Opposition spokesman on justice Josè Herrera yesterday said he foresaw that the proposed Protection of Children (Hague Convention) Bill would create difficulties of interpretation for the courts. It would also create conflict with other conventions which Malta had already ratified.

Dr Herrera said that while Malta was ratifying the convention, it had not been a signatory state in 1996. It was imperative to give more importance to child protection. While the convention was positive, there were radical reforms that would not be easily reconcilable with Maltese legislation.

The convention did not amend sections in the Civil Code; it created new laws that might be contrasting with Maltese law, as a result of which the Maltese courts would have a difficult task in combining the convention with the domestic law. In such circumstances the minister should have been given more delegated powers to enact secondary legislation to fill gaps.

The aim of the convention was to establish jurisdiction of the state where the minor was domiciled, but the words “domiciled” and “habitual residence” were not defined.

Moreover, Dr Herrera said, Malta had signed a convention with the UK on reciprocal enforcement of how to implement decisions taken by the British courts. Another EU convention regulated reciprocal enforcement between EU countries. This could bring the convention to conflict with these conventions.

This had also resulted in the Maltese courts taking conflicting decisions. In certain cases they had decided to rule in the child’s best interests but in other cases, they had stated that since there was a decree by the UK courts to award the care and custody of the child to the mother, even if the child was living happily with its father in Malta, this should stand. Concluding, Dr Herrera emphasised the good intention of the convention but stressed there were certain conflicts which Parliament needed to address.