Dr. Geoffrey Shannon:

It is a very important question and a fundamental one, as my director general said. I comment as a solicitor as well as an academic. I sort of sail both worlds. I have a practice perspective as well as an academic perspective on this. As our director general said, resource is a key issue. No matter what way we look at this, the system needs to be adequately resourced. There is a real challenge in not overstepping the parameters. There is being ambitious on the one hand and there is making sure we calibrate the balance in the correct manner on the other. How do we do this? We can be much more creative in the sanctions that we introduce for failure to pay maintenance. I absolutely agree with all of the members of the panel that the failure to pay maintenance is a red flag in terms of child protection. If people are not maintaining their child, it raises fundamental questions. What I would suggest to the committee in addressing that problem is that we would look at broader sanctions that could be attached to a miscellaneous provisions Bill, for example, at the end of any given year, such as garnishee orders, fines and imprisonment.

Imprisonment is not the right approach in respect of sanctions. We have used that for access and traditionally for maintenance. However, there could be a power to pursue somebody who failed to pay maintenance retrospectively. That is curtailed at the moment to a very short number of months. However, we could remove that and target the defaulting parent’s assets. Do not look at it in terms of a criminal sanction. In addition to that, I would suggest a fund could be created. One way to bridge that gap between the public and the private system is to create a State fund.