I am grateful to the Minister for considering the matter further. The issue will not go away. It is ultimately the state, through the enforcement authority, that decides to embark on the process. That differentiates it from receivership in ordinary civil litigation. The state decides to take a meddling role in ordinary civil relations for justified social and policy reasons. If as a result the property of a wholly innocent party is interfered with, it is extraordinary that he should not have the right to go to court to claim by a simple method reasonable compensation for his loss. It should not be left to the lawyers to go off into complex civil litigation. At the moment I cannot even see a valid target in view of the protection given to the receiver.

As an issue of principle it is quite wrong to allow the situation to persist. I will withdraw the amendment but I do so in the hope that the Government will table an amendment on Report; if they do not, we will return to the matter then. I accept that someone other than the

enforcement authority may have to pay, but ultimately the state will have to pay. It is the state's procedure that would lead to the situation in the first place.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 282 ordered to stand part of the Bill.