My Lords, this Amendment relates to a very narrow point, which I will therefore try to deal with in summary form in the interests of time.

Before I do so, I will comment on Amendment 50, in the name of my noble friend Lord Bailey of Paddington. One of the most important things that we can do for leaseholders—I speak from experience—is promote the more widespread use of right to manage. This Bill goes some way in that direction but it could go further. I have no hesitation in supporting my noble friend in seeking to reduce the threshold to make this more accessible to leaseholders. It would remove many of their suspicions and anxieties—sometimes grounded and sometimes not—of abuse on the part of landlords if they could, as in my case we have, take responsibility for managing the building themselves and appoint managers who are accountable to them to scrutinise accounts and make all the important decisions.

Amendment 49 relates to an uncommon and peculiar situation whereby, in the case of a private block of flats that is acquired as an investment by a local authority—not one owned by a local authority for the purpose of social housing—the right to manage of those leaseholders is immediately extinguished because of the provisions of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, which specifically exempts properties where the immediate landlord is a local housing authority. My amendment would remove that provision, except in cases where the property was held in the housing revenue account of that local authority. In other words, the leaseholders of private blocks would retain the right to manage, which the Government would surely welcome.

I am grateful to my noble friend and to my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook for arranging a meeting with me a few days ago at which we discussed this. However, I was no clearer at the end of that meeting what the position is, so my narrow purpose with this amendment is to seek clarity.

In Committee, my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook said that the Housing Act 1985, which created tenant management organisations for council estates, was available to the sort of person I am talking about—that is, private leaseholders in blocks of flats acquired by a local authority as an investment. However, at the meeting, one of her officials said that in fact that was not the case, because at least 20% of the tenants had to have secure tenancies—the type of tenancy granted by local authorities only to council tenants. Could I have a very simple response from my noble friend on the front bench, with absolute clarity and complete reliability? Is the Housing Act 1985 available to the class of persons I am talking about as a means of exercising the right to manage, or is it not? A very simple answer to that would dispose of this group very rapidly—or at least my part of this group, as of course there is the amendment in the name of my noble friend as well. I beg to move.