Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

This seems a well-drafted clause. I should like an assurance from the Minister that it is what I think it is, and that it follows the usual civil tests for the granting of injunctions. If he can confirm that it is the basis for the application for the interim receiving order, I shall be content. I have a slight anxiety, however, because the clause seems so clear and well-drafted that I may have missed something.

I agree. That is how the clause appeared to me, too. My question arises not only from the way in which it is drafted, but from the explanatory note. When I practised in the courts, I dealt with many of the Mareva injunctions to which the explanatory note refers. It says that they are still called Mareva injunctions in Northern Ireland, but not on the mainland. I am puzzled by that, because the arrangements that freeze people's assets have always been known as Mareva injunctions on the mainland. The change has happened since I practised in the courts, so perhaps the Minister could shed some light on why the injunctions have been renamed, and why that has not yet happened in Northern Ireland?

I can satisfy the hon. Member for Beaconsfield, because the clause provides that an application may be made before, or after, the start of the proceedings for a recovery order. That means that although the civil recovery cases—like all civil recovery cases—will start with the issue of a claim form as provided under the civil procedure rules, there may first be an application for an interim receiving order. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The procedure falls within the normal procedures, and I can give him the clear assurance that he seeks.

The procedures have been renamed under the civil procedure rules. They are now called freezing orders in England and Wales, but the change did not apply to Northern Ireland, where they will continue to be called Mareva orders.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 251 ordered to stand part of the Bill.