Yes. It is, perhaps, slightly unfortunate that the draftsman provided no background notes on this interesting clause, as it raises an important issue. Presumably, in view of the use of the word ''may'', the lawyer would under subsection (1) be entitled to go to court and explain why it would be undesirable to have to provide for such material in the production order. Am I wrong? Might the production order require the

production of such items? That might constitute a distinction between the 1987 Act and the Bill. Perhaps the Minister will help us on that and explain the extent of the judicial supervision involved.

In the absence of an assurance on the matter, I shall vote in favour of the amendment, although by the time we reach Report I may realise that I was worrying about nothing. At the moment, however, I am not completely persuaded.