Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I also support Deputy Pringle's amendment. What the Minister is saying is that this is a timing issue and three years is too long to wait. The argument has been well made that three years is probably the appropriate time to allow legislation of this nature to be enacted and work in practice for some time before assessing the workings of preliminary hearings.

A reassessment of what has been achieved by legislation of this nature would address issues similar to that raised in our amendment, for example, the practice of examining the previous sexual conduct of victims. Another issue, which was brought up earlier, concerns the counselling notes of a victim of sexual abuse. I refer to a situation where a person who has gone through a very traumatic experience has gone to a counsellor and the notes then become evidence which the defence can seek to see during the trial. I refer to whether that is appropriate and the issues in that regard.

Many of us will be aware that, as politicians, we often play the role of counsellors as well. We speak to people in a private capacity and assure them that conversations are very much within the four walls. In a formal counselling setting, that would certainly always be stressed. Yet, here we have in legislation a situation where counselling notes can be used in a trial. There are issues around all of that which means that an adequate review of the legislation in an appropriate time will be necessary. Deputy Pringle is correct that three years would be adequate to gather enough knowledge from practitioners in law firms and jurors to decide whether the legislation is working or what are its failings. We could consider what representations we might get from victims, many of whom feel left out of the process.

The suggestion that a year would be adequate does not stand up because few, if any, preliminary hearings will be up and running within a year to allow us to make a proper assessment. The three-year period is appropriate, and I suggest that under these circumstances the Minister reconsider her position and accept the amendment.

See this speech in context