Child Poverty Bill

I am aware that I have literally two minutes in which to respond. I thank the Minister for his response and all noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have responded, although they were not necessarily desperately supportive. What I am driving at in this amendment is the difference between a child’s well-being and income poverty. We will come back to this. I clearly failed to understand the criticisms of my amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, asked what we do when we find out that particular people are cohabiting. We have an estimated material couple penalty in the tax credits system of about £1,200 a year. Actually, that is an incentive not to be together. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, says that the amendment is social engineering to change that. I can say only that we have reversed social engineering to drive people apart. As for addiction, if the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, were to take the Bill purely as an income transfer Bill, what is the point of transferring income to people who inject—in other words, drug addicts? I am aware that I have to wind up. We will return to this issue, but for now I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 8 withdrawn.