Skip to main content

Clause 61

Volume 990: debated on Thursday 7 August 1980

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

Recovery Of Possession Of Dwelling-House Subject To Regulated Tenancy

Lords amendment: No. 61, in page 46, line 39, at end insert:

"(iA) the owner-occupier has died, and the dwelling-house is required as a residence for a member of his family who are residing with him at the time of his death; or".

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.

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.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 62 and 63 agreed to.