This has been an interesting debate, and I am grateful for the participation of the hon. Member for Redcar, who highlighted the key issue.

I thank the Minister for his reassurance about derivation. I can envisage circumstances in which a lawyer should, notwithstanding privilege, be required to disclose the current name and address of his client. I shall leave aside the interesting point about a telephone number that thereby excludes the document. As the hon. Member for Redcar rightly said, the way in which subsection (1) is worded would allow the seizure of any documents, even historical ones, that showed an earlier name and address of that person. Each of the amendments deals with a different clause, so it was perhaps a mistake to treat them generally because I now see the potential for substantial distinctions to be made.

Subsection (1), from which I want to delete the reference to a client's name and address, raises a major problem to which the hon. Member for Redcar referred, in that the production of historical material could be required. Similarly, clause 343(1) refers to a search and seizure warrant. It does

''not confer the right to seize privileged material, except material containing only the name and address of a lawyer's client.''

That, too, falls foul of the hon. Lady's point. I accept that clause 350(1) is most draconian. It covers the disclosure order and requires the lawyer personally to provide the name and address of a client. A court can insist on such action. That is exactly in line with the previous provision. The lawyer's duty is not a special protection for him—it extends only as far as the client. A lawyer who was requested to attend court and was told, ''Mr. Grieve, we shall require you in this case to disclose the name and address of your client,'' will do so cheerfully because of the court's ruling.

However, perhaps unintentionally, an attempt may have been made to deal with such matters through the possible seizure of documents or the serving of production orders, and that is not satisfactory. Although it may be possible to amend clauses 337(1) and 343(1) to refer only to the name and current address of a lawyer's client, I wonder whether it would

be sensible to apply such a provision only under a disclosure measure. By its nature, that is a specific request to the lawyer to provide the name and address of a client. The other provisions give rise to the anxiety that police officers and others may be found banging around in front of the chambers of solicitors or barristers looking for material, 99.999 per cent. of which will be privileged but certain documents among which will not be privileged. Unless the provisions are amended, that raises the risk of people ending up with a document that it was not intended that they should lay their hands on.