HL Deb 22 July 1991 vol 531 cc521-2

24 Clause 12, page 8, line 31, leave out subsection (6).

25 Clause 12, page 8, line 34, at end insert: '(7) Any proceedings (other than for an offence) in respect of any act or omission of a child support officer which, apart from this subsection, would fall to be brought against a child support officer resident in Northern Ireland may instead be brought against the Chief Child Support Officer. (8) For the purposes of any proceedings brought by virtue of subsection (7), the acts or omissions of the child support officer shall be treated as the acts or omissions of the Chief Child Support Officer.'.

Lard Henley

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 24 and 25.

Amendment No. 24 removes an unnecessary subsection. The Secretary of State already has a general power to appoint a chief child support officer in subsection (3). Amendment No. 25 will enable proceedings, such as those for judicial review, to be brought against the chief child support officer in Great Britain where the relevant child support officer who made the decision in question resides in Northern Ireland but is dealing with cases from Great Britain. That will make it easier for clients of the child support agency where their case has been dealt with by the child support centre in Belfast.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 24 and 25.—(Lord Henley.)

Lord Renton

My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will forgive my intervention, but I have not had time to work this through. In subsections (7) and (8) of Amendment No. 25 there is no reference to Northern Ireland. Indeed, Clause 12 is not confined to Northern Ireland. If I have understood my noble friend's explanation and the note which preceded it correctly, subsection (8) is intended to apply only in Northern Ireland.

I am sorry, I apologise to the House. I believe that I now see the position. I hope that I will be forgiven. However, it seemed to me to be an important point. I assume that it will only be in Northern Ireland that the chief child support officer will be the person to be sued rather than the child support officer who is actually dealing with the case, and that outside Northern Ireland it will be that child support officer who will be eligible to be sued.

Lord Henley

My Lords, my noble friend is in fact wrong. If he looks at the fourth line of Amendment No. 25—that is, subsection (7)—he will see that it states, a child support officer resident in Northern Ireland may instead". As my noble friend will know, there will be a number of child support centres. It is proposed that one of these should be in Belfast. However, even if it were not proposed that there should be one in Belfast at present, it may be so in the future.

It is to cover the situation where the child support officer is dealing with a case in Northern Ireland which relates to Great Britain. The chief child support officer could be sued in regard to a decision taken by a Northern Ireland child support officer. I hope that that explanation is clear to my noble friend.

On Question, Motion agreed to.