Child Poverty Bill

I am moved to comment on the amendment. I quite accept that we should have a non-financial target—the welfare or well-being of the child. The problem is that, if you try to devise a list of any other targets, you are on very shaky ground. We have to keep in mind what we will do to achieve the targets. The list could well be incomplete for some families. The welfare of the child may be much better achieved by reducing domestic violence in the household. I see that that is not on the noble Lord’s list. It could be better achieved by teaching one or other of the parents how to cook a good meal. Some of the targets listed by the noble Lord are slightly dodgy. I accept that the noble Lord has included not just parents who are married but has added the words, ""in a civil partnership or in a long term relationship"," but when we are thinking about what we are going to do to achieve such a target, whatever figure we put on it, it amounts to social engineering, whatever the evidence is about what happens to children among couples of various kinds with various legal statuses. We must be very careful with targets of that nature. The only one that is fairly straightforward is that in paragraph (d), ""where a parent lacks level 2 key skills"," but that is dealt with by a different piece of legislation. I accept the evidence that you are more likely to have poverty in workless households, and neither do you have a role model for a young person growing up, but, again, worklessness is addressed by other pieces of legislation and would certainly be addressed by a sensible set of strategies arising from Clause 8. The provision that worries me most is paragraph (c). I ask myself what the noble Lord would do to achieve such a target. Does he have in mind reducing benefits just in case they happen to be spent on alcohol, drugs or gambling? What about the children in that household if we are to do something of that nature? If the noble Lord has in mind improving the funding for treatment for drug addicts and people addicted to alcohol and gambling, I would have a great deal more sympathy with that part of his amendment, but it worries me greatly that that may not be what he has in mind.