That leaves me slightly troubled, unless I have misunderstood what the Minister said. Let us suppose that a receiver deals with a property, accidentally and without being negligent, and that he believes—on reasonable grounds—that he is entitled to do that in pursuance of the order, and it then transpires that he should not have touched that particular property and it does not fall within the scope of the order. Under clause 282, the person concerned does not have a right of redress. In that case, where—if anywhere—does the right of redress lie for any damage that that individual may have suffered as a result of the receiver's actions? It is strange that no one is liable to pay compensation to an individual in those circumstances. There is a state-sponsored scheme under which an individual—who is apparently wholly unconnected with the proceedings—suffers damage, and unless that damage is due to negligence, he cannot recover it. That cannot be right.

Mr. Ainsworth rose—