The amendment would mean that a lawyer would not have to produce material or information in response to an investigation warrant or an order made under this part of the Bill that was subject to legal privilege in any circumstance. Importantly, that would include material or information that provided only the client's name and address.

The Government recognise the need to prevent legally privileged material and information from being obtained for an investigation and then being used to construct a case. Legal privilege is a common concept in our law, and receives statutory definition in section 10 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984; in broad terms, it defines the privilege as communication between an individual and a lawyer in respect of legal advice or proceedings.

However, it would assist the operation of investigations if an investigator were able to obtain the name and address of persons under investigation, and of their associates. Such information might be held on a solicitor's database, and as it may have been obtained as a consequence of a request for legal advice, it would be subject to legal privilege. The Government want to provide a limited exception that would allow access to specific legally privileged material and information.

The obtaining of addresses will assist in the serving of production orders, search warrants, and the other orders under part 8. The addresses in the documents provided by a lawyer will not be allowed to form a part of cases brought before a court—regardless of whether

they are confiscation, civil recovery or money laundering proceedings. The address may be of operational use and help the investigator to obtain his evidence.

As the hon. Gentleman is alert to new encroachments on legal immunity, I offer a quotation from section 2(9) of the Criminal Justice Act 1987:

''A person shall not under this section be required to disclose any information or produce any document which he would be entitled to refuse to disclose or produce on grounds of legal professional privilege in proceedings in the High Court, except that a lawyer may be required to furnish the name and address of his client.''

The provision is a direct read-across from the 1987 Act, and it does not extend the power that that Act established, so he need not search for detailed hidden intentions.

As the provision—in common with many others in the Bill, as has frequently been mentioned—is a direct read-across, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.