Serious Crime Bill [HL]

I am grateful for that reply. When I said that it is within criminal law, I meant that it is within a Serious Crime Bill that comes from the Home Office. I appreciated that the particular focus of the actions in the Bill is the civil procedure. I think she will understand the point I was trying to make: that this was being contextualised within law relating to criminal activity, as opposed to the activity of the administration of companies. My main concern was that we had a procedure in Section 124A, so why did we need another one? With that, was there not the possibility that we would develop a way in which companies might be wound up on parallel tracks? I think the Minister was reassuring me that it gave a different application process, but that it would be considered in the same way; the law would be developed in order-making terms in the same way within government. On that basis, that seems satisfactory, although I shall read carefully what the Minister has said. I am also grateful to her for agreeing to look at expediency. I cannot pretend I know what expediency adds, but it struck me as odd, when comparing the two formulations, that that had been dropped. I was trying to find out why Clause 27 was drafted as it is. I am grateful for the Minister's response and I shall await her further communication. In the mean time, I withdraw my opposition to the clause. Clause 27 agreed to. Clause 28 [Powers to wind up companies etc: Northern Ireland]: [Amendments Nos. 85 and 86 not moved.] Clause 28 agreed to. Clauses 29 to 32 agreed to. Clause 33 [Proceedings in the High Court]: [Amendment No. 87 not moved.] Clause 33 agreed to. Clause 34 [Proceedings in the Crown Court]: [Amendment No. 88 not moved.] Clause 34 agreed to. Clause 35 agreed to. Schedule 2 [Functions of applicant authorities under Part 1]: