I should like to outline what is troubling me so that the Minister can deal with it. The power in section 2(9) of the 1987 Act provides that there is no requirement to supply privileged information, although the lawyer may be required to disclose a name and address. As the Minister accepts, the wording in the clause is different, and I am worried about the possibility that the difference might lead to a problem.

The clause states:

''except that a lawyer may be required to produce material containing only the name and address of a client of his.''

I am sure that the purpose of the provision in subsection (1) is solely to obtain an address for service or operational reasons. I think that it is perfectly clear that that is what section 2(9) of the Criminal Justice Act 1987 is about, too. However, because of the phrase

''material containing only the name and address'' in subsection (1), does not that possibility arise?

The Minister does not want to empower the authorities to get their hands on material of evidential significance in a forthcoming trial or hearing. Is not there a danger that under subsection (1), a lawyer may be compelled to disclose a document containing a name and address? The address may or may not be current, but details of where the client lived three or six months or a year ago might be highly material evidence in an issue to be determined in the investigation.

The clause would compel or oblige a lawyer to give up that information. Because of the words ''material containing'', he might be obliged to give away something of evidential significance instead of just supplying the current name and address. That worries me, because although the Minister makes it plain that he does not intend to erode the right to privilege, I fear that he might be doing so.