I beg to move amendment No. 107, in page 134, leave out line 43.

I should like to say a few words on the clause and proposed amendment. Several hon. Members have a legal background and take legal professional privilege for granted. Outsiders are often cynical about the whole idea of professional privilege. I am looking with an eagle eye at the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East, who is chuntering away at the prospects that legal professional privilege brings with it.

However, we should remember that professional privilege is not primarily about protecting the lawyer or relevant professional—in subsection (2), the banker—but the interests of the client. Subsection (2) states:

''A person may not under section 184 or 185 be required to disclose any information or produce any document in respect of which he owes a an obligation of confidence by virtue of carrying on any banking business unless'',

under paragraph (a)

''the person to whom the obligation of confidence is owed consents to the disclosure or production'';

in other words, unless privileged information protection is waived by the person in whose interests the privilege exists. Or, under paragraph (b)—to which we object, so we want the second tenet deleted—

''the OFT has authorised the making of the requirement.''

In respect of fairness and due process, it is unjust that the OFT has this power of override. An item of information is privileged and the person whose privilege is protected may be keen for it to remain in confidence, but without the amendment the OFT has full discretion to override it. Will the Under-Secretary explain why, given the draconian powers in other clauses, an OFT override is necessary?