Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)

We will ask some of the guests to respond later. I have no other members indicating for now so I will ask a few questions and make a couple of comments, if I may. In respect of head 19, which relates to the issue of counselling notes, I note the frustration and perhaps even anger that there was not space for more victims, therapists and others who have specific understanding here today. We are not dealing with legislation. This is pre-legislative scrutiny, which is an opportunity for this committee to give a report to the Minister indicating where we think the legislation can be improved. I cannot pre-empt what members will decide that report should say, but I want people to know they have been heard. My sense of it is that the committee will be incredibly strong and united in delivering the message that we have heard from all the witnesses, particularly from Ms Behan's testimony here today.

This is one of the areas where I have to admit absolute ignorance. I was not aware that this was even a thing before Deputy Coppinger's Bill was brought to my attention. I think most laypeople would find it absolutely bizarre that a third-party account of a very intimate conversation that had taken place after the fact could be presented in evidence at all, never mind in a manner that would be used against the person who had sought counselling in the first place. I accept that the Minister has legal advice from the Attorney General. I just cannot fathom how that legal advice could have come about. I do not know if any of our guests can shed a light on that but I can see no other comparable area in criminal law where a defendant would use private, intimate details and notes of a conversation or a set of conversations, and one person's interpretation of that.

It is not even a direct recording of that conversation; it is a record of a therapist. It goes against everything we should be trying to do which is ensure people who have been through traumatising experiences seek support. There is a distinction between this type of record and a medical record, for example. A record of a medical nature sets out very clearly on an evidentiary basis what might have been presented; injuries, for example. Arguably, there is a case that this information might be warranted in a trial. That cannot be compared to intimate conversations from a therapist's chair where there would be a subjective viewpoint, no matter how you put it. This has been raised a couple of times and has raised concern. Had Ms Behan known this would have potentially been used as evidence by a defendant in a trial, she would have been at least reluctant to attend counselling in the first place, if she had not absolutely refused to do so. From her experience in dealing with her own case and other victims, what would it have meant if something like this had been a factor in deciding not to attend therapy? In other words, what would the impact be on victims if they did not see therapy as an option?