I beg to move amendment No. 400, in page 163, line 16, at end insert—

''(1A)If any other person has suffered loss or damage as a result of an interim receiver or interim administrator dealing with his property in the reasonable but mistaken belief that he was entitled to do so in pursuance of an interim receiving order or interim administration order, such person may apply to the court for compensation.''

The amendment returns us to last week's debate on the position of a person who suffers loss and damage as a result of the interim receiver or administrator. If that person could not show that the receiver or administrator had been negligent, he would not have a right of recovery. The Minister may remember that debate, and I said during the proceedings that I felt gently in my mind that I had an amendment coming on. The amendment would enable such a person to be included in the compensation categories. I do not want to repeat the arguments that I deployed at length last week, which expressed my concern that such a person was not covered.

The state, and Parliament, can set up a system that may lead to an individual's being innocently caught up in the receivership process, and suffering loss. The receiver may have acted perfectly reasonably but accepts that he has made a mistake. He inadvertently interfered with the property of an innocent person, causing him loss. My view is that such a person should be included in the compensation framework and should be able to claim compensation like the other individuals who are able to under the clause. The amendment would allow that to happen, and I commend it to the Committee.