David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)

They may be summaries. Perhaps some of the uncertainty has come from us being guided by what is in the document. The Ombudsman for Children and other parties have made submissions on this. I fully accept the Minister's response, which was very comprehensive and should allay any concerns we have.

Some states in the United States go further. They specifically deny both clergy-congregant and clergy-confessional privilege. The examples include New Hampshire, North Carolina, Rhode Island and West Virginia which only recognise attorney-client privilege. There are examples of it being made explicit in legislation in order that there is no ambiguity. There are sensitivities surrounding the issue and we do not want to fuel a different debate that would bring us down a different path, although it is the way some in the media might want us to go. I am comforted, however, by the Minister's response that is both emphatic and clear that there are no exemptions. That clarifies the position for me. Perhaps there will be a Supreme Court case at some point.

I must go back to the remarks of the clergy. The Association of Catholic Priests has stated it will not break the seal of confession and statements have been made in agreement with that position by some bishops. The Minister cannot be held responsible for their remarks, but it is beholden on the Catholic Church to accept the Bill. Once it is passed, it will be subject to it and cannot use sacerdotal privilege as a justification for not reporting child abuse. That must be at the heart of what it does. It might not accept this and we may end up seeing the legislation being challenged in court. However, I am pleased with the Minister's response that this will hold up in any court case that may be taken.