Mr Speaker, I very muchshare the sentiments of the Hon Memberfor Old Tafo. Mr Speaker, if you look at therelationship between lawyer-client anddoctor-patient, the relationship is suchthat very serious confidential informationis shared, just by the nature of theprofession. A client comes to you, he orshe has been charged with a murder case,he or she confides in the lawyer and canactually tell the lawyer whether hecommitted the offence or not--[Interruption]-- He can easily tellbecause of the relationship. It is the same with the doctor. Onething we have always been told growingup is that, if you lie to your doctor, you
would never get cured of whatever diseaseis bothering you. So, people can actuallygo to the extent of telling their doctorsthings they cannot tell their own familymembers, just because of the relationship.That is how it has started with the commonlaw practise in England and we haveinherited it. So, it is not as if other professions arenot important, but by the practise oflawyers and doctors, people easily givethem information and we have to protectthose information from travelling outsidethat engagement. Mr Speaker, clause 15 (1) (c) whichtalks about the Evidence Act, previouslythe Evidence Decree, takes care ofeverything. The emphasis has alwaysbeen on that so, I do not think that we aredoing anything out of the ordinary ordiscriminating. However, by the nature ofthe practise, people easily give suchinformation to their doctors and lawyers,hoping that they have the panacea to alltheir problems. So, we should protect such informationfrom going out. The Economists, we wouldcater for in there, somewhere undersubsection (c).