This appears to be a printing error. My reference indicates that it should be "who was residing". I hope that it is possible to incorporate and consider it as a printing error.

If I can be of any assistance, I am advised that it was sent from their Lordships' House correctly with the word "was". It is a printing error.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 62 and 63.

Lords amendment No. 61 is one of the circumstances already included in case 11A which enables the owner of a retirement home to recover possession. It is appropriate to extend this case in this way. The amendment will cover the situation where the owner-occupier who was single at the time of letting subsequently marries and dies. The new ground would enable a member of his family to recover possession.

Amendments Nos. 62 and 63 make an important addition to part IV of the Bill and allow Service men to buy houses and let them meantime subject to the same rights of recovery as a temporarily absent owner-occupier.

I do not disagree with the amendments I am not sure that the way in which amendment No. 61 is printed is correct. It does not read correctly. I do not know what can be done about that. It refers to

"a member of his family who are residing with him."

I think that it should read

"who was residing with him."

I am not clear how we can ensure that the Bill is correctly worded. No doubt, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will guide hon. Members. It seems another major error in this chaotic week for the Government; they cannot get the wording right.

Lords amendments Nos. 62 and 63 are difficult to follow as are all these matters in relation to the question of the recovery of the occupation of houses. It is right to make this provision for Service men. I welcome the amendments.

This appears to be a printing error. My reference indicates that it should be "who was residing". I hope that it is possible to incorporate and consider it as a printing error.

If I can be of any assistance, I am advised that it was sent from their Lordships' House correctly with the word "was". It is a printing error.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

This amendment corrects an error that inadvertently occurred in relation to the revision of the fines for which section 185(2) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966 provides. The amendment is brought forward on that basis and I commend it to the House.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

This is an important new clause, which gives people buying their homes by instalment purchase protection comparable with that available to people buying their homes with the aid of a morgage where default in making payments leads to possession proceedings. It gives the courts discretion to allow the purchaser time to remedy the financial situation. The law at present gives the courts discretion to allow mortgage defaulters time to remedy such a problem but it does not give them similar powers where an instalment purchaser defaults. This is clearly undesirable. For example, it might mean that an instalment purchaser who had paid most of the instalments towards the ownership of a house and defaulted at a late stage would find that he had virtually no rights left in the property in consequence of that one default. Therefore, it is thought appropriate that he should be put in the same position as a mortgage defaulter. The problem has not arisen often, but it seems reasonable that such a change should be made. I am sure that it will commend itself to the House.

I welcome the new clause. I should like to get rid of instalment purchase agreements altogether. This is a difficult area, but I hope that, having made this useful provision, the Government will consider whether we need in- stalment purchase agreements at all. Basically, they are extremely undesirable. It would be useful it we could find a way of making it impossible for a landlord to persuade—sometimes even to coerce—a tenant to enter into an instalment purchase agreement in circumstances where most of the cards are in the hands of the landlord, the seller, and very few are in the hands of the buyer. The new clause provides some protection.

The Minister said that there were not many of these cases. Where difficulties arise the landlord—it is a landlord-tenant relationship basically—is usually able to get his way without going to court or going through any legal proceedings, because the weight not only of the law but of the relationship is on his side.

I am not criticising the Government. They have introduced an improvement, which I welcome. It is a criticism of successive Governments that we have not tackled this problem in a wider way. There is much abuse in this area. It has been prevalent at times in certain parts of Glasgow, for example, but it applies elsewhere. I hope that in the continuing examination of the law on these matters the Government will keep this matter under review and will introduce even more radical proposals at an appropriate opportunity. However, that in no way detracts from my thanks to the Government for introducing this provision.

The Government certainly share the right hon. Gentleman's distinct lack of enthusiasm for this form of property purchase. We are not certain that it would be appropriate to make it illegal, but it is appropriate that people purchasing properties in this way should have the same protection as mortgage holders. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman felt able to welcome this provision. We shall certainly bear his comments in mind in considering whether further changes would be appropriate.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

With this we may take Lords amendment No. 67.

These are technical drafting amendments.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 70, 71, 73 to 75 and 77 to 88.

These amendments are consequential repeals. They have no policy implications. I am sure that they will be as uncontroversial as the other provisions of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Bill.