---

Child Poverty Bill

My Lords, I do not want to prolong the agony here. I think that the targets in Part 1 are judicially reviewable. The context of the clause in the fuel poverty Act that the noble Lord, Lord Freud, appositely raised is absolutely in point, although the duty may be different. The legal remedy is still a judicial review, so the question that he raised is still appropriate; namely—and I liked the way he put it—does the ““resources not available”” defence then apply to Clause 1? I still have severe doubts about that. I am grateful to the Minister for trying to reassure me again. The language of the clause does not mean that to me, but we shall study closely what he has said and no doubt return to it at some later stage. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 66 withdrawn. Clause 15 agreed. Amendment 67 not moved. Clause 16 : Continuing effect of targets after target year Clause 16 : Continuing effect of targets after target year Amendment 68 not moved. Clause 16 agreed. Schedule 2 : Continuing effect of targets after target year Schedule 2 : Continuing effect of targets after target year Amendments 69 and 70 not moved. Schedule 2 agreed. Clause 17: Interpretation of Part 1 Clause 17: Interpretation of Part 1 Amendment 71 not moved. Debate on whether Clause 17 should stand part of the Bill.