I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. I am concerned that some noble Lords may be irritated if I answer at great length because we have already gone through this issue. However, I shall answer the point briefly.
We accept the financial measures but are concerned that they should be balanced by clauses which tackle the causes of poverty, and we have brought forward our interpretation of what those clauses should be. As the Committee may be able to tell, I am baffled by some of the answers I have received on the word "socio-economic" and I am trying to put some definition around the part of the strategy which seeks to support children specifically. The conclusion I draw from the Minister’s explanation—and I do not think I am the only Member of the Committee to do so—is that the clause does not have any teeth. I am trying to give the clause some meaning by putting in specificity.
It is open for noble Lords to argue that this may not be the best way to make the clause specific, but I hope the Committee can see the direction of my argument. I do not think the word "socio-economic" as it stands in the clause does anything to help children.
Child Poverty Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Freud
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 25 January 2010.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Child Poverty Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
716 c277GC 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 01:51:53 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_614121
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_614121
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_614121