The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Bridget Prentice): I beg to move,

It is always a delight to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs. Humble, particularly on this issue, as you are very interested in it.

The 1996 Hague convention on the protection of children applies between contracting states across the world. It establishes uniform rules on jurisdiction, the choice of law and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in relation to measures for the protection of children. We believe that the convention will improve outcomes where orders are made for the better protection of children. That is why we are in favour of ratification.

The draft order declares that the 1996 Hague convention on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition, enforcement and co-operation in respect of parental responsibility and measures for the protection of children is to be regarded as a Community treaty as defined in section 1(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. Section 2(2) of that Act provides that an international agreement specified as a Community treaty may be implemented by regulations.

The 1996 convention can be specified, because it is a treaty entered into by the United Kingdom as ancillary to the Community treaties. European Union legislation partly covers the same subject matter—Council regulation EC 2201/2003, on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility. That overlap gives the EU competence over certain provisions of the convention, and the power is shared with member states. However, the convention can be ratified or acceded to only by states parties. The European Community cannot ratify the convention in its own right. Therefore, by Council decision, it has authorised member states to ratify the convention on its behalf in the interests of the Community.

The draft order will not implement the detailed provisions of the 1996 Hague convention; it is an enabling measure. It will specify the convention as a Community treaty, enabling detailed secondary legislation to be introduced to implement all aspects of the convention. Subject to approval of the draft order in both Houses of Parliament, the order will be made by Her Majesty in the Privy Council. We shall then introduce a statutory instrument next year, to implement the convention for England and Wales and Northern Ireland. The Scottish Executive have indicated that they are preparing their own statutory instrument to implement the convention under section 2(2) of the 1972 Act.

We decided in 2001, following public consultation, that the United Kingdom should ratify the convention whenever it was brought forward for implementation by the Community. The Council decision in 2003 was the subject of scrutiny in both Houses then, and the United Kingdom signed the convention in April 2003. If all the EU member states that have not already done so are ready to ratify by June 2010, the convention could be in force for the United Kingdom as early as October next year. We intend that the United Kingdom will be ready to ratify the convention by June 2010.

Community rules on the recognition and enforcement of judgments are at least as favourable as the rules laid down in the 1996 Hague convention. A declaration made by the United Kingdom and other EU member states in 2003 has the effect that relevant internal rules of Community law will apply for the recognition and enforcement of judgments between EU member states. Where a child is habitually resident in an EU member state, Community rules will also apply to determine jurisdiction.

Measures for the protection of children that may be dealt with under the 1996 convention include residence, contact and care orders. The main basis for jurisdiction is the child’s habitual residence. The court in the state where the child has usually lived will generally know more about the child and its situation and will therefore best be able to take decisions about the child. Uniform rules of jurisdiction should achieve that and ensure that decisions on children properly made in one country are respected in others. There will thus be no need to go to court again about the same matters in cases that have an international element.

Jurisdiction can be transferred by agreement if that is in the child’s best interests. That will also lead to the enhancement of existing mechanisms for administrative co-operation between courts and public authorities concerned with the protection of the child in the different countries—something that was of interest to the all-party group on child abduction. The 1996 Hague convention on the protection of children will complement and strengthen the operation of the 1980 Hague convention on the prevention of child abduction between states that have ratified both.

Some right hon. and hon. Members will be aware that the decision of the European Council in June 2008 to authorise certain member states that have yet to do so to ratify the 1996 convention was not issued sooner because of disagreement relating to communication between Gibraltar and other contracting parties. Following the resolution of that issue in December 2007, the EU was able to proceed with the approval of that and other conventions.

Over the years, a number of right hon. and hon. Members have raised the delay in the implementation of the convention with my Department and the Foreign Office, and they were right to do so. It is particularly pleasing to highlight the fact that the Council decision in June last year has enabled us to make progress towards UK implementation of this important instrument.

Mr. Henry Bellingham (North-West Norfolk) (Con): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs. Humble. I declare my interests listed in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, including the fact that I am a barrister—although at the moment a non-practising one.

I welcome the draft order. I point out to the Minister that the Opposition have been pushing for some time for UK implementation of the convention on the protection of children. From the draft order will flow the statutory instrument, which we will certainly support. The convention was signed by various parties in 1996, but as the Minister said, we did not sign it until 2003, and only now is it being implemented.

We have been pushing the Government in the interim for the speedy implementation of the convention. It is a pity that that could not have been achieved earlier. I understand what the Minister said about the row over Gibraltar and some of the complex discussions involved, but it is good news that at long last it is being implemented here. As the Minister reminded us, it complements the Hague convention on the prevention of child abduction.

Reciprocity between signatory countries in enforcing contact orders—sometimes called access—and ensuring that parents who do not have residency can stay in touch with their sons or daughters is something that we have always said is incredibly important for not only the adult in question and his or her rights, but as part of the child’s upbringing. All too often, when children have been removed out of jurisdiction—we are one of the few countries that allows such removal; some countries do not allow it on principle—it is most important for the parent that does not have residency that court orders made in this country should be implemented.

There have been problems with the enforcement of contact orders in two parts of the world, the first of which is America. I have had a number of constituency cases that involved children that had been taken back to America, in most cases by the mother. That may well have had something to do with the number of large United States air force bases in East Anglia. Some hotly contested cases involving removals to America have been out of jurisdiction here, and there have been real problems over the enforcement of contact if the parent in question decides that he or she—in most cases, it is she—wants to put every obstacle in the way of the father having such rights. As the Minister pointed out, if the draft order is implemented in the spirit explained in the policy background, the results should not be a problem. Is America covered under the convention?

The Indian subcontinent is another part of the world to which removals out of jurisdiction have featured in a number of cases that I have dealt with, although not as many as some of my colleagues in the large cities of this kingdom. There have been quite a few cases of illegal removal out of jurisdiction to the Indian subcontinent, but some have been approved by the courts. Are countries such as Bangladesh, Pakistan and India signatories? If so, does the Minister envisage any problem with the courts in those countries recognising the requirements of the convention?

The interests of children should always be put first. That is why we welcome the draft order. When will the SI that flows from it come into force? I think that I am right in saying that, until it is passed, the measure will not be fully implemented. Does the date of 5 June have any significance? I gather that that is the last possible date for a general election. The Conservatives welcome the measure fully; we just think that it is a pity that it could not have been introduced a little earlier.

Annette Brooke (Mid-Dorset and North Poole) (LD): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs. Humble, although it might be rather briefly.

The Liberal Democrats also welcome the draft order. Our main comment is how sad it is that it has taken so long to reach this point, considering that we talk about—and I imagine that we all sign up to—improving outcomes for children, strengthening children’s rights and enhancing child protection. The importance of the draft order is that it gives an integrated approach across the international sphere and stresses the need for co-operation and ensuring that children are at the heart of the agenda.

I have two questions. First, is the Minister aware of any potential impediments that could halt total ratification in 2010? Secondly—I am afraid that this is a question asked out of ignorance—will the draft order strengthen any measure already in place to tackle child trafficking? It covers asylum seekers, and there is obviously an overlap with the reasons why children might cross borders. I am interested in that aspect. However, we welcome the measure wholeheartedly.

Bridget Prentice: I am delighted that both Opposition parties, as expected, support the proposals. I will first answer the questions asked by the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk, who has raised issues involving America and the Indian subcontinent in the past, usually from a constituency point of view. As yet, the United States has not ratified, but we hope that ratification by the EU bloc will encourage the US, among others, including India and Pakistan, to ratify. Our judiciary has been working closely with Pakistan in particular to make arrangements to strengthen the protection of children and young people who are taken abroad in that way.

We do, of course, have other legislation that might be appropriate in certain circumstances where a young person is removed from this country unwillingly, such as the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Act 2007. A number of different pieces of legislation certainly have a relationship with the convention, even if they are not strengthened directly by the draft order, to answer the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole. We are putting in place different pieces of the jigsaw to protect children and young people generally.

I know of no impediment—that sounds almost like a wedding ceremony—as to why we cannot ratify next year. We are certainly working towards the midsummer deadline. I should tell the hon. Gentleman that I do not think that 5 June is particularly significant, but the SIs should be laid well before then. As I understand it, the other place will be debating the matter this week, too. We hope that the SIs will be ready to go early in the new year, but the EU has yet to set the date for the deposit of the instruments, so we are limited by its decision.

The hon. Lady asked whether the draft order would strengthen child-trafficking legislation. I think that it does. The fact that there is a bloc EU ratification sends a signal that we across the EU take seriously protecting children and putting their best interest at the heart of our legislation. I hope that it will send that message not just across the EU but around the world, so that everyone will ensure that children are protected and that, if children are separated from their parents because of breakdown in a marital relationship or for other reasons, the child’s interest is the overriding factor in the court’s decision. I am sure that that will now begin to happen throughout the Union and elsewhere.