Child Poverty Bill

I thank the noble Baroness. I do not really care about how it happens; all I want the Committee to hypothesise is that something bad has happened and there is no money. Allow me my argument for a little while. I know it is inconceivable, but there we are. Let us just assume that the situation is bad and there is no money to remedy it unless something gets chopped; allow me my little indulgence. The issue was explored in Committee in another place, particularly by my honourable friend Graham Stuart. He cited the experience under the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000, when a judicial review was brought against the Government by Friends of the Earth and Help the Aged for failing to keep their legal duty. The Government argued that the resources were not available to pay for all the measures required to eradicate fuel poverty at the time, given the money available. The court agreed and the judgment said that the Government, "““did not assume a statutory duty to achieve the desired results, whatever the cost””." It went on: "““It is open to government to have regard to its overall budget and the other calls upon its resources in deciding what steps to take in implementation of the Strategy, including its requirement that efforts should be made to achieve the 2010 and 2016 targets as far as reasonably practicable””." Stephen Timms, for the Government, went on to assure the Committee that Clause 15 does not have an impact on the binding character of the target, but my point is slightly different. Given the case law that has now developed in this area and the judgments that have been made, is it not the case that the Government can use the ““resources not available”” defence in relation to Clause 1 anyway? My specific question is: does case law mean that a ““resources not available”” defence applies to statutory targets of the kind included in the Bill?