EXAMINATION ON OATH OF CERTAIN EMPLOYEES OF BODIES CORPORATE AND UNINCORPORATED TRADE ASSOCIATIONS. (Hansard, 18 July 1973)

§ Mr. Emery
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
If my right hon. and learned Friend gets the opportunity to move the motion that he suggested on the previous amendment it will give me great pleasure to support it.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this we are to take Lords Amendment No. 34, in page 73, line 9, at end insert: (3B) Nothing in this section shall be taken to compel the disclosure by a barrister, advocate or solicitor of any privileged communication made by or to him in that capacity, or 638 the production by him of any document containing any such communication.

§ Mr. Emery
The amendment meets the point touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet)—who is unfortunately detained elsewhere—in Committee and again by Lord Stow Hill in another place.
The clause extends the provisions of Section 15(3) of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1956, as amended, to examination on oath by the Restrictive Practices Court. The court is in future to be free to examine any employee of a company.
Amendment No. 34 makes it clear that it would not be within the court's power to require employees who are barristers, advocates or solicitors to disclose information which, in accordance with the law of evidence, could be protected by professional privilege from being disclosed in civil proceedings.
I assure the House that this has nothing to do with the professional aspects of my right hon. and learned Friend. I think that it happens to be right, and I am sure that the House will agree with the amendment.