| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
6.33 pm
The Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) for raising
the subject of international parental child abduction. He and I have corresponded on the case of his constituent, Mr. Lawrence Horne. I hear of similar cases from other hon. Members. I can well understand the anxiety and distress experienced by the left-behind parent, as well as the trauma suffered by the children who become the unwilling victims of their parents' mutual hostility.
Hon. Members who write to me about such cases ask me, as a Minister with responsibility for the judicial system in England and Wales, to intervene directly on behalf of their constituents. That I simply cannot do. I have to remind hon. Members of the fundamental principle that the judiciary must be, and must be seen to be, fully independent of Government. That principle applies just as much when a case is proceeding before a court abroad as it does to proceedings before our own domestic courts.
The hon. Gentleman has already told the House the facts of Mr. Horne's case, which is currently the subject of an appeal in the Portuguese courts. I must tell him that it would be inappropriate, and quite possibly counter-productive, for the Government at this stage to seek in any way to influence or constrain the judicial process in another jurisdiction.
That said, I should explain to the House how the Government tackle the problem of international child abduction, through international co-operation. The principal vehicle for that is the 1980 Hague convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction. The main provisions of the 1980 convention were brought into force in the United Kingdom in 1986, under the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985. That domestic legislation allows cases in England and Wales to be heard only in the High Court, which means that the senior judiciary has developed a high level of experience and expertise in such work. It also enables cases to be heard with the minimum of delay.
The convention establishes a legal framework for the speedy return of children who have been abducted from one member state to another. Its history is one of the major success stories of international judicial co-operation. There are more than 44 member states, and others are continuously applying to the Hague conference to accede to the convention.
The convention is brought into force bilaterally between member states. For example, it has recently come into force between the United Kingdom and South Africa, between the UK and Turkmenistan and between the UK and Venezuela.
There are a number of ways in which cases brought under the convention can be resolved. Judicial decisions in a court case are only one means. A proportion of Hague convention applications that are made are subsequently withdrawn. In some, when we know the reason for the withdrawal of the application, the case has been resolved by agreement between the parents. In some cases, we know that the abducting parent has agreed to return the child voluntarily. In fact, some countries prefer to encourage voluntary returns rather than formal applications to the court. All that makes it impossible to produce complete and accurate statistics on the total number of cases dealt with under the convention, but what is beyond question is that the convention has had a very significant effect on the ease and speed with which abducted children are returned.
The convention requires member states to set up an effective mechanism for the handling of cases. In particular, each country must designate a central authority to deal with both incoming and outgoing applications for the return of children. In the United Kingdom, there is a separate central authority for each of the three legal jurisdictions: Northern Ireland, Scotland, and England and Wales. The Lord Chancellor is the central authority for England and Wales. His functions under the convention are carried out by the child abduction unit, which is a specialist unit within the Official Solicitor's office. Staff in the unit, which includes an in-house lawyer, send and receive applications for the return of children, communicate with parents, lawyers and other central authorities and instruct solicitors to act on behalf of applicants in other countries wanting to take proceedings in England and Wales. Their expertise is highly valued by all their contacts, both in this country and in other contracting states.
A parent whose child has been abducted to a convention country may, with the help of the relevant central authorities, make an application to the court in the distant country for the return of the child to his or her country of habitual residence. Convention cases are heard under a summary court procedure. The court must decide, under the terms of the convention, whether a child has been wrongfully removed from, or retained away from, the country of habitual residence, in breach of a right of custody. If so, the court must decide whether the child should be returned to the country of habitual residence.
The convention does not, and cannot, guarantee the return of the child in every case. The courts of each contracting state operate under their own internal procedures. It is for them to decide, applying the principles of the convention, whether or not a child should be returned in a particular case. When a return is ordered, it will be for the courts in the country of habitual residence to decide issues about the child's longer-term future. If a return is not ordered, it is open to the left-behind parent to apply under the convention for assistance in obtaining access to the child by means of domestic proceedings. In relevant countries, the Council of Europe custody and access convention can also be used.
I pay tribute to the work of the voluntary sector, which plays a significant role. We are fortunate in this country to have the Reunite National Council for Abducted Children, which offers impartial help and support to parents of abducted children, and makes an especially significant contribution to the prevention of abduction. It provides assistance by way of an advice line to parents whose children have been abducted, or who are in fear of abduction. For those parents and for other people with an interest, it provides advice by way of a child abduction prevention pack. It does extensive work with parents whose cases involve non-convention countries. By means of its contacts with lawyers in both convention and non-convention countries, it can help parents who need to take proceedings abroad to find a lawyer. It is frequently involved in international conferences on child abduction, which have recently included conferences organised by the South African Government as they proceed with the implementation of the convention. The Government
recognise Reunite's work by making a contribution to its funding. The Reunite advice line is also helped by the BBC's "Children in Need" programme.
Despite that, however, Reunite is heavily dependent on the good will and commitment of its staff, volunteers and friends. It provides an excellent example of how a small voluntary agency can work effectively, not only in individual cases but by fostering understanding and co-operation throughout the national and international community.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about steps that the UK Government can take to secure the better operation of the convention between contracting states. The Government are generally satisfied with the legal principles underlying the convention. However, I recognise that the operation of international conventions involves the difficult alignment of different jurisdictions and different traditions of law and society. That inevitably involves problems. There is always scope for operational improvement through better co-ordination and co-operation among contracting states.
In addition to the action taken in individual cases by the central authority, the Government participate fully in mechanisms for reviewing the operation of the convention internationally. Discussions on specific problems take place regularly with other contracting states through judicial and administrative channels.
The hon. Gentleman has suggested in the past that the UK Government should disapply the 1980 Hague convention in relation to other contracting states that do not comply with its requirements. The Government do not consider that there would be any advantage to this country or to its citizens in disapplying the operation of the convention. Our experience has shown that, when problems arise, because of the mechanisms between contracting states under the Hague convention, there is a much higher success rate in securing returns from those countries than in cases in which a child has been abducted to a non-convention country.
The hon. Gentleman also raised with me two specific points: parental access under the Hague convention and legal aid. Parental access is dealt with under article 21 of the convention. As the hon. Gentleman set out clearly the way in which that article operates, I shall not repeat his efforts. Parental access is an issue in domestic proceedings within the competent jurisdiction. The application of the convention is governed by those internal domestic proceedings.
The availability of legal aid to applicants under the convention in other jurisdictions is a matter for those jurisdictions. There is no uniform application, as the hon. Gentleman suggested.
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's concern and interest. The Government will continue to seek practical improvements in the way in which the law in this area operates. I am particularly grateful that the hon. Gentleman has not only raised the important individual case of his constituent, but has taken a clear interest in the general question of how this mechanism can be improved for the benefit of everyone.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to Seven o'clock.
| Index | Home Page |