My Lords, throughout the debates on the Bill it is clear that we are not all on the same page about when and how the Secretary of State should ultimately be held accountable for the success, or not, of his strategy. As far as I can see, the sole instance of genuine accountability falls in 2020 when the financial targets are met or not met; that is the only point at which the Secretary of State will have to explain why he was unable to lower child poverty levels to among the best in Europe. Our views on the inadequacy of those four targets are well known. The lack of accountability for the strategy, the inability of Parliament to suggest that more could be done via a different approach and the lack of any interim targets all reinforce my concerns.
I am not entirely comfortable with the amendment’s new subsection (8), though. First, ““taking account of”” does not, in any piece of legislation that I have ever seen, necessarily result in the need for change. Secondly, as we have discussed at length, the success and failure of the strategy should not be seen solely through the prism of the four financial targets, and I would oppose any suggestion that it should be.
Child Poverty Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Freud
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 8 February 2010.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Child Poverty Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
717 c130GC 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 02:21:22 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_620116
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_620116
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_620116