I am intrigued by that answer. The fact that the court may, under clause 46(5), make
the exercise of its power under subsection (3)—subject to such terms and conditions as it thinks fit—does not include the power to be able to impose what would effectively be the indemnity that is referred to in the arrangement that we are proposing, which is an entitlement to an indemnity for someone who suffers loss by reason of the exercise by the court of its powers under clause 46.
I am glad to say that another note is being passed to the Minister, and I hope that it comes to his rescue on this occasion. Where the court finds that it has to make an entry, it does not take that decision for a frivolous reason; it takes it because, having listened to the arguments, it has come to the conclusion that that is necessary. If that is necessary, and loss is incurred by someone under schedule 8(1), and if the power to impose conditions is not enough to provide an indemnity but the court thought that the matter was important enough to do that in any case, why should not the person be able to obtain the indemnity that he would, otherwise, have been able to get? That is illustrated by a glance at the other entitlement provisions, such as a mistake in the cautions register, a mistake whose correction would involve rectification of the register, and a mistake in an official search. My point is that there is a category within which clause 46 falls that is not dissimilar to those that are set out in the indemnity provisions relating to entitlement.
I am open to further persuasion, and I suspect that another note is making its way to the Minister that might help me to understand the matter better. However, I will not withdraw the amendment until the Minister has had a chance to read the note in front of him.