprivation figure—looking at income and, effectively, costs through material deprivation—we have the best route to get the best measure.
Child Poverty Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord McKenzie of Luton
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 19 January 2010.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Child Poverty Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
716 c143-4GC 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 02:00:34 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_610767
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_610767
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_610767