Child Abduction (Hansard, 1 March 1993)

§ Mr. Robert Litherland (Manchester, Central)
Having submitted applications for this debate in November last year, I am delighted that I have had the good fortune to have secured the debate and to be able to raise the serious subject of child abduction. My endeavour is to bring to the attention of Ministers and the public the abject misery and despair endured by a woman when her child is taken from her and transferred to a country where the customs and laws are so different from those in the United Kingdom and when our laws have no particular relevance, especially in the case that I shall outline.
A constituent of mine, Pauline Ibsen, contacted me for support and assistance in her efforts to retrieve her daughter Layla, who had been taken by her natural father, a Libyan national, and transported to his country. The history of the case is that Pauline met Abdul Ibziou while at college and they decided to marry, and out of that marriage a daughter, Layla, was born. The family went to live in Libya for about a year but, sadly, the happiness did not last. Pauline could not settle in Libya and she longed for her native England. The relationship between husband and wife began to deteriorate and the family eventually returned to this country, where they stayed together for another two years.
By 1983, Layla was five years of age and was living with her mother in England and attending school here. The marriage had ended and the couple had separated in 1983, with Abdul returing to Libya. On the father's return to the United Kingdom in 1985, his demands for greater access to his daughter intensified. Pauline, who had never prohibited access, became deeply concerned for her daughter's safety, and so made her a ward of the British courts—assuming that would give them some security.
Pauline was always of the opinion that Layla should have her father's company and love, and would not deny either father or daughter the opportunity to be together.
In August 1985 the father applied to the courts to allow Layla to spend one month's holiday with him in Libya. That was agreed, and after the father swore on the Koran in court and gave Pauline his honoured word that he would return their daughter to England after the vacation, Pauline considered and accepted Abdul's promise. It was arranged that the visit could be an annual event.
Layla accompanied her father to Libya but, regrettably, she was never returned. Pauline was suffering from anguish and sought advice from the British courts, which in turn ordered the father to return Layla to this country. All that was to no avail. Pauline was also advised by the British interests section in Tripoli to take the case to a Libyan court. Regrettably, being alone and of limited financial means—and however determined Pauline was to retrieve her daughter—the situation had become far too complex for Pauline to comprehend, and confusion and desperation set in.
Pauline paid a visit to Libya and met the father and Layla, and after much pleading, she was given an assurance that the father and daughter would return to England at a later date. Even though visas were obtained, that promise was never honoured and Layla remained in Libya. Pauline's world had now collapsed around her.
114 In 1988, Pauline graduated after studying as an art student in Manchester, and had more time to attempt to visit her daughter. Arrangements were made for a further visit to Libya. Once again, promises to return Layla were broken. This time, however, Pauline gained the impression that something had happened—something that she could not identify, but the atmosphere concerned her.
Her doubts were proved correct. Abdul had met another woman and shortly after had remarried. Communication between Pauline and Layla then became extremely difficult. There was no response to letters, the family telephone was disconnected, and only a telegram reached Layla—who eventually spoke to her mother from a post office telephone. Abdul had a new wife and a new home, and Layla was left with her grandparents, who were meant to look after her welfare. Events proved exactly the opposite to be the case. The roles were reversed. Layla now attends to all the needs of her grandparents. Pauline had to bear another bitter experience. She had always been prepared to allow Layla's father access to his daughter, but was now denied access herself.
On a further visit to Libya, Pauline never contemplated the bizarre adventure that she and her daughter were to embark upon. After obtaining a visa from the Libyan interest section in London, Pauline made her way to Egypt via Benghazi—a single woman, vulnerable, alone, in a strange place that had changed out of all recognition since her last visit. She tried to make some sense to strangers in a foreign tongue in an effort to find the house where Layla was living with her grandparents. It was a nightmare. Eventually, she located the house and met her daughter again. In spite of an initially hostile reception, she was allowed to remain, and won the acceptance of the family. It was during their conversations—when mother and daughter were alone—that the macabre plan was hatched.
By now, Layla was 14 years old, and had grown considerably. She took her Libyan grandmother's passport, then dressed in the style of a local elderly woman and attempted to escape from the house and from Libya, and to make for home—England—with her mother. Having obtained the plane tickets, they waited until 3 am, packed their cases and, using a ladder, scaled the wall of the grandparents' house. The cases became heavy to carry, and they had to rest, hiding in bushes—or anywhere that would give them cover—until they obtained a taxi, which took them to the airport. They went through the check-in and passport control; they thought they were home and dry. Then disaster struck: a Libyan woman security official demanded to see Layla's face. Their crude plan had failed.
The events that I have described are not fiction, something from a novel or an adventure film; they actually happened. Desperate people do irrational things. After being placed under house arrest, Pauline was allowed to leave Libya. By now, believing that she would never see her daughter again, she was in a state of deep depression; so, on her behalf, I visited the head of the Libyan interest section of the Saudi Arabian embassy here in London, where I received a sympathetic hearing from a Mr. Ahmed Ameish. He agreed to issue Pauline with a visa to visit Libya again. Pauline was grateful for the kind offer, and expressed remorse for attempting to smuggle the child out of Libya.
Regrettably, however, without the assurance for the mother and daughter to meet, the journey would be a pure waste of money and time, and would possibly mean more heartbreak for Pauline. The Minister will be aware that 115 Libya is not a signatory to the Hague European conventions, which put this particular mother at a severe disadvantage.
In these circumstances, a child—a British national, a ward of court—can be taken from this country with little or no redress. That drove a caring mother to the point of desperation, and forced her to take absurd risks to be reunited with her daughter. I have brought just one case to the House's attention; it is estimated that some 1,200 children are abducted from the United Kingdom every year. The case of my constituent Pauline Ibsen epitomises the anguish and human misery that parents and children can experience in such heartbreaking and harrowing circumstances.
To whom can parents such as Pauline turn? The organisation Reunite, the National Council for Abducted Children, has given tremendous assistance to people like her, who find themselves in such a sad predicament. It offers advice, information and a professional counselling service. Reunite is also active in raising public awareness, and addresses international conferences on the subject of child abduction. The organisation has co-operated more closely with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in recent times and there is now a nominated official in that Department with whom Reunite can liaise and look forward to improved communication. That may lead to an increase in the number of abducted children who are returned, and also to an increase in the number of access visits. Despite the restrictions on the activities of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in child abduction cases, Reunite believes that there are actions that officials, especially those overseas, can take that would be of advantage to the progress of a case: for example, in obtaining visas, the protection of a parent trying to contact a child or children or the speed at which a court case is conducted.
The handling of more than 600 cases a year, the expansion of its activities to meet the need of parents and the need to carry out such vital work has obviously made Reunite dependent on financial assistance. I urge the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to support the continuation of financial backing to allow this essential organisation to carry on its extremely important work.
I make three pleas to the Minister: first, for the assistance of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to seek agreement with the Libyan authorities to allow Pauline Ibsen to meet her daughter, Layla, even if it is a controlled meeting away from the grandparents' home in Libya if necessary—anywhere is suitable as long as they may meet again. Hopefully, the meeting will lead to regular meetings and the humane right of a mother and daughter to be together.
Secondly, I urge the Minister to make other countries aware of their obligations under the conventions and to implore them to act with the expediency with which United Kingdom courts process cases involving the abduction of children. To most parents, the conventions are irrelevant and the prospects of the children being returned are bleak because there is no clear interpretation of the procedures. Foreign courts can get bogged down in legal arguments, placing great stress and anxiety on the parents. The booklet issued by the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Foreign Office says: 116 Courts abroad cannot pass down judgments which are contrary to their own law. They are often not willing to oppose family, religious or cultural traditions which are customary, even if not obligatory, in their country. In some countries the law is based strictly on such traditions. It goes on: Every country has exclusive jurisdiction within its own territory, and no country can force another to decide cases on enforced laws in a certain way. Court orders of one country are not usually enforceable in another country. That is the dilemma facing every parent, even in countries that are signatories to the convention.
My third plea is for support to enable Reunite to carry out its work on child abduction. Television programmes such as Channel 4's "Cutting Edge" endeavour to highlight the problem of child abduction, but that is a one-off programme. What is required is the sensitive and professional approach that Reunite can offer. It is the only agency to offer assistance in these cases and in its experience a good percentage of those assisted by the Lord Chancellor's Department usually turn to Reunite for the support and counselling that that Department is unable to provide. Please do not allow an organisation such as Reunite to be treated as a Cinderella group that can be ignored and can lose out when financing priorities are under consideration.
In a recent letter, Reunite concluded that it not only enhances the role of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office by resolving many of these situations but, working in an international arena, assists in reducing the workload of that Department and therefore would deem it appropriate for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to provide support or financial backing. The all-party child abduction group of the House has the support of more than 100 hon. Members, which signifies the importance and seriousness with which child abduction is treated. I only hope that my small contribution this evening, as a member of that group, will help the plight of mothers such as my constituent Pauline Ibsen and help to sustain an organisation such as Reunite.
My first plea is for the long term and involves standardisation of procedure in court cases in signatory countries to the convention. The second is for the short term and involves adequate funding for Reunite. My third request, for which I plead most strongly, is that the Government immediately do everything possible to arrange a meeting between Pauline Ibsen and her daughter Layla.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd)
This is an extremely sad case, and I have every sympathy with Mrs. Ibsen. I admire the way in which the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) has followed the case so closely on behalf of his constituent.
Sadly, it is not the only such case that has come to the attention of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Many hundreds of children are taken out of Britain every year, usually, but not always, by their fathers and often in defiance of court orders. I have to deal with almost all the cases that come to the Foreign Office's attention, and there is no doubt that cases involving the separation of parents from child, often in tragic circumstances as described by the hon. Gentleman, are very distressing for the parent who is often left bereft in this country, and for the child or children involved.
117 If it were possible to take action to alter the circumstances in this or any of the cases which have passed across my desk, I should not hesitate to do so, but finding a solution to cases of child abduction is not easy. It is all the more difficult when, as in this case, the child has been taken to a country which, as the hon. Gentleman understands, is not a signatory to the European convention on recognition and enforcement of decisions concerning custody of children or to the Hague convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction.
Since 1986, a total of 29 countries, including the United Kingdom, have ratified one or other of those conventions. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we take every possible step to ensure that other countries are aware of the conventions and invite them to sign them. Under these arrangements, children are required to be returned to the country from which they have been taken unless there are exceptional circumstances.
When children are taken to a country such as Libya which is not a signatory to those conventions, no legal framework —a framework which, I hasten to add, we have done much to build—exists within which the return of children can be pursued by the Lord Chancellor's Department. Action can then only be taken privately through the courts of the country in question, and those courts may or may not take account of any British court orders in respect of the child. The Foreign Office cannot intervene in the judicial process of a foreign sovereign state, and there are further complications.
Most children of a marriage between people of different nationalities acquire the nationalities of both parents, regardless of the place of their birth. In cases where children have dual nationality and are in the country of their second nationality, in this case Libya, we and our embassies and high commissions are prevented by international law from making formal representations to the Government of that country. I stress the word "formal" because we can make informal representations.
Such children are viewed in international law as being in their own country and are subject to that country's law. Libya does not even recognise the concept of dual nationality. Notwithstanding the fact that Layla was born in the United Kingdom, in Libya she is regarded as a Libyan. Experience has shown that attempts to recover children through the courts in Islamic countries carries its own peculiar difficulties. It is an important principle in Islamic countries that the child should be brought up in the Islamic faith. There is a bias against the non-Muslim parent in many Islamic countries' legal systems. Even in countries in which Sharia law is not rigorously applied —Libya is one such country—obtaining an order for custody or for access is by no means easy. Short of coming to an arrangement with the estranged spouse, recourse to the local courts is the only way open to the deprived parent.
I do not wish to paint too negative a picture in describing the constraints on the help that we can offer. The Foreign Office has produced a booklet explaining what we in our posts overseas can and cannot do to help people. A copy is in the Library of the House. Ratification of the Hague and European conventions is one of the positive steps that we have taken and urge on other countries to provide a framework for the return of abducted children. We are active in discussions on these 118 problems with our European Community partners. We are prepared to make representations to convention countries that drag their feet over procedures.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the work of Reunite. I pay tribute this evening to what we regard as important work and to the assistance that Reunite has managed to give the hon. Gentleman's constituent and the constituents of other hon. Members.
In Layla's case, our consular officials have also tried to be as helpful as possible behind the scenes. In this case the Italians, our protecting power in Libya—we do not have diplomatic relations—have been very helpful when we have had to call on their services. The head of our interests section in Libya has approached the Libyan authorities informally several times on Mrs. Ibsen's behalf since Layla was taken there in 1985. The Libyan authorities have responded constructively.
The head of the interests section was allowed to see Layla and her father in December last year at the foreign liaison bureau in Benghazi. Part of the meeting was held in the presence of two officials of the bureau, but our official was also allowed to speak directly to Layla and to her father in private.
If Mrs. Ibsen travels to Libya, our interests section stands ready to help in setting up a meeting with her daughter, but such a meeting would need the consent of both the father and Layla. We cannot work on any other basis.
The fact remains that diplomatic approaches can have only so much effect. In the absence of a Libyan court order to the contrary, under Libyan family law and tradition, Layla needs the permission of her father to leave the country. Our staff in the Foreign Office and our interests section abroad can do nothing to circumvent that requirement.
As we have repeatedly advised Mrs. Ibsen, she must pursue custody through the Libyan courts. Only the Libyan family court can decide the issue. We have suggested to Mrs. Ibsen that her best course of action would be to seek advice from a Libyan lawyer. He could advise her on local procedure and how she could best present her case to the Tripoli family court. With Layla on the verge of womanhood, I hope that Mrs. Ibsen will be able to take that advice as soon as possible so that progress can be made to bring this sad case to an early conclusion.

§ Mr. Tony Lloyd (Stretford)
I do not want to prolong this sad debate. We all recognise that there are particular difficulties with Libya because it is not a signatory to the various conventions and because of relations between our Government and the Libyan Government. Nevertheless, my discussions with representatives of the Libyan authorities have shown that they are genuinely keen to resolve family-centred matters outside the normal diplomatic regime. The Libyan Government might seriously consider a suggestion by the British Government for some reciprocal arrangements for visits. In the case that my hon. Friend raises, that could be especially important and would be desperately sought by other mothers of children who have been taken away.

§ Mr. Lennox-Boyd
I know that the hon. Gentleman and the other Manchester Members present have taken a great interest in the case.
All that I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that we will help to facilitate any sensible idea. We are more than 119 happy that officials should discuss the matter with the hon. Member for Manchester, Central. Anything we do would have to be with the consent of both the father and Mrs. Ibsen. There is no other way in which the Foreign Office 120 can act. If there is an order of the Libyan court, we can act accordingly. In the absence of an order, we must act with the consent of the parties.