Mr. Conor O'Mahony:

I also welcome the suggestion of allowing for tracing on a wider basis and not just limiting it to adopted persons. On the information meeting and the counselling, what struck me was that there are two separate heads in the Bill on this issue. One relates to the information meeting, which is for adopted persons, and the other is about counselling supports, which are offered to the birth parents. In both situations, the Bill only makes those provisions in cases where there is a no-contact preference. I would like to view all of this as a supportive measure. Deputy Cairns suggested that we are trying to warn adopted people in some way about the need to respect the privacy rights of the parents. I do not like to look at it in that way. I like to see this as a supportive measure. If it is to be a supportive measure, the Bill as it stands only offers it in one circumstance, which makes it look more like a warning. I do not think that is what we want to achieve. If we are going to have it as a supportive measure I would rather see it offered to both adopted persons and the birth parents in all cases. That raises a knock-on question. For birth parents it is an option or right to access counselling services but not an obligation, whereas the Bill makes it a condition of access to birth information to attend the information meeting. That right could be replicated across both cohorts or we could make the meeting an option for all. My main concern is that this should be seen as a supportive measure and not some form of warning exercise.