The noble Lord is making heavy weather of this point. He is absolutely right that some of the quite rigid targets imposed on local authorities have been progressively pulled back from and that local authorities have a choice of which targets they can focus on. At the same time there have been changes in the financial arrangements for local authorities where some of the ring-fenced grants have been progressively removed to encourage discretion in local authorities. The whole concept of Total Place in the pilots that are being undertaken at the moment is to seek to encourage local authorities to join up. There has been a progressive movement to build on the benefits of local knowledge and that is going to be hugely important when tackling child poverty.
However, I am struggling to see which of the named organisations or individuals that have to be consulted and engaged with one would seriously wish to delete. I draw the noble Lord’s attention to Clause 20(1)(c) under which the local authority can make arrangements to promote co-operation with bodies other than those listed as it thinks fit. There is a broad range of discretion for local authorities under the Bill. Removing or not signing up to those specific authorities that are listed does not really fit the Bill; they are just a part of what needs to be engaged with.
Child Poverty Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord McKenzie of Luton
(Labour)
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 c139-40GC 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 01:41:29 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_620141
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_620141
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_620141