International Parental Child Abduction

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Dr Andrew Murrison in the Chair]

14:30

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of international parental child abduction.

It is a privilege to make my remarks under your very capable stewardship, Dr Murrison. I understand that these issues are very sensitive and of huge human significance, so I feel privileged to be able to bring the eyes and ears of the House to them. I salute the left-behind parents, some of whom have joined us in the Gallery this afternoon, for their indefatigability and courage. I know that they will take little comfort in such words, but I must say them anyway. I think it important to emphasise the need not to prejudice ongoing legal proceedings, but as representatives of our constituents we feel a natural and proper inclination to advocate for them.

According to Reunite International, more than 500 children are abducted from the UK by a parent every year. Among the families that attended the most recent roundtable on this subject in Parliament, there was upwards of half a century in lost years—that is to say, lost contact with their children. The testimonies I have heard, although individually unique, paint a troubling, consistent picture of deliberate misleading, ill-fated recovery attempts and financial costs running into the millions. Many have travelled to foreign jurisdictions, time after time, in the hope of recovering their children. The human toll on both sides is staggering.

The Hague convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction provides the principal international framework governing these cases. Crucially, it mandates the expeditious handling of abduction proceedings, yet according to testimonies that I have received, months often elapse before the first substantive hearing, in a clear breach of the convention. Such delays risk the factual entrenchment of the abducted child in the new jurisdiction, entirely undermining the notional remedy of return. The convention exists precisely to prevent that outcome, but far too often it does not.

Several structural concerns recur across the cases that have been brought to me. The first is about the undermining of established jurisdictional findings. In one instance, the High Court here had already determined the child’s habitual residence to be in England. The Polish first instance court was aligned, ordering return. However, the appellate outcome reversed that position, despite there being no dispute as to the original wrongful removal and no clear finding that the article 13 threshold had clearly been met at the first instance. That raises a concern about consistency in applying Hague principles at an appellate level and about the degree to which appellate courts revisit or expand factual assessments beyond convention limits.

The second concern is about the creeping expansion of article 13(b) welfare arguments as a basis for refusing return. These provisions were always intended to be narrow exceptions, not an open door for wide-ranging allegations. Where such arguments are routinely entertained without proper substantiation, there is a considerable possibility that summary return proceedings will be converted into de facto welfare determinations, which is not what the convention intended.

The third concern is about the insufficient use of protective measures. In the case I mentioned, the UK had jurisdiction and capacity to implement protective measures upon return, with an active High Court framework available. These mechanisms should be taken seriously and fully operationalised. Failure to do so risks theoretical concerns hardening into grounds for non-return. The post-decision consequences of such outcomes are stark: the child remains outside the jurisdiction of the habitual residence, there is no effective restoration of the pre-removal status quo and contact arrangements remain limited and unresolved. That illustrates how delay, combined with appellate intervention, can effectively neutralise the convention remedy entirely.

I am, of course, conscious that not every parent who crosses a border with a child is a wrongful abductor in the conventional sense. There are genuine cases—we must be clear-eyed about this—in which a parent flees with a child from real, documented domestic abuse, and the law must be sensitive to that reality. Article 13(b) exists precisely for such circumstances. Where the threshold is genuinely met, it should of course be engaged.

The concern is not about the protection itself, but about its expansion and, at times, its misapplication. The difficulty is that the very features that make these cases so emotionally charged also render them susceptible to the weaponisation of abuse allegations as a litigation strategy. It is therefore incumbent on courts and authorities to apply rigorous scrutiny to such claims, neither dismissing them reflexively nor accepting them uncritically, so that the protection is reserved for those who genuinely need it rather than becoming the means by which the convention’s core remedy is routinely frustrated.

The Child Abduction Act 1984 does not provide for the occurrence of a criminal offence when a parent has consent to take a child out of the country but then fails to return them. That legal loophole became known as the Nicolaou problem, following a 2012 judicial review process. The Law Commission’s 2014 report identified this legal blind spot and recommended a change in the law. I am pleased to say that the Crime and Policing Bill, which completed its passage through Parliament late last night, will finally close that loophole. All abductions from the UK will now be criminal.

Based purely on the volume of human stories, Poland appears to be at the sharp end of these affairs. I must set out the record plainly as it stands. The European Commission launched infringement proceedings against Warsaw, and the European Court of Justice concluded that steps taken by the Poles to disrupt and ignore UK convention orders were in contravention of EU law. A financial penalty was imposed for such intransigence. I would very much welcome the Minister’s reflection on the status of the British Government’s support for the European Commission’s proceedings in relation to Poland’s infringements in this area.

The European Court of Human Rights found that although initial steps were timely, subsequent enforcement actions were marred by delays, ineffective procedures and a lack of co-ordination. Moreover, the court determined that authorities repeatedly relied on flawed or misleading information and failed to adjust their strategy when previous steps had failed. The failures were primarily attributable to the authorities, and not solely the abductors’ actions. It therefore held that there had been a violation of article 8 of the convention.

The bottom line is this: abductions to Poland often endure because of the incompetence, deliberate or otherwise, of the authorities. At the very least, the conduct of the Polish authorities has been marked by wilful negligence, if not a sinister concerted effort to frustrate enforcement orders. That speaks to practices that have seemingly been institutionalised. On listening to some of these stories, it is hard to shake a distinct impression of conspiracy—that the abducting parent is in co-ordination with the authorities, aided and abetted to evade enforcement.

Britain and Poland have a close bond. I think of the brave Polish pilots who fought with distinction, with British wings, in our country’s finest hour. In recent decades, many of Poland’s sons and daughters have made their home on these shores. They say that friends should be able to talk candidly, openly and earnestly with each other, even when it comes to uncomfortable discussions—in fact, especially when it comes to tricky home truths.

The Government line is that these issues are raised at every opportunity with Polish counterparts. I appreciate that this is a delicate diplomatic dance, but Poland’s famous intransigence on the issue has hardly been subtle. Beyond the diplomatic niceties, I would like to know what the response is when the question is put pointedly to Polish officials. When sincere representations are made at the highest level, they should not be met with prevarication.

There is much angst about how the current default position is to enforce the reciprocal enforcement of maintenance orders without any scrutiny at all. In practice, that can result in maintenance being enforced against a left-behind parent, even in cases in which there has been an abduction and an existing Hague return order. REMO case hearings are typically held abroad, without the involvement of the other parent and with no opportunity for defence. Amounts are often arbitrarily assigned, with no consideration given to affordability. To the best of my knowledge, REMO enforcement has been successfully challenged on only one occasion, and even then only on a technicality. For left-behind parents, it adds insult to profound injury that they are expected to fund the illegal abduction of their own children and are often forced to spend thousands of pounds pursuing appeals in UK courts against REMO enforcement.

This mechanism is problematic, for clear reasons. Hague convention return orders are effectively disregarded in financial enforcement proceedings. Left-behind parents may be required to pay backdated and ongoing maintenance. Worse still, the system risks inadvertently incentivising abduction, because it can have the perverse result of delivering a financial reward to the abducting parent. Surely any case in which there is a Hague convention return order should not qualify for maintenance payments of this kind. That should be enshrined in law here. I ask the Minister to help us understand what measures the Government can take to ensure the adequate protection of abduction victims against being penalised in this way when foreign courts reward abductors with high maintenance orders in unreasonable circumstances.

There is also understandable concern that Britain’s position outside the European Union may be influencing how such cases are handled in EU jurisdictions. There is a prevailing sense that the UK has been left out in the cold and perhaps even punished, and that other states have used the Brexit farrago as a smokescreen allowing them to turn a blind eye. Although the precise impact is unclear, it is a mood worth acknowledging as part of the broader context. Will the Minister reflect on that point?

I am told that the European Commission has a team actively working on these cases. Is there an argument for a dedicated taskforce within the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office? I absolutely understand the pressures under which our foreign service finds itself in these times of geopolitical turmoil, but I would welcome the Minister’s view on that point.

Much has been said recently about the fragility of international law. It is for countries with shared values that believe in the primacy of the rule of law and international treaties to make the case for it by practising it. I remind Warsaw that Poland was a signatory to the Hague convention too.

As I bring my remarks to an end, I ask the Minister to outline what support children and families who have been victims of abductions can access. Will he furnish us with the statistics on repatriation, specifically from Poland? If he does not have the figures to hand, will he commit to providing that information to me in writing?

I also ask, perhaps naively, whether sufficient consideration is given to the child’s perspective in these often highly fraught cases. The child’s voice is a good place to start and to return to throughout. Our role is not to litigate constituents’ cases in the Chamber, but to push the Government to ensure that our counterparts honour the decisions of our courts, call on them to fulfil their obligations under international law, and oversee the safe and timely return of abducted children back to the country whence they were taken. I implore the Government to bring to bear all the diplomatic power that we have on this matter, because British children, wherever they are sent or taken, deserve nothing less.

14:44

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is always a pleasure to have you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) for bringing this very difficult matter to the House. It is as heartbreaking as it is complex, and she illustrated that very well. The wrongful removal of a child from their home and family—international parental child abduction—is not always a mere legal dispute. It is a profound violation of a child’s security and a parent’s rights.

I am pleased to see the Minister in his place. I wish him well: he always seems able to encapsulate our thoughts, whether we are here or in the Chamber. We will thank him for his answers today and look for some direction. It is always a pleasure to see the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), and the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), in their place.

Over the years, there have been occasions, although not many, when I have been involved with families affected. I was a Member of the Legislative Assembly and am now in my 16th year as an MP. For the Democratic Unionist party, the protection of the family unit and the safety of our children have always been paramount and always will be. That is reinforced by seeing our own children growing up, and even more at the grandchildren stage: I am very much there now with six grandchildren. We believe in a society where the rule of law is respected and where those who seek to circumvent our courts, whether by crossing the Irish sea or an international border, are held to account.

Everyone will know the film “The Equalizer”, with Denzel Washington. For anyone who has not seen it, it is definitely worth watching. I repeatedly watch it when it is on TV. It starts with a lady in New York whose daughter is missing after going on holiday with her dad, who had decided not to send her back. It is a film, of course, and not real life, but the character played by Denzel Washington was able to go on a train to convince the father to send his daughter back. Although the father had four burly bodyguards, Denzel Washington was able to dispatch all four of them with a sharp credit card. Sometimes we all wish we had a Denzel Washington in our corner—the man who can make things happen. Maybe I should not say this, but sometimes it is necessary to slip slightly aside of the rules to ensure a son or daughter can return home—and he did that.

We welcome the progress of the Crime and Policing Bill, which is currently moving through this place. I thank the Minister for Policing and Crime for all the hard work and effort that went in to making that happen. I need not say any more about all the amendments from the House of Lords that came back. Last night, none came back, so that is now laid to bed.

Although it is a crime to take a child out of the country without consent, there is a gap in our law. It has always been a clear criminal offence to retain a child abroad after a permitted holiday or visit. The Bill would correct that injustice and ensure that wrongful retention is treated with the same seriousness as abduction. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead clearly illustrated that in her contribution setting the scene. It is a common-sense change that we wholeheartedly support.

Families have been torn apart. Without naming names, a mother’s son was taken on holiday by his dad. This lady from Northern Ireland was married to a man from Lebanon, and the young boy was able to go on holiday there. We all know that Lebanon has been a country in crisis for many years. It was almost impossible to find out where the father lived and where the child was, in a society that closes ranks. There is a mother back home in Northern Ireland whose heart is breaking. That is a difficult situation to deal with. The consulate was able to give some assistance, but it was a tragically difficult case.

Legislation alone is not enough. We must ensure that the 1980 Hague convention is not just a piece of paper, but a working reality. When a child from Northern Ireland is taken to a foreign jurisdiction, they should be returned promptly so that our local courts can decide what is in their best interests. We cannot have a situation in which foreign jurisdictions become a safe haven for those who defy Northern Ireland’s judicial orders. Although I call on the Northern Ireland Executive and the Department of Justice to ensure that our central authority for Northern Ireland is fully resourced, the issue is UK-wide—it clearly falls on the shoulders of the Minister who is here today—and I believe that we must see UK-wide protection.

Families in these crises do not have weeks or months to wait. Every day in which a child is separated from their habitual home is a day of trauma. We all love our children and grandchildren. If someone’s child is away somewhere where they feel powerless, unable to do something, that must weigh heavily on their shoulders, both physically and emotionally. We need very swift and decisive action and seamless co-operation between the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the Home Office and international partners such as Interpol. We must continue to press for a justice system that is responsive, a border that is secure against such activity and a law that puts the best interests of the child at the heart of everything we do. I look forward very much to the contributions from the shadow Minister, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson and the Minister in particular.

I will conclude with this. Let us stand together to ensure that this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a place where every child is protected and where no parent ever has to face the agony of an empty bed because of a blatant disregard for our laws. Our laws have to be paramount, and they have to work for the people. Our duty today in this House is to ensure that our Government can provide that for them.

14:52

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) on securing this important debate. I am very grateful for the opportunity to speak on an issue of such importance to many families across the country and beyond.

Since being elected to this House, I have been approached by constituents whose situations have made it impossible for me to look away. I have met parents who have written to me asking for support so that our legal system will protect them and their children. Some parents have had their children moved by the other parent; others have fled violence. That includes two of my Hazel Grove constituents whom I will not name, because they are going through active legal cases. One of those parents fled Australia, and the other Poland, with their children because of domestic abuse and coercive control from their partners. In one case, the abuse was proven in court and it was so substantial that the other parent’s parents—the grandparents of the children—intervened. They felt that the children should be removed from that country for the safety of the children and this parent. Yet these families have found themselves caught in a legal framework that has not accounted for what they were living through and fleeing.

The 1980 Hague convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction was built on a sound principle: that a child who had been wrongfully removed from their country of habitual residence should be returned promptly. In the vast majority of cases, that is absolutely the right outcome, and the convention has served many thousands of families well over the decades. But the convention was drafted in 1980, and in the intervening 46 years our understanding of domestic abuse and many circumstances that had not been considered in the initial drafting of the legislation has changed enormously.

I am very grateful for the work of the Hague Mothers, who have helped me to understand some of the issues around these cases. They are campaigning to end injustices caused by the 1980 Hague convention on international child abduction, particularly for mothers fleeing domestic abuse. I am also very grateful to constituents who have been to see me—both the “abductor” and the other parent, whose children have been abducted. The convention was originally aimed primarily at abducting fathers and was designed to ensure the quick and safe return of the child. However, there has now been a shift, and about 75% of the parents who are brought before the courts are mothers, with at least 75% of cases involving allegations of domestic abuse. No two families are the same, and no two cases can be identical, but it cannot be beyond the wit of humanity to find a way through with the interests of the children at its heart.

The convention provides three defences against returning a child, one of which is that doing so would expose the child to “a grave risk” of

“physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation.”

On paper, that sounds like an adequate safeguard. In practice, it has not always proven sufficient. If the abuse has been targeted not at the children, but at the other parent, that is where the legal wrangling can come.

It has long been argued—the evidence bears this out—that one of the convention’s most significant shortcomings is that it failed to anticipate that some so-called abductors could be domestic abuse victims fleeing their abusers. A parent—often but not always the mother—who escapes to this country to protect themselves and their children from violence should not find themselves faced with a legal mechanism that treats them as a wrongdoer. Yet that is precisely the situation too many find themselves in.

The challenges do not end there. When a child is taken to a non-convention country, which has not signed up to the Hague framework, the remedies available are even more limited. In those cases, it may be necessary to pursue legal proceedings in the country to which the child has been taken. For any parent, that prospect is daunting.

Under section 1 of the Child Abduction Act 1984, it is a criminal offence for a connected person to take a child out of the UK without the appropriate consent, but there is no equivalent offence when someone takes a child abroad with consent and refuses to return them. That was identified by the Law Commission in 2014 and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Minehead mentioned, it has taken until the Crime and Policing Bill to begin to address it. I welcome the legislation before Parliament to close the loophole, but the delay is worth noting because it has caused real harm to real families.

I also want to raise the situation in Scotland, because the law there operates differently and creates significant disparities in the support available. Due to differences in criminal law, many parents whose children are wrongfully removed from Scotland cannot access the same assistance from the police as those in England and Wales. Police Scotland’s powers to prevent abduction are more limited, and some individual cases demonstrate with painful clarity the human cost of that inconsistency.

I will turn briefly to the family court, because any discussion of international child abduction must acknowledge the domestic legal backdrop against which such cases are heard. A report published last year by the Public Accounts Committee made it plain that family court services were not operating as they should. Regional disparities are wide, waiting times are excessive, and too many children endure prolonged uncertainty when what they need is resolution.

The Liberal Democrats have long called for meaningful reform. We are heartened by the results of the child-focused courts pilot, which saw significantly faster resolution of cases, with the backlog in pilot areas more than halved. The child-centric approach of the courts focused on the best interests of the child, rather than on adversarial process. That is exactly what the family court should embody. We welcome the decision to expand those courts across England and Wales. We will continue to hold the Government to account to ensure that roll-out is effective and that the benefits of the pilot are reproduced nationally.

International abduction cases do not remain neatly within domestic borders; they require international co-operation, diplomatic engagement and, where the Hague convention does not apply, a willingness to pursue legal routes in foreign jurisdictions. The Government should ensure that resources, legal aid and consular support are in place to help families navigate those processes. Too many parents are left to do so without adequate assistance.

The Liberal Democrats are therefore calling for the Crime and Policing Bill’s provisions to close the “consent to retain” loophole to be passed into law without delay. We want a serious review of the disparities between Scotland and the rest of the UK, so that all children receive the same standard of protection. We want to see the expansion of child-focused courts delivered with the rigour and resources needed to realise their potential. We want to see the Government ensure that parents facing international abduction—in particular those fleeing domestic abuse—have access to proper legal support and are not left to navigate complex cross-border legal systems alone.

The law exists to protect children, and when a child is taken from a parent, or when a parent is forced to flee violence with a child in tow, our legal framework should be capable of reaching the right outcome. That means being honest about the limits of international conventions, updating domestic law where it has fallen behind, and ensuring that the family courts are fit for purpose.

14:59

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) on securing this important debate, shining a light on the topic of international parental child abduction and providing an opportunity to highlight the devastating impact that it has on families. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), as ever, for his very thoughtful contributions.

As we have heard, and as many hon. Members in this place know, cases of international parental child abduction are truly horrific and deeply distressing. The breakdown of relationships is often traumatic for all involved, especially for children, but when a parent has their child abducted and taken abroad, the consequences are profound. It is not only emotionally devastating, but financially draining for parents who are forced to fight, often for years, simply to secure contact with their child, let alone their safe return. Navigating courts, legal systems and bureaucratic processes across multiple jurisdictions is complex, it is costly and far too often it is unsuccessful.

The hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead has set out how deeply concerning and troubling these cases can be, and has illustrated the scale and severity of the problem. I pay tribute to those in the Public Gallery, but I acknowledge that there are many more outside this place who are also be affected by this issue, and many hon. Members who are not in this Chamber, but who will have had similar items of casework in their constituency inboxes.

I am reminded of a case in my constituency. I had not long come to this place when someone from my constituency came to see me. Her child had been abducted. She, together with her family, the Foreign Office and particularly the ambassador in the country concerned, worked tirelessly over many months. In that case, they were successful and that child was safely returned to the UK, but I acknowledge that that is not the case for everyone. I also recognise that Ministers across successive Governments, alongside diplomats and officials, have worked and are working to raise such cases with the Governments concerned. I remember some of them from my time as a Minister in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office; they were often some of the most troubling cases that we could try to imagine.

Progress in securing outcomes and in reuniting children with their families in the UK is often unacceptably slow. Parents continue to fight tirelessly for their rights, yet their efforts are frequently obstructed, sometimes by the very authorities that should be upholding international law. My right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), the shadow Foreign Secretary, has a constituency case that is known to the Minister and the FCDO, and she has asked me to raise it in this debate.

The case of Mr Tom Toolan highlights the challenges very starkly. Mr Toolan’s daughter, Rhian, was taken to Poland in 2018 by his former partner, despite a court order explicitly prohibiting her removal from the UK. Over the past eight years, he has been unable to secure her return. Rhian is now 12 years old. During that time, Mr Toolan has endured the anguish of missing his daughter grow up. He has missed birthdays, Christmases and countless irreplaceable moments. I am sure we would all agree that that is truly heartbreaking. At every stage he has faced frustration and delay. Despite the provisions of the Hague convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction, despite sustained diplomatic engagement and despite even the issuing of a return order by the courts involved, Rhian has still not been returned home, and Mr Toolan’s ordeal continues. He has said:

“The Hague Convention was designed to ensure that children unlawfully abducted would be returned within six weeks. But we all know that this does not work—particularly when appeals and procedural delays are used to prevent the return of an abducted child.”

Having incurred legal costs exceeding £160,000, Mr Toolan deserves answers, and so do others in similar situations.

I will use this debate to ask the Minister a number of questions. First, what further steps are being taken to support efforts to bring Rhian home? More broadly, can the Minister outline the latest discussions he has had with international counterparts on improving the operation and effectiveness of the Hague convention? What assurances has he received and what concrete actions will follow? Will the Government establish stronger mechanisms to support the return of British children abducted overseas?

We know Mr Toolan’s is not an isolated case. The number of international parental child abduction cases has risen significantly in recent decades. Official figures show an increase from 272 cases in 2003-04 to 580 in 2012-13. Sadly, the true figure today may well exceed 1,000 annually—we do not necessarily know the full picture. Can the Minister provide an updated figure for the number of cases currently known to the Government? How many are being directly supported by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office?

Previous Governments undertook awareness campaigns to deter parents from taking children abroad unlawfully. What further preventive measures are now being considered? In addition, what steps are being taken to strengthen the enforcement of court orders designed to prevent abduction, particularly through the use of border controls and travel restrictions?

Finally, can the Minister set out the Government’s approach to holding countries accountable where they fail to comply with the Hague convention? In particular, how are the Government working with both signatory and non-signatory states to ensure that international obligations are respected, while strengthening co-operation and preventing delays in the return process? This issue demands urgency, resolve and sustained international co-operation. For the families affected, time lost is time that can never be recovered.

15:07

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) for securing this debate. I am also grateful for the contributions of other right hon. and hon. Members, particularly those who have represented their constituents’ perspectives.

As the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), rightly said, this is a deeply distressing topic, and I am conscious that I am addressing it in front of two colleagues who have been Foreign Office Ministers. I am sure that they share our thoughts for all families affected by international parental child abduction, particularly the children who are going through such upheaval and uncertainty. I will respond to the points made today while being careful not to comment on individual cases or disclose personal details; I hope that the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), will understand why I do not wish to comment in detail on her case.

[Wendy Morton]

Perhaps, if it is in order, the Minister could provide a written update to my right hon. Friend.

[Mr Falconer]

I would be happy to. Hon. Members are welcome to contact me directly to discuss specific cases further. For those watching in the Public Gallery or at home, I am the Minister for consular affairs, though, for the reasons that the shadow Minister set out, these cases will often be dealt with by the Minister responsible for that region—the Minister for Europe in the case of Poland, and the Minister for the Indo-Pacific in the case of Australia.

The Government take the issue of international parental child abduction extremely seriously. We are proud to be a party to the 1980 Hague convention. We work with more than 80 countries to support the prompt return of children to their country of habitual residence. That is an important principle that has been supported across the House this afternoon.

Where parents raise persistent problems with how the convention is applied, we raise those concerns directly with foreign Governments and will continue to do so whenever appropriate. At the same time, decisions on return ultimately rest with courts, often in the country where the child is located. Those courts must consider where the child is habitually resident, the child’s best interests and the child’s own views. Decisions about a child’s long-term future should be taken by the court that determines the child’s habitual residence.

We have put in place clear measures to try to prevent international parental child abduction and have published guidance on the practical steps a parent can take when they think there is a risk. I will focus on what happens in England and Wales because, as Members have pointed out, the arrangements in Scotland and Northern Ireland operate under a different law; for the purposes of clarity and time, it is probably better to focus on England and Wales, but if any hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) or his colleagues, would like to write to me with questions on Northern Ireland or Scotland, I am very happy to take them up.

In England and Wales, concerned parents can get a specific issue or prohibited steps order to prevent a child from being taken out of the country. Our courts can order the Passport Office to withhold a British passport temporarily from a child at risk of abduction. The police can also issue a port alert if a parent is concerned that their child is likely to be taken abroad without their consent within the next 48 hours.

We continue to support our charity partner, Reunite International, which provides online prevention guides—not just for England and Wales, but for Scotland and Northern Ireland—to help parents understand and navigate the options of support available to them. When a child is abducted and taken abroad, our consulate staff provide compassionate support to the family. That can include practical guidance on travel, local systems and procedures and help making contact with the local authorities.

At the request of either parent, the Foreign Office can also formally express an interest in the case with the courts or authorities involved. We can also help families access specialist support, including through Reunite International, which should be able to provide expert advice. In relation to the 1980 Hague convention, the UK works closely with authorities seeking a return for parents. Our central authorities remain engaged throughout the process until the courts have reached a final decision.

It is important to be clear on roles. Decisions on enforcement rest with the authorities and courts of the country where the child is located. Our consular responsibilities mean that we cannot interfere in foreign legal systems, just as we would not accept foreign powers interfering in ours. We cannot compel enforcement, influence court outcomes or take part in any illegal efforts to return a child.

I have not seen the film that the hon. Member for Strangford describes, but I am not sure that I can use a credit card in the way he outlined to secure returns, however frustrating that may be. I recognise the deep frustration that many parents experience, especially when cases face long delays or return orders are not enforced. In those circumstances, the Government raise concerns with foreign partners at senior levels and press them to meet their obligations under the convention.

I turn to Poland, a country raised by a number of hon. Members. It is a close European partner. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) spoke movingly about the shared history between our two countries—a history that includes my constituency of Lincoln, where many of those pilots set up as permanent residents. As she says, it is also one of the countries where we have the highest number of outstanding Hague return orders affecting British parents. We recognise the serious impact that Poland’s failure to enforce a number of return orders has had. That concern is reflected in rulings by the European Court of Human Rights and action by the European Commission.

That is why we raise international parental child abduction with the Polish authorities consistently and at senior levels. I can confirm that the Deputy Prime Minister raised it with Poland’s Deputy Prime Minister Sikorski in January, the Foreign Secretary raised it with Polish counterparts in October and, earlier this month, the British ambassador in Warsaw, alongside eight other diplomatic missions, wrote to the Polish Minister of Justice to seek a meeting and press for progress on these cases. I can assure hon. Members that the UK continues to play a full role. Some of those eight countries are members of the EU, and some are not.

Our officials continue to engage regularly with Polish authorities on enforcement. In April 2025, the UK Ministry of Justice hosted a joint workshop, alongside my Department, for Polish and UK authorities. We shared UK best practice on enforcement and discussed closer co-operation. We will continue to work with Poland and other partners to improve enforcement and outcomes for children and families.

I recognise the sensitivity and delicacy of the issues raised in relation to violence against women and girls and the very sensitive questions around domestic abuse. We recognise concerns raised in some contexts about how the 1980 Hague convention operates in cases involving domestic abuse. That is why we have sought to take a leading international role, serving on the steering committee of two Hague conference forums examining how the conventions operate where domestic abuse is present. Both those forums took place in the past two years. This is an active and ongoing effort on our part.

At home, we are working closely with victims’ organisations, the devolved Governments and the senior family judiciary in England and Wales. I am grateful for the kind recognition by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove of the progress made recently in tightening the law in that area. We are also commissioning research into how the convention operates in domestic abuse cases so that future policy is grounded in evidence and focused on improving outcomes for children and survivors.

For countries that have not yet joined the 1980 convention, we actively encourage accession through both bilateral and multilateral engagement, while seeking solutions to existing cases in exactly the way the shadow Minister describes. Those efforts include the Malta process, which aims to improve co-operation in cross-border family law disputes involving children. We also work with Reunite International to support mediation as an alternative to court proceedings. Last month, in Lagos, our deputy high commissioner hosted a workshop with Nigerian partners focused on international parental child abduction and family mediation.

Members have reasonably asked me for figures. If the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead will permit me, I might ask the Minister for Europe to write to her specifically on cases involving Poland, but the Foreign Office are aware of 177 cases in 2024 and 167 in 2025.

We recognise the profound distress caused by international parental child abduction and take these cases extremely seriously. We work with partners through the 1980 Hague convention, raise concerns about enforcement and non-compliance at the highest level and press for improvement where systems fall short. We recognise that decisions on return ultimately rest with the courts and the authorities in the country where the child is located, so we must work with our partners abroad to build up their capacity where we are concerned about it.

On a personal note, supporting British nationals overseas remains a core public service performed by my Department and it is a key priority for me personally. We remain committed to prevention, stronger international co-operation and supporting affected children and families throughout what I know is often a long and painful process. I join the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead in paying tribute to the family members in the Public Gallery.

15:18

[Rachel Gilmour]

I thank the Minister for his inclusive and thorough response to some of the concerns raised today. I will certainly be writing to him on behalf of my constituent who is sitting behind me. I also thank the obviously doting father and grandpapa, the omnipresent hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for his contribution—quite an imaginative one it was, too—and, as ever, my colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), who put the right, honourable and proper Liberal Democrat policy at the heart of her contribution. It was a real privilege to listen to the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), who brings a great deal of experience and knowledge to the debate. As a new Member of Parliament, I have learned a lot from that. I thank her very much for her contribution.

Some Members might have heard a little noise going on behind me. The little noise is called Kit, and he is three months old. Kit is beautiful, articulate and vocal, but Kit too is a victim of child abduction, because Kit will never meet his half-brothers and sisters. What we have talked about in this debate can affect the oldest and the very youngest. That is why it is so important.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of international parental child abduction.

15:20

Sitting suspended.