My Lords, I thought we were going to end on a note of consensus, but seemingly not. Noble Lords may be aware that the title was discussed in the other place where honourable Members sought to change the name of the Bill to include family poverty. I do not deny that the measure of household income is key to the targets in Clauses 1 to 6, but I do not accept the assertion that they do not relate to child poverty, although we accept that the proxy is not absolute. On that point, at various stages during the course of our Committee deliberations we sought to understand the noble Lord’s position in relation to those targets. At one stage he chided me because I suggested that he was not committed to them and that that misrepresented his view. However, we have heard subsequently in a number of debates a loosening of what I thought to be at that earlier stage a commitment to the targets set out in the Bill. That is by way of an aside.
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 c143-4GC 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 01:41:34 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_620154
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_620154
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_620154