Protection of Children (Hague Convention) Bill, 1998: Second Stage 29th November, 2000 Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time." Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Mr. O'Donoghue): The purpose of the Bill is to give the force of law in the State to the Hague Convention of 1996 on the protection of children. It provides a framework within which effect is given to the provisions of the convention in their application to the State. The convention will determine what civil law should apply in cases of guardianship, custody of and access to children who have links with the jurisdiction of two or more contracting states. It will also determine what court should exercise jurisdiction in such cases. The convention results from the work of the Hague Conference on Private International Law. Many Senators will be aware of the work of that conference which has led to, for example, the Hague Convention on the private international law aspects of child abduction. Since ratification of that convention by the State in 1991, my Department has operated a central authority for the purpose of applications for the return of children who are abducted into or out of the State by a parent. The 1996 convention will in some respects supplement the convention on child abductions but its scope is a good deal wider because it deals generally with co-operation in respect of matters of parental responsibility and measures for the protection of children and it deals in those areas with jurisdiction, applicable law and recognition and enforcement of judgments. We live in a world where travelling between different states is becoming ever easier and more frequent. The custodial and other interests of children need to be protected in an environment where children for one reason or another are moved by a parent or parents from one jurisdiction to another. There is increasing awareness of the international aspects of the law as it relates to children and a recognition that conflicts of jurisdiction between the authorities of different states may not be in the best interests of children. The best examples are custody disputes where parents are residing in different jurisdictions and they apply, separately, to the courts in those jurisdictions for a determination on the matter. As a result, conflicting judgments may emanate from each court on the issues involved. The convention addresses this long standing problem by setting out clear and uniform rules to be applied in such cases in all contracting states and it provides for the speedy and effective recognition and enforcement of judgments in those states. Since some understanding of the provisions in the convention is a prerequisite to an understanding of the provisions in the Bill, I propose to outline the main provisions of the convention before dealing with the Bill. The full text of the convention is scheduled, for ease of reference, to the legislation. There also exists an explanatory report on the convention as published by the Hague conference. Copies of that report, known as the Lagarde report, have been made available in the Oireachtas Library. Chapters I to V contain the main provisions of the convention. Chapter I sets out its general scope. It applies to children up to the age of 18 and is concerned with "measures directed to the protection of the person or property of a child". The view of the Hague conference was that, since measures of protection vary with each legal system, any enumeration of those measures could only be in terms of examples. Consequently, the convention gives a non-exhaustive list of the measures to which it relates. In general terms, it applies to measures related to guardianship, custody and child care. It does not apply to matters such as determination of parentage, adoption, maintenance, succession, social welfare or health. Chapter II deals with jurisdiction and lays down a basic rule, namely, that the authorities in the contracting state where the child habitually resides should exercise jurisdiction in matters of guardianship, custody and child care. This was regarded during negotiations on the convention as providing the most realistic basis for determining jurisdiction taking into account the child's interests and the availability of relevant evidence. In the event, say, of the unlawful removal of a child the convention ensures that the first state retains jurisdiction over the child and it restricts the means by which the second state can acquire such a jurisdiction. This is particularly important by reference to the Hague Convention on child abduction and ensures that convention can continue to operate as successfully as it has done up to now. Special provision is made in the convention in regard to courts which have competence to determine an application for divorce, annulment or judicial separation and where one of the parents and his or her child does not have habitual residence in the jurisdiction. This might arise, for example, where an Irish court was seised of a divorce application in a case where the applicant is habitually resident in the State but the respondent and a child are resident in another contracting state. The view taken by the Hague conference was that it ought to be possible, from the point of view of convenience and cost for both parents, where they both accept the jurisdiction of the divorce court, for issues concerning the welfare of the child to be dealt with by the one court. Jurisdiction to take such measures may, under the convention, only be exercised where it is in the best interests of the child and it ceases as soon as the divorce proceedings have been finalised.

The potential role of other states with which the child may have a substantial connection is also recognised, but in a subsidiary capacity. Thus, for example, the authorities of a state of which the child is a national may request the authorities of the child's habitual residence to authorise them to take appropriate measures of protection if they believe that in a particular case they are better placed to assess the child's best interests. The authorities of the habitual residence of the child may themselves initiate the transfer mechanism if they think it appropriate. The convention also allows the authorities of any state in whose territory the child, or property belonging to the child, is present to take measures in cases of urgency or to take provisional measures of protection, subject to the competence thereafter of the authorities who would normally have jurisdiction. Chapter Ill sets out the law to be applied by courts when taking measures of protection. The basic rule is that the relevant judicial or administrative authorities should apply their own law but with sufficient flexibility to allow such authorities to take account of other relevant laws where the protection of the child or his or her property so requires. The convention provides that the law of the child's habitual residence be applied to the question of whether parental responsibility has arisen by operation of law or by agreement. If there is a change in the child's habitual residence, any such existing parental responsibility continues to be effective, but the law of the new habitual residence will determine whether any additional parental responsibility is attributed. The thrust of chapter IV is that measures taken in one contracting state for the protection of a child or a child's property must, subject to conditions, be recognised in all other contracting states. Those measures will become enforceable as if they had been taken by the authorities of the state in which enforcement is sought. The basic principle is that a measure relating to the protection of a child should not cease to have effect merely because a border between contracting states has been crossed. The guardian of a child whose parents are deceased, for example, should not have to go to the expense and trouble of obtaining a new order in the second state to satisfy the authorities there. Recognition and enforcement may be refused, however, in certain circumstances. These include lack of jurisdiction in the state of origin, breaches of considerations of natural justice or grounds of public policy and any interested party may apply to the court for a decision on the recognition, non-recognition or enforcement of a measure where difficulties arise. Chapter V requires contracting states to designate a central authority to co-operate with other central authorities for the purposes of the convention. A central authority's functions will include facilitating communications and offers of assistance between courts and administrative authorities in different contracting states, facilitating agreed solutions for the protection of a child's person or property in cases to which the convention applies and, at the request of a competent authority, providing assistance in discovering the whereabouts of a child who may be present in its territory and in need of protection. Such co-operation has been singularly successful in the context of the Hague Convention on international child abduction. According to the latest information available, some 53 countries have acceded to that convention. I now turn to the main provisions of the Bill. Section 1 contains some standard definitions. Senators should note that particular definitions are given to the words "decision", "judgment" and "measure". These are necessary because the convention will apply to court judgments and to decisions made, for example, by health boards under the provisions of the Child Care Act, 1991. The main provision in the Bill is section 2 which gives the force of law to the convention and provides that judicial notice shall be taken of it. These are standard provisions in Bills of this kind. Section 3 is a technical provision dealing with the application of the convention in the State. The terms "authority" and "authorities" are used throughout the convention. In some contexts they mean courts in the State, whereas in some contexts they mean administrative agencies concerned with the protection of children. Section 3(2)(a) transposes such references in various articles of the convention, in so far as they apply to courts, into references to the appropriate court in the State. Paragraphs (b) to (d) provide for the manner in which the District Court is to exercise jurisdiction in relation to certain matters in respect of which it did not previously exercise jurisdiction. Section 3(2)(b) provides for the manner in which the District Court is to exercise jurisdiction in regard to the recognition or enforcement of a measure taken in another contracting state and section 3(2)(c) provides that a measure in respect of which an order has been made shall, to the extent to which recognition or enforcement is authorised, be of the same force and effect as if the measure was an order of the District Court. Section 3(2)(d) is also of interest because it provides for the manner in which the District Court is to give its opinion on the suitability of a parent to exercise access to a child who does not habitually reside in the State, on the application of a parent who resides in the State. This is provided for in Article 35.2 of the convention. The article reflects the view that the authorities in the state where the parent resides are in the best position to gather information on the suitability of a parent to exercise access rights. Section 3(2)(e) makes clear that the definition of "father" in section 2 of the Guardianship of Infants Act, 1964, includes the father of a child who has by virtue of Article 16 of the convention, acquired parental responsibility by operation of the law of another state. Article 16 provides that where a parent has acquired parental responsibility by operation of law in the state of the child's habitual residence, without the intervention of the relevant judicial or administrative authority, it subsists after a change in the child's habitual residence. The maintenance of some continuity and certainty in this area is regarded, under the convention, as being in the interests of the child. Paragraphs (f) and (g) of section 3(2) allow for the fact that the State may reserve to the jurisdiction of its authorities the power to take measures directed to the protection of the property of a child in the State and not to recognise any measure taken abroad that is incompatible with any measure taken by authorities in the State. These reservations are permissible under Article 55 of the convention. In keeping with the principle that the law which should apply to measures for the protection of a child should be the law of the country in which a child habitually resides, paragraph (h) provides that, subject to Article 52 which relates to agreements between contracting states on matters governed by the convention, any enactment or rule of law which confers jurisdiction on a court otherwise than in accordance with the convention shall cease to have effect.   6 o'clock Sections 4 to 8 provide for standard matters of jurisdiction in relation to the Circuit Court and the District Court for the purposes of applications under the convention in the State. Section 5 provides that judicial notice shall be taken of the relevant judgments of courts of other contracting states concerning the provisions of the convention. Where cases having an international dimension are concerned, it will be of importance that a court is seised of all relevant material relating to a child who is the subject of proceedings in that court. Accordingly, sections 6 and 7 deal with the provision of documents and evidence in court proceedings for the purposes of the convention. A court in the State may, by virtue of section 8, address letters of request for the purposes of Articles 8 and 9 of the convention to courts or similar authorities in other contracting states. The court may do so either directly or with the assistance of the central authority it is proposed to establish in the State for the purpose of the convention. Section 9 implements that part of the convention which requires contracting states to designate a central authority to promote co-operation among competent authorities to achieve the purposes of the convention. That section, which authorises the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, by order, to appoint a central authority is based on provisions which already apply to the central authority for international child abduction and the central authority for maintenance recovery which operate successfully in my Department. By virtue of section 10, the central authority under the 1996 convention will have authority, if requested, to provide information to the competent authority of another contracting state under Articles 31, 32 or 34. It may require a probation and welfare officer, a health board or the registrar or clerk of any court to which a written report relating to a child has been sent to provide information on the child. It will also have authority to require any public office holder or body to provide it with any information which will assist in discovering the whereabouts of a child. A corresponding power is proposed in section 17 for the central authority for child abductions. Article 26 of the convention requires states to apply a simple and rapid procedure to applications for enforcement of orders under the convention and section 11 accordingly provides for the making of rules of court to provide for the expeditious hearing of proceedings under the convention. Section 12 is a saving provision which makes clear that nothing in the Bill shall affect the application in the State of the Child Abduction and Enforcement of Custody Orders Act, 1991, which gives the force of law in the State to the Hague and Council of Europe conventions on child abduction. When a child has been wrongfully removed from one jurisdiction to another, the priority will remain that of ensuring his or her immediate return, and that it will only be after this return that other measures of protection may be pursued. Section 12 also makes clear that nothing in the Act shall affect the existing jurisdiction of the Irish courts to take measures directed to the protection of the person or property of a child, who is not habitually resident in a contracting state, except where the convention specifically governs the taking of such measures in, for example, cases of urgency. The jurisdiction of the courts in the recognition, enforcement or non-recognition of measures taken in non-contracting states will remain similarly unaffected. These are the main provisions of a Bill which is, at its heart, child centred and reflects international concern at the increasing incidence of parental conflict relating to children who may be the subject of decisions or proceedings in different jurisdictions. Lengthy and protracted court hearings as to forum and jurisdiction are not in the best interests of children and the convention attempts to minimise those problems. The convention is of recent origin and states are in the process of preparing for membership of it. I am sure the House will agree that we should be to the forefront in this matter. The Bill will enable the State to ratify the convention. I commend this Bill to the House. Debate adjourned.

Protection of Children (Hague Convention) Bill, 1998: Second Stage (Resumed) Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time." Mrs. Jackman: I welcome the Bill, which will enable us to ratify the Hague Convention of 1996 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition, enforcement and co-operation in respect of parental responsibility and measures for the protection of children. Why has there been a time lapse of two years in introducing the Bill in the Seanad? Is this due to the volume of legislation which has had to be processed before it? The purpose of the convention is to provide better protection for children under easily identifiable rules of private international law. The Bill will give the convention the force of law and will give effect to its provisions in their application in the State. The Bill and the convention do not apply to persons over the age of 18 years, paternity, adoption decisions, social security, general public welfare measures, criminal matters or asylum and emigration. The convention states that it will deal with rights of custody, relocation and visitation in so far as they are international. It does not deal with guardianship, fostering placement and matters relating to children's property. One of the most important aspects of the treaty is that it gives jurisdiction over custody to the country of the child's habitual residence. If the habitual residence changes, jurisdiction changes. For children such as refugees who have no habitual residence, the country in which they are located will have jurisdiction. All this is laudable. The treaty allows countries to transfer jurisdiction to other signatory countries and suggests that such countries might be those where the child has nationality - this is very acceptable - where a divorce case is pending between the child's parents and with which the child has a substantial connection. The most important aspect is that before accepting jurisdiction the new country is required to consider whether accepting the child would be in his or her best interests. Mary Banotti is rapporteur in the push by the French Presidency towards a particular regulation aimed at ensuring right of access for non-custodial parents. This matter is a source of some concern in a number of states, particularly France and Germany. Parents seem to be running into problems in this area. Justice Ministers may not agree on the issue. There is a meeting scheduled for 8 December in Nice. There is also a need for ministerial attention at the Council of Ministers in March to further develop the convention. I ask the Minister to attend and support the convention. Parental alienation syndrome, the alienation of one parent from the child, has come to the fore in the United States of America. It is given a high status in court in cases where there is a denial or change of custody. In some states this is a criminal offence. For some time we have had a central authority dealing specifically with all issues relating to child abduction. I have the figures up to and including 1998. The total number of cases dealt with under the Child Abduction and Enforcement of Custody Orders Act, 1991, was 1,016, of which 584 were the subject of application to the central authority. Many of the cases related to abductions between the United Kingdom and Ireland, nine related to other EU member states and 9% to the United States. I am glad Ireland was one of the first countries to deal with the issue and is to the fore in handling such cases, many of which are referred to the High Court, the judges of which are au fait with the procedure involved. This is not always the case in other countries where cases are dealt with by a more minor magistrate who would not be au fait with the procedure involved in what is a very delicate and sensitive area. The national children's strategy was launched recently on which I laud the Minister of State, Deputy Hanafin. I would prefer the establishment of a full Ministry for children to the establishment of a Cabinet sub-committee of relevant Ministers chaired by the Taoiseach to ensure its implementation. While I appreciate that this is a justice issue and that there is an overlap - this is reflected in the fact that I am speaking as my party's spokesperson on health and children, was preceded by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy O'Donoghue, and will be followed by the Minister of State - fragmentation could be avoided by the establishment of a Ministry for children. I accept there is a need for an ombudsman for children. Because this is such a positive Bill I am very anxious that it proceed. We are already two years behind. I hope it will have a swift and speedy passage. Mr. O'Donovan: I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Hanafin, and commend this very important legislation to the Seanad. I compliment my colleague, Senator Jackman, on being brief and to the point. In researching the issue, I read extracts of some of the contributions in the Lower House where the debate ranged from paedophile rings and child sex abuse to homeless children and related matters. By comparison, the contribution of my colleague was to the point and remained within the scope of the legislation, which has nothing whatsoever to do with paedophile rings, child sex abuse or homeless children. It purports to deal with civil law, not criminal law, and it is important to make that distinction. The Bill will enable us to ratify the Hague Convention of 1996 on jurisdiction and other matters concerning the protection of children. This is crucially important when one considers that we are dealing with such matters as guardianship and the custody of infants and access to children, which is defined in the Bill to mean people of 18 years or younger. The crux of the matter is that within the European Union - this is a UN convention which applies across the world - there are many different systems of law. For example, like the United Kingdom, we operate the common law system. On the other hand, French, German and Italian law is based on the Napoleon code, a system of civil law of slightly different complexion. This highlights the need for coherence, consistency and synchronisation of law across the European Union in dealing with matters of jurisdiction. The scope of the Bill is confined to a number of prime issues. One is to determine the state whose authorities have jurisdiction to take measures directed to the protection of the person or property of a child. This is important. Another central issue is to ensure and determine that any issues regarding the protection of children or of property related to children will be dealt with concisely and in an efficient manner and that the vulnerable person who is the subject of any such application, being the child or a person of minor age, would not be thwarted or frustrated by the various jurisdictions, laws and courts. This also applies to orders made by health boards. The convention will determine which law is to be applied by such authorities in exercising their jurisdiction. The convention uses the term "habitually resides". That is the crux of the issue. The jurisdiction where the child habitually resides will determine which jurisdiction or state will take precedence when dealing with the issue of domicile. We are familiar with the terms "normally resident" or "usually resident" but the phrase "habitually resides" is new to me and denotes the domicile for the purposes of which state law comes into effect. Senator Jackman mentioned the delay of over two years since this matter was debated in the Lower House. It is important to note, however, that only two states, Switzerland and the Czech Republic, have adopted the convention. Ireland is ahead of other European countries. This is an important issue and we should not drag our heels when dealing with it. I presume the Bill will become law prior to the Christmas recess or early in the new year. The Hague Convention follows on the 1991 convention which deals with the abduction of children. Ireland ratified it and it is working well. There is another important aspect to the Bill which should be noted, the establishment of the central authority for the purpose of assisting children who are involved in these legal wrangles involving different states. The world's population is relatively mobile and there is free movement of persons within the EU. There is freedom to travel from eastern Europe to the British Isles and throughout the Mediterranean countries. In such circumstances, it is possible that one parent might live in Italy, for example, and the other might live in Ireland. A row could develop where one parent might have custody and control of the child and the other is seeking a basic right, such as access. It is in that type of environment one can see the importance of this Bill. To ensure the Bill is effective, all EU countries and other international states should adopt the convention. If the convention is not adopted by a country, it cannot be a player when dealing with cases of custody, parental responsibility and related matters. I welcome this timely legislation. It deals with another strand of the child care issue. Various Ministers in this Government have taken a keen interest and a progressive and proactive role in producing an atmosphere of responsibility and care for our young people. This Bill highlights the rights and privileges of people under 18 years of age and in that context it is most important. I hope it will get a speedy passage through the House. Dr. Henry: This Bill deals with parental responsibility. I have been grateful to the Minister of State in the past for the concern she showed about the movement of children around the world who were the responsibility of people other than their parents. Two years ago, when the Minister of State was newly appointed, I brought it to her attention in the course of an Adjournment debate that adoption agencies from third countries were operating in this country. I suggested that this was undesirable and that only our adoption agencies or adoption agencies in the child's country of origin should be involved in the adoption of children. I was extremely grateful for her immediate action on that issue. I have just returned from eastern Europe where I had the privilege of giving a lecture. To my horror, people there are most concerned about the trafficking of children, particularly children from Russia. On television I watched the arrest of a man and his mother who were the uncle and grandmother of a five year old child who was being sold for $90,000. Bizarre suggestions have been made that the child, who was shown in the car with the people who intended to drive him away, was being sold for his organs. I cannot say whether this was correct. I watched it on television in Bratislava and it was recorded in Russia. It is difficult to think that children who are in orphanages could be so vulnerable. This legislation is more than welcome but a great deal more time and thought must be given to the trafficking of children. The Minister of State will be aware of the arrests which took place recently in Italy where a huge paedophile ring was exposed involving children who had been trafficked from Russia. I am most grateful for the interest she is taking in this issue. The most frequent occurrence is the removal of children by an aggrieved parent, who is in dispute with the other parent, from one jurisdiction to another. Of course, we must sign this convention. I congratulate Senator Quinn on bringing to the attention of the Leader of the House the fact that the Bill had languished for a long time on the Order Paper. I am sure the Minister of State would have liked to have pushed it forward as quickly as possible. It is extraordinary to think that there are between 100 and 200 of these cases in this country every year. About the same number of children come into the country as are removed from it. It is not, therefore, a distant problem. I am concerned, however, that the Bill appears to apply only to marital children. I note that the Minister of State's official is shaking his head. I am delighted. Many children are born outside marriage so I am relieved that it applies to those who have parental responsibility for the child. That is most important. Otherwise a large number of children would not be covered by the legislation. The free travel area between Ireland and Great Britain means it is particularly easy for people to come here with children. It is also easy for people to move around in the Schengen agreement area. Sometimes children are taken extraordinary distances. Mary Banotti, MEP, who is the President's adviser in this area, had to go to Western Samoa at one time in pursuit of a child who was the subject of a dispute between an Irish mother and a German father. Court orders are easily ignored by parents when they are intent on scoring points of each other. I have no desire to delay the House any longer. I wish, however, to congratulate the Minister of State on the firm action she has taken in respect of the areas to which I refer. I hope that, at any ministerial meetings she attends in Europe, she will do her utmost to ensure that the trafficking of children from eastern Europe is given careful consideration. This problem is of great concern to people living there who are anxious, particularly in light of the advent of a new and enlarged European Union, about children who might be transported through their countries on their way to western Europe where, unfortunately, most of the money is to be made from these appalling transactions. Mr. Costello: I welcome the introduction of this legislation which provides for mutual contact between contracting countries in relation to the care and welfare of children, makes particular provision in respect of parental responsibility and sets out other measures for the protection of children. Most of us are disappointed that the Bill, which was debated in the Lower House last year, is only coming before the House now. We often bemoan the fact that so much legislation passes through this House only to gather dust while waiting to be dealt with by the Lower House, but the reality is that there is far more legislation passed by the Lower House which is awaiting introduction in the Seanad. This important issue was dealt with under the heads of a Bill prepared by Mervyn Taylor in 1996. The previous Administration's legislation dealing with this matter was almost ready to be introduced when it left office. That would have been apt, given that the Hague Convention had only been agreed and its measures could have been incorporated into law at that stage. The substance of the Bill before us had already been agreed by the time the current Government entered office. It would have been good if we had been able to ratify the convention in law at an earlier stage in order that we could take the initiative in respect of the protection of children. There is not much point in our introducing legislation to ratify a convention unless there are other contracting countries. The Minister of State provided no indication of the number of contracting countries that exist. Unless we have a reciprocal arrangement with other countries, any measures we introduce will be irrelevant. We cannot deal with children who pass into our jurisdiction from another unless that jurisdiction has passed this convention into law. Perhaps the Minister of State will indicate the other countries that have signed up to the convention. I am disappointed Ireland is quite far behind other countries in terms of making statutory provision for the protection of children. The Minister of State will be aware that we are still awaiting the introduction of the juvenile justice Bill which will replace the 1908 legislation. Perhaps she will indicate when that Bill will come before us. It is outrageous that almost a full century has passed since the area of juvenile justice has been tackled by the Legislature. In addition, it is scandalous that the age of criminal responsibility still stands at seven. Deputy Owen introduced a Bill dealing with this matter in 1996 but its passage was never completed. Four years have passed and the Government has neither re-introduced that Bill so that it could be amended or produced its own Bill. I understand the Minister of State intends to introduce legislation on this matter . Will she indicate when it will appear because a serious lacuna exists in terms of the lack of provisions for children at risk? There are serious difficulties in the area of juvenile justice, particularly in terms of parental responsibility. There are far more dysfunctional families now than was previously the case. The Garda Síochána is constantly complaining about its inability to encourage parents to become involved in caring for children who are at risk. I suggest that the most advantageous approach might be to incorporate in the Constitution the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Perhaps that could be done by means of a constitutional amendment which would mean that the rights of children would be enshrined in the Constitution. We would then be well to the fore in relation to this matter. A tribunal is currently investigating incidents of child abuse, some of which were highlighted on the television programme "States of Fear". We have not fully dealt with the problem of child abuse in this jurisdiction. We have been slow to deal with matters involving the protection of children and there are a number of actions pending in relation to children who were in the care of the State, which did not exercise a proper level of responsibility in dealing with them. We must put our own house in order in respect of this area and we will then be able to deal with matters involving other contracting countries, as envisaged under the legislation. The question of free legal aid must also be considered. If free legal aid is not available, parents who are poor will not have equal access to the law. I am concerned about the legal aspects of establishing a central authority. I am also concerned about the question of parental responsibility. What is the position vis-à-vis providing free legal aid to someone taking a case in a country adjacent to Ireland, such as Northern Ireland or England, or one farther afield in Europe or elsewhere? Travel is part and parcel of people's everyday lives and children move between jurisdictions in greater frequency and in larger numbers than heretofore. I welcome this legislation which places on the Statute Book a measure which should have been there a few years ago. There are many other matters which should also be dealt with by way of statute. The legislation will not have much meaning unless we put in place other legislation that enshrines in law the aspects of parental responsibility we consider important. We cannot very well deal with contracting countries without that level of concern and provision being expressed in statute. We must know precisely where we stand and we should no longer rely on provisions that were put in place almost a century ago. Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Ms Hanafin): Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh, agus gabhaim buíochas do na Seanadóirí uilig as an méad a dúirt siad. Even though this legislation is restricted, it encompasses many areas. We could discuss a number of those areas at length and I thank the Senators for their comments in respect of them. The debate has shown that the international dimensions of child protection are becoming more acknowledged whether they arise in the context of runaway teenagers or otherwise displaced children, the cross-frontier exploitation or abuse of children or the breakdown of international marriages. As the preamble to the convention indicates, its provisions were framed to take into account the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which was ratified by Ireland in September 1992. The recent publication of the national children's strategy goes a long way towards fulfilling our role in implementing the convention in relation to the rights of children. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, in effect, a bill of rights for children, and the Hague Convention of 1996 promise to form one important strand in the legal fabric required for the effective international protection of children. Speech Menu Top