Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 9 March 2010. It occurred during Debate on bill on Child Poverty Bill.


Child Poverty Bill

My Lords, I am very grateful to colleagues and everyone who has taken part. It has been a high-quality debate. I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. I tabled Amendment 11 at the close of business on Friday. There was some confusion about how it relates to Amendment 23. Amendment 23 is not consequential on Amendment 11; I should have made that clear at the beginning and maybe tabled the amendment earlier. I understand that Amendment 23 is a bridge too far for the Government; Amendment 11 is not a bridge too far for anybody. It is a serious mistake. Over the next 10 years, Marmot and all that will indicate that malnutrition and low-weight intergenerational transmission of poverty will become a much bigger factor than it is today. I am confidant about that. People outside this place often wonder, if you make speeches with passion, what the devil it means merely to withdraw the amendment on the basis of the debate. We have won the argument this afternoon. I am prepared to take my chances in the Lobbies. I beg to move. Division on Amendment 11 Contents 48; Not-Contents 125. Amendment 11 disagreed. Clause 8 : UK strategies Amendment 12 Moved by


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
718 c190-1 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Children Alcoholic drinks Disadvantaged Carers Costs Advisory services Housing benefit Housing Health Drugs Low incomes Northern Ireland Parents Poverty Public consultation Misuse Nutrition Mental health Parental responsibility Scotland Social security benefits Social rented housing Malnutrition Child Poverty Commission
Legislation
Child Poverty Bill 2008-09 to 2009-10
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk