Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I will address amendment No. 126 first and then I will speak to the general point. As it stands, section 63 provides specifically for a parent who is registering a preference of no contact to be informed of his or her entitlement to avail of counselling support. Counselling support for relevant persons is also covered in this section and is drafted to ensure those who need it most are prioritised. As such, I am not in a position to accept the amendment. In particular, I do not believe that placing a statutory timeline for the provision of counselling is necessary. I do not think it is useful either. My understanding is that counselling can take different forms depending on the expressed needs of the individuals, and that the type of counselling can evolve in how it is provided. Forcing a timeline for the provision of counselling in statute does not add to the value of making sure counselling is supportive and person-centred. My worry is that by putting a very strict timeline in the legislation, as proposed, it becomes more of a box-ticking exercise than a genuine attempt to support an individual and provide him or her with the type of support he or she needs, recognising that different people come to this with different experiences and have different needs.

In terms of the additional ask for counselling from the AAI and Tusla from people using this legislation, as Senators will know, both bodies have received additional funding from my Department, which will allow them to enhance their resources for the provision of counselling for people applying under this legislation.

On the wider point of counselling, I accept the points both Senators have made. I reiterate the point, as I have done whenever I have spoken on these issues in Seanad Éireann, we brought forward the national counselling service. We opened it to coincide with the publication of the report of the commission of investigation, we increased its hours, and we stated clearly that survivors of mother and baby homes and county home institutions are prioritised groups when applying for its services. Therefore there is a way for the survivors on whom we have placed so much focus in the context of this legislation to avail of that service.

In terms of the experience of Senators who have spoken to me, I am not sure whether people have tried to engage with this. If any Senator has encountered a situation where that service is not delivering, please tell me and we will look to improve that situation. That service is there and has been there. It is a free service and survivors of mother and baby homes and county home institutions are prioritised in terms of access to that service. It important for all of us to get that information out there because there are people who would benefit greatly from this counselling.