Dr. Geoffrey Shannon:

That is a fundamental question and I am very supportive of the Deputy's vision. I support the comments on the Scandinavian system because it builds its infrastructure around children. In this jurisdiction, we build our structures around adults and available services. That is a fundamental shift. I urge this committee to focus on that structural reform. We have been very progressive in introducing new legislation but that new legislation will be of very little benefit unless we have the proper structures. We are missing those structures. In 1996, this issue was reviewed and led by former Chief Justice, Ms Susan Denham. It goes back further than that, to 1975. How many generations of children have grown up since we first started debating this issue? Deputy O'Callaghan asked if we need constitutional change. For a modest change, we do not. For ambitious change, however, prudence makes me suggest that we need constitutional change.

On the question about hearing the voice of the child, it is a cultural issue too, and a question of how we can ensure that everybody agrees that it is important that those most affected by our decisions are consulted on those decisions. That is my starting point. The next question is how we do it. I recall, in 2007, being asked about that by an international judge at the Anglophone-Germanophone conference which was held in Dublin at the time. I stated that it would be difficult. My vision would be to have stand-alone legislation on what one should do when a child appears in front of a court. I have had some direct experience in hearing directly from children and it is very challenging. A number of disciplines need to be involved to support judges to hear the voice of the child. Neither judges nor lawyers have specific training in this regard. When I referred to interdisciplinary work, I meant that no one discipline should have an exclusive preserve on this area, and if we are really committed to hearing the voice of the child, we need a set of protocols for how we achieve this. It will depend on the situation. It will be different in a private family law context but is nonetheless very important because divorce comes as a significant shock for children and usually causes an emotional crisis akin to a bereavement. How do we ensure that children are heard? It will be different in the child abuse context, where there is a power imbalance. It is a complicated project and requires a lot of skill in drafting legislation.

We should have overarching legislation where a number of disciplines sit down and look at how we ensure that the voice, welfare and best interests of the child are front and centre in our decision-making, introduce that legislation and have training for the Judiciary. In fairness, the District Court is now undertaking regular training. I have been asked to speak on some of these issues at its full-day conference on Saturday week. I will look at how the new domestic violence legislation will be implemented. Historically, our approach has been that we introduce legislation and it is left there. I suggest that a range of disciplines should come together. We should have this new, overarching legislation. Guidelines should be drafted for hearing the voice of the child. There will be multiple methods. We need to equip decision makers to be able to select the best method appropriate to the child. I hope that has been helpful.