I am just here in the nick of time. I welcome the opportunity to speak on this legislation. As others have said, it is a mishmash, and probably worse for that fact. I want to focus on the section dealing with access to counselling records in sexual offence trials. Last week, Beyond Surviving conducted a focused consultation with survivors - 52 individuals who engaged between 6 and 9 June. These are people who know the harsh reality of the courtroom and understand the consequences of how legislation is drafted in a way that does not respect their needs and wishes. The message from survivors is that the Bill is welcome but it does not give them full protection. Section 13 strengthens the existing framework by requiring that all applications for counselling records must go before a judge. That is welcome. It is a shift away from informal or administrative disclosures. Survivors recognise this as a necessary safeguard. Amendments that introduce a presumption of non-disclosure, create a form of statutory privilege and extend protection to other sensitive records such as medical or child protection files are important steps. The Bill does take cognisance of the fact that counselling notes are very intimate information given in a context that does not have a court in mind. They are reflections of trauma. They are supposed to help people to heal from that trauma rather than prepare them for a court date. I welcome some moves in that respect, as do survivors. The Bill reinforces the justification clause for disclosure and that there would be some form of judicial oversight. I was contacted by survivors and that is why I am emphasising them in particular. I know the Bill covers a whole lot of other areas in terms of historical convictions, the Department of Defence, etc. As others have said, the one point I want to emphasise is that, as far as I can see, the stated intention relating to the presumption of non-disclosure does not appear in the text. If the law does not operate as it is intended, it is not going to work. We must have an explicit presumption, not an implied one. Second, the Bill does not set out what survivors describe as a clear statutory test in terms of relevance, necessity and proportionality in a way that ensures consistency in practice and in case law. Survivors told me about the failure of section 19A and vague drafting about broad intrusive requests. As one put it "the drafting needs to be precise. The failures of section 19A cannot be repeated". The Bill also gives survivors no agency in decisions about their own counselling notes. They have no right to be heard. It is their notes and their life being discussed, yet they have absolutely no input. The waiver should stay in place as it provides autonomy. That loss of control is not addressed. Those are a couple of the points they have raised. I hope they will be taken on board.

Sentiment score: 0.04