My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, value added tax was designed as a broad-based tax. As such it inevitably falls on necessities as well as luxuries. Reliefs from the tax have to be limited to those that can be justified on stringent social and economic grounds. Her Majesty's Government recognise the importance of crime prevention measures, but VAT is not a suitable instrument to assist every aspect of public policy.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that his Answer will seem very agreeable to every burglar and housebreaker in the country? Is he also aware of the fact that in these days people have to install this equipment solely because of the failure of society to provide adequate protection for persons and for property? Surely this is a sufficiently stringent test, to use my noble friend's words, to justify an exemption.

My Lords, I doubt whether the average burglar inquires whether a burglar alarm is liable to VAT before he decides to burgle premises. The position is that there is a great deal of expenditure which people regard as a necessity but which, nevertheless, is chargeable to VAT.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the fact that burglars do make inquiries about whether burglar alarms have been fitted? Is he also aware that the decision whether or not to fit depends on the means of the person concerned? Therefore, burglars have a considerable interest in my noble friend's consistency of purpose in maintaining the rigidity of the tax system.

My Lords, my noble friend is obviously well acquainted with the ways of burglars. His knowledge in this field certainly exceeds my own. I remind him that the original installation of a burglar alarm in a new building and the first installation in an existing building are both zero-rated. To that extent, therefore, he and I are on the same side.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his Answer to his noble friend will be generally recognised as the standard formula of Treasury Ministers under successive Governments, and that the anomalies that have grown up since VAT was first introduced in 1972 will surely make it an even greater nonsense than when that reply was first made? Will he therefore not recognise that there really is a serious need for a proper independent study of the various anomalies within VAT?

My Lords, the noble Lord is a great expert on the fiscal aspects of these matters, if not on the burglarious ones. Concerning the latter part of his question, a good reply remains a good one even if it is an old one.

My Lords, have burglars been asked to make a modest contribution to the Treasury for making their task easier when they go a-burglaring?

My Lords, there is considerable dispute about whether a burglar is assessable under Cases I and II of Schedule D as carrying on a trade or profession, but as far as I know burglars are not registered for VAT purposes.

My Lords, will the noble Lord not agree with me that a large amount of police time is wasted by ill-maintained burglar alarms which go off by chance and through their faulty state of repair, causing the police to be drawn from a considerable distance to answer false alarms?

My Lords, it is perfectly true, as my noble friend says, that both inconvenience and a waste of police time are caused by faulty burglar alarms, but I doubt whether this is really related to the question of the charging of VAT on maintenance.

My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that burglar alarms are God's gift to burglars because when a burglar sees a burglar alarm on the outside of a house he knows that there is something worth burgling inside it?

My Lords, I am not an expert on the habits or philosophy of burglars, and I hesitate to be drawn further into this field.

My Lords, will the noble Lord use his powers of persuasion with the insurance industry to ensure that premiums are reduced when burglar alarms are installed, and thereby achieve the results that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has in mind?

My Lords, that strays rather outside the ambit of the Question on the Order Paper.

My Lords. I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, the Government and the Civil Aviation Authority have approved numerous proposals put forward by the airlines for innovative low fares and have disapproved a number of proposals for unjustified increases. Where other governments are reluctant to approve our own airlines' innovative fares proposals we have sought, and in some cases obtained, their approval through bilateral negotiations. Within Europe the Government are, in addition, seeking more scope for the airlines to exercise their own commercial judgment in relation to fares charged; it is, of course, primarily to the commercial judgment of the airlines that we must look on these matters.

My Lords, I was on a rather different range of fares from what the noble Lord has discussed. Might I ask him if he would agree that the range of fares at the moment is far too wide and that it would be greatly to the benefit of travellers and agents alike if the number could be reduced? Arising from that, might I ask him on the question of discounted tickets, which is allied to the range of fares, whether he would not feel that it would be a good idea if all discounted tickets could be available through all agencies for all travellers and not confined only to bucket shops?

My Lords, I am afraid that, with regard to the last supplementary question that the noble Baroness has put, I would have to say, No; because the tickets to which the noble Baroness refers are sold outside the provisions of the relative Air Services Agreement or the permit issued under it. As for the wide range of fares to which she referred, I would say that that, again, is a matter for the airlines themselves to resolve. If they see an outlet for their services through a wide range of fares, then they should be allowed to propose that.

My Lords, if I may take that a step further, I hope that the noble Lord will not feel that he has got to stonewall on every question that I ask. Is he aware that British Airways are attempting to deal with this availability of low-price tickets to everybody but that such a plan, known as remaindering, needs route-by-route agreement? If that is correct, would the Government be prepared to ask the Civil Aviation Authority to help secure such agreements?

My Lords, I think that if it is a question of negotiating with other governments, as generally it is, then it is a matter for the Government themselves and not for the Civil Aviation Authority; although the Government operate very closely in accordance with the advice of the CAA in these matters.

My Lords, do I understand from the Minister's reply to my last supplementary question—a reply which I hopefully think was meant to be helpful—that the Government would be prepared to help in securing route-by-route agreement if they were asked to do so in connection with this remaindering plan?

My Lords, I have not seen the details of the plan to which the noble Baroness refers, but if it meets the general criteria to which I have referred then the Government would certainly support it.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's Question is, No. To do as the noble Lord asks would involve disproportionate public expense.

My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree with the statement of John Stuart Mill that all silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility—which the Government are taking to themselves in this case in that they will not allow the ventilation of arguments with which they disagree, but that, in doing so, they arouse the hostility of the people of Britain who think that if they are being prevented from listening to an argument then the Government's case must be a bad one? And is it not the best way of convincing the outside world that our assertion of sovereignty is false that we are not prepared to allow free discussion on all the issues involved?

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is making quite unwarranted assertions. As I indicated in the Answer to the Question which he put down just before Christmas, the records, when the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have finished looking at them, are returned to the Public Record Office. That is always the procedure.

My Lords, the Answers vary from Question Time to Question Time. The noble Baroness for the first time today refers to "disproportionate public expense" in relation to the retention of a small number of papers and their return to the Public Record Office. Can she say precisely how the expense is disproportionate? It would seem on the face of it to be a very small expense indeed. Secondly, do the papers that are retained deal with sovereignty exclusively or are other matters involved as well? Can she now say that these papers will be returned—especially as she herself told the House a few weeks ago that they are not classified documents?

My Lords, the Answer that I have given to the Question today is couched in the precise terms of the answer that I gave to a supplementary put by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, when he put down a similar Question in December. As I indicated then—and I confirm to the House again—these are unclassified documents; and when they are no longer required they will be returned to the Public Record Office.

My Lords, would the noble Baroness be good enough to reply to my supplementary question? She said that to return them would involve a disproportionate public expense. Would she be good enough to explain to the House what is the expense and in what way it is disproportionate?

My Lords, it is not the returning of the documents to the Public Record Office which is expensive. It is the particular point put down by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in his Question, which is to,

"make available in the Public Record Office copies of the … documents".

At any one time the Foreign and Commonwealth Office might have something in the order of a thousand records. To make copies of these would involve disproportionate public expenditure.

My Lords, since the noble Baroness tells the House that the cost of providing copies will be disproportionate, will the Government be prepared to provide copies to people who are prepared to pay for them?

My Lords, it is not just a question of providing copies of particular documents to which Lord Avebury's Question referred. Clearly if we were prepared to provide copies for the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, we should have to provide copies for everybody. That is where the disproportionate expense comes in. Furthermore, they would have to be identified.

My Lords, is not the truth of this matter that these are documents which throw doubt upon Britain's claims to sovereignty over the Falkland Islands and therefore the Foreign Office do not wish members of the public to be allowed to see them?

My Lords, I hope I have made the position absolutely plain. When the records, which are in the public domain, are no longer required, they will be returned; and then everybody will be able to see them.

My Lords, might not any Member of Parliament or of this House be allowed into the Foreign Office to consult these documents, if necessary?

My Lords, Yes, when they are in the Public Record Office.

My Lords, how long does it take for officials of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to read, understand and study a document before they have to return it?

My Lords, it entirely depends on the records being consulted.

My Lords, with respect to the noble Baroness, whom we all admire, may I ask whether she is aware that the nature of her replies creates an unnecessary suspicion that there may be something in these papers that is of great importance? I would ask her to reply to that point now. May I also ask whether she will be good enough to consult with her right honourable friend in order to see whether this problem can be resolved either by giving a date when she thinks the documents will be returned, or by informing the House that they will be returned forthwith?

My Lords, I have indicated that all the documents will go back to the Public Record Office. On the first of the noble Lord's supplementary questions, I can only repeat to him the answer that I gave to a similar supplementary question that he put down when this matter was last before your Lordships. I said then:

"Referring to a subject as complicated as the history of the Falkland Islands, it is inevitable that individual officials will have differing and in some cases conflicting views. Successive British Governments have made it clear that they have no doubts about our sovereignty over the Falklands."

My Lords, would it not be simpler for the Foreign Office, when they want a document, to copy it, thereby leaving the record in its proper place in the Public Record Office?

My Lords, the assumption behind the noble Lord's question is that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is looking at only one document from the Public Record Office. As I have already indicated, at any one time there may be 1,000 records out from the Public Record Office, and therefore it would not be a practicable proposition to copy them all.

My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that she has treated the House this afternoon with insolent disdain—

Oh!

Withdraw!

which is wholly uncharacteristic of her, and which is also quite unacceptable? Will the Minister say whether she is talking about a small number of items—as the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said in the question to which I referred—or whether it is a thousand items, as she has said this afternoon? Does she not agree that the withholding of these documents must be seen in the context of the concealment of many other documents for 50, 70 and even 100 years concerning the sovereignty of the Malvinas (as I shall call them until this matter is finally cleared up)?

My Lords, what I have said in response to this question applies to the particular documents to which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has referred as well as to any other documents which the Foreign Office might be looking at at any one time. When they are no longer needed they are returned.

My Lords, while dissociating myself from the adjective "insolent", may I ask the noble Baroness whether she will not look at this matter again? As I understand it, the original information supplied was that only a small number of items had been withdrawn. If that is right, the expense factor must be negligible, must it not? In so far as the noble Baroness has referred to the documents being returned in due course, may I ask when will that be?

My Lords, some documents have been returned, and others will be returned when we have completed our consideration of them. But I think there is a misunderstanding which, if I may say so, is exemplified in the noble and learned Lord's question. If some documents were to be copied, the arrangements to be made for any one person would have to be available for everyone who borrows documents from the Public Record Office. That is where the disproportionate public expense and administration would come in.

My Lords, while deploring the Minister's reply to the present question, may I ask whether she would accept my congratulations—and, I am sure, those of the whole House—on the release of the British mercenaries held for so long in Angola?

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, an announcement on combined heat and power will be made shortly.

My Lords, in thanking the noble Earl for his reply, may I ask him to confirm that it is now 18 months since the Atkins Report was published and many people are impatiently awaiting action on that report? Also while I acquit him personally of dragging his feet on this matter—because I believe that he is sympathetic toward CHP—does he realise that many of us believe that once again it is the baleful influence of the Treasury which is delaying action on the Atkins Report? Can he either put a rocket behind the Treasury or use his renowned charm and intellect to persuade them that CHP is an excellent investment on grounds of employment, financial return and energy conservation?

My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that flattery will get me nowhere in this particular case. Can I just say to him that the study carried out by Atkins was indeed an extensive piece of work. Consultations have now been held with all the parties involved and I hope that we shall have a decision within the next few weeks.

My Lords, may I press the noble Earl a little further? Can he say whether, when a decision has been taken, it will be to select one of the nine cities investigated in the Atkins Report? In other words, has he decided to go ahead with one of them or is that still under review, after 18 months?

My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Viscount is trying to anticipate the decision.

My Lords, can I ask the noble Minister whether, before any announcement is made, he will seek to influence the Secretary of State to include in any such scheme individual metering for all the households and properties involved, bearing in mind the disastrous financial consequences suffered by householders in the past when individual metering has not been provided?

Indeed yes, my Lords: The noble Lord is quite right to make that point. We have taken consideration of metering into account.

My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether in the preparation of the reply that we are all anxiously awaiting account will be taken of the fact that these major schemes will involve long lead-times and a long payback period, and whether special provision will be made for that?

My Lords, yes. Those aspects have been considered in the interim period.

My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl one short question? He says that we should expect an announcement within a few weeks. May I hope that it will be before the Easter Recess?

My Lords, I certainly do.

My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement now being made in another place on the Archway Road Inquiry.

It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Housing and Building Control Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7.30 for approximately an hour.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on re-commitment) on this Bill.

moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 6, line 1, leave out ("(3)") and insert ("(4)").

moved Amendment No. 2:

moved Amendment No. 3:

moved Amendment No. 4:

moved Amendment No. 5:

of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 6:

moved Amendment No. 7:

moved Amendment No. 8:

moved Amendment No. 9:

moved Amendment No. 10:

moved Amendment No. 11:

The Question is, That I report the Bill to the House with amendments.

Moved, That the Bill be reported to the House with amendments.—(Lord Aberdare.)

Before the Bill passes, I should like to state that we on these Benches are delighted to see the Bill at this stage. We regarded it in the early stages as a rather clumsy way of dealing with what called out for a new deal on mental health in Scotland, but here it is and we welcome the changes that have been included in the Bill.

I should like to make two points to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. The Bill imposes on the welfare commission and the local authorities substantial new responsibilties, and I would ask the noble and learned Lord if he has any comment on whether the funding arrangements are now appropriate for them to discharge these responsibilities.

This Bill is a consolidation measure. I think that the changes to which the noble Lord refers were made in the legislation which is being consolidated. But I feel certain that the arrangements for funding are suitable.

My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the Town and Country Planning Bill, have consented to place their prerogative and interest, on behalf of the Crown and the Duchy of Cornwall, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament fir the purposes of the Bill.

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Bellwin, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. In doing so, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Lyell for his support. My Lords, I beg to move.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 2, line 5, after ("or") insert ("save where the freeholder is a body of persons or Trust established for charitable purposes only").

I should like to support what has been said by my noble friend. This problem can be approached from three different points of view, but they are all so closely connected that it is extremely difficult to know how to deal with them by means of individual amendments. My noble friend referred in particular to the Cambridge colleges. They are a case in point. On the other hand, they are only one particularly important case where large areas may be let, not necessarily by a charitable organisation like a Cambridge college but possibly by another organisation, to a body which is going to develop them on a lease of perhaps 99 years. Ninety-nine years may he a reasonable period for a pension fund which has to look far ahead. If it is possible, under the provisions of the Bill, for the freehold to be acquired, it will be most undesirable for a lease of that kind to be let.

In another place the honourable Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary referred last year to a number of cases where more or less devasted areas were likely to be redeveloped by a partnership between private enterprise and a local authority. He referred with satisfaction to the way in which private enterprise and a public authority were co-operating and where private and public money were both being used in order to provide immediate development—perhaps housing—during the decades to come, provided there was the certainty that at the end of the lease the freehold would revert to the present freeholder. If under the provisions of the Bill it becomes possible for the freehold to be acquired, there may be pepperpot development all over that area, and in 30, 40, 50 or frequently 99 years' time the freehold will not revert to the present freeholder to enable redevelopment to take place to meet the unforseeable requirements of very nearly 100 years hence.

I revert to the point which my noble friend has made. I do not think we need be ashamed of finding it extraordinarily difficult to deal with amendments to the Bill. I take this opportunity of mentioning to the Government that now that there are five housing Acts which are, to a greater or lesser extent, in operation, I shall take a very early opportunity after the Bill becomes an Act of putting down, I hope in a helpful spirit to everybody concerned and especially to legal practitioners, a Parliamentary Question asking for a list of all the Acts in operation which have to be taken into account in considering any legal point arising out of these affairs and asking also that priority should be given to the consolidation of all the legislation.

At present we are confronted with a Bill whose primary aim is to amend the Act of 1980 but which refers to matters that have been established by other legislation going back, I believe, to 1948. I emphasise that major point which has been raised by my noble friend. I wish to support very strongly the main point he makes—that in considering the enfranchisement provisions of this Bill, it is very important to recognise that there must be safeguards in order to prevent enfranchisement resulting from small freeholdings being established and preventing redevelopment, after a long lease, of large areas of devastated, demolished, and more or less abandoned areas—especially in the inner cities of this country.

I rise to support this amendment, and I do so from a valuer's point of view. There are many instances I know of where a partnerships agreement has been entered into by a developer—being the freeholder—and a local authority in order to maximise the use of an area of land. That development has taken place in a variety of ways; shops, flats and houses. It is perfectly true to say that shops and flats will not be affected under these provisions. But the houses will be affected because, as has been so eloquently pointed out already, under the Leasehold Enfranchisement Act those houses can be acquired.

This was never the intention of the agreement. The agreement was for a comprehensive development with the local authority looking after a part, and the developer, as freeholder, looking after a part. We now face a situation where the area of houses involved in that development will become enfranchiseable. That will lead to the splitting up of future development sites—future inner city sites in particular, where a comprehensive scheme is always so necessary.

Time and time again I come across situations in which the local authority turns round and says, "If you can persuade such and such to come in on the development, or if you can include shops to make it a comprehensive scheme, then we can go ahead with a sensible development. But as it stands, it is too bitty". This part of the Bill is creating those little bits which will be so hard to develop in the future. I should like to see this provision excluded from the Bill, but I realise that is not practicable to do so. However, I believe that what is practicable and should be adhered to is that charitable institutions such as the colleges of Oxford and Cambridge should at least be excluded from the worst provisions.

I, too, should like to speak briefly in support of this amendment. It seems to me that universities and suchlike bodies should properly be put aside for special treatment. I do not really see why the matter should not be extended further, but perhaps this is the moment to make the best of a bad job.

The point about which I do feel most strongly—and I believe almost every speaker before has made it—is that concerning the pepper-pot fragmentation of development. It just points up the fact that this clause is a very short-term, shortsighted affair. It is thinking too much of the present and too little of the future. Anyone who is involved with land—and it makes very little difference whether it is country land or urban land—needs to look a little further ahead than just now. It will be the next development when perhaps some of us will not be around to be held indictable, when the real confusion will come.

We already have the bad inner city situation, and that will only be compounded by the time these housing tenants have got through the landlords to the freeholder. I have experience of this myself. It never seems to work very well, and it means that one cannot have comprehensive developments. For those reasons, and at least for the charities, I support this amendment.

May I first say to my noble friend Lord Molson that work is at present taking place on consolidation of the housing Acts and we fully take his point on this? I should be very glad at any time to hear any suggestion which my noble friend may have as far as that work is concerned; I hope he will be pleased to know that it is taking place at the present time.

The amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Kinnoull and spoken to so well by my noble friend Lord Selkirk are also related to the question of enfranchisement by the right-to-buy lessee. I recognise the hand of the Association of Land-Owning Charities in the amendment to Clause I which my noble friend has proposed, which would, as he said, exclude from the extension of the right to buy under that clause tenants of dwellings where the freehold is held by a body established for charitable purposes. The tenants in that position would be denied the right to own their own home because, quite by chance, the freehold was held by a charitable body. This would have very much the same effect in those cases as excluding freeholds held by such bodies from the enfranchisement provisions of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. I am told this was an issue that was debated at great length during the passage of that legislation.

Charities are not excluded from the enfranchisement provisions of the 1967 Act and in our view it would be anomalous to create such an exclusion in the context of Clause 1 of this Bill. In moving the amendment, my noble friend spoke of the fear of housing associations that freeholders, and especially charitable bodies, will in future be reluctant to lease land for development if the freehold reversion cannot be guaranteed. Both he and my noble friend Lord Molson quoted the case in Cambridge where the university has broken off negotiations with a housing association for the lease of a site in the city. With great respect, that is not a good example to give. I understand that scheme was to build 60 flats, where rights of enfranchisement do not arise and where the freehold reversion to the university was not in question.

If my noble friend will allow me to interrupt, in respect of that particular point it happens to be the case that it was flats which were going to be built. But they could perfectly well have been houses. It happens that in that case, fortunately, the scheme was for flats, which do not come within the mischief of this Bill. But had they been houses—and it is natural that, when profitable commercial development is taking place, houses will be developed at the same time—it would have been possible for there to be such enfranchisement as would have meant reversion of the whole of the area to the freeholder impossible.

I hear what my noble friend says, but may I go on to add that I also understand that financial considerations played a part in the university's decision? In any case, I should point out that, so far as universities are concerned. Section 28 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 safeguards the position of various bodies, including universities.

I entirely take the point made by my noble friend Lord Selkirk when he spoke about the importance of such bodies. In fact, the Act does safeguard them against a claim for enfranchisement if they can show to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State that the property will be required for relevant development within 10 years. In addition, universities also have powers under Section 29 of the Act to retain the development rights in enfranchised property by requiring covenants to be included in the conveyance.

Clause 1 is fundamental to the objectives of the Bill; that is, to extend home ownership to thousands of secure tenants who missed out on the right to buy provisions of the 1980 Act. We feel that acceptance of this amendment would undermine those objectives. I hope that my noble friend will realise why I am not therefore able to accept it.

The amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Selkirk in his own name also seek to exclude from the right to buy under Clause 1 those tenancies where the freehold is held by a charity. In its place he seeks to extend to such tenants the scheme of assistance which the Government propose for tenants of charitable housing associations who do not have the right to buy. If my noble friend is agreeable, I suggest that we discuss the merits of that particular scheme when we reach the appropriate new clause after Clause 28: I think that is Amendment No. 69. We can deal with the amendment as such now. I have already said that the Government do not believe it would be right to exclude such charitable freeholders from the provisions of Clause 1 when they are not excluded from the enfranchisement provisions of the Leasehold Reform Act, because we feel that such an exclusion would be anomalous.

I take some of the other points made by my noble friend, particularly the difficulty that housing associations often have in obtaining land for some of the building that they would like to carry out. That is a point on which I am personally very much involved and concerned. But I think it is part of a much wider debate about the availability of land for housing and one upon which, unless pressed, I shall not embark in the context of this amendment.

I am sorry that I start what my noble friend rightly said will be a lengthy Committee stage by not being able to accept, of all things, an amendment from my noble friend, but I think he will understand my dilemma.

I am sorry the Minister feels that he cannot meet this point. We support this series of amendments, and I should like to answer some of the points made by the Minister. The discussion on universities seems to be playing a leading part. In terms of university development 10 years is a fairly useless time, and being able to safeguard a holding for that length of time is not a great deal of use. As far as enfranchisement under the 1967 Act is concerned, I think we are talking about a very different kind of development nowadays. That Act came in (as I am sure the Minister will remember) to deal with miners' cottages, where ex-miners or their widows were being turned out. There were other things of that kind where the housing developments were fairly straightforward and clear to see.

The developments we are now talking about are not only not completely flats but are a much more complicated structure altogether, in that they have many shared facilities, including the grounds and car parking. The argument about flats and being protected from enfranchisement does not really work. If there is a development of houses and flats together and the owners of the houses can buy their freeholds and the owners of the flats cannot, it will not be very long before one Government or another decides that there is an injustice and, inevitably, the enfranchisement of the flats will follow.

We decided last year in a very well argued case on all sides of the House that charities needed to be protected for very good reasons. They are the one method we have of ensuring a long-term supply of rented housing. However much we may increase the number of people in this country who have their own houses, there will always be a section of the population which cannot, for some reason or another, buy their houses. The powers of the local authority are being gradually eroded in this way by Bill after Bill. Very soon we shall reach a stage where local authority housing will be almost negligible. In that case we shall rely even more on the charities to provide this sort of accommodation.

None of the defences put up by the Minister really holds water when examined. I do not wish to detain the Committee at this stage because I know that we have what is perhaps much more important business to discuss, but I am very disappointed that the Minister has not at least promised to look at this amendment and come back with more hope for the people who have moved it. It is not for me to say whether the Committee should divide, and I leave that to the movers of the amendment.

May I briefly say that we on these Benches associate ourselves with the views expressed. Admittedly the problem is one of limited extent in university towns generally, and is in small pockets. Although it applies to a very small number of pieces of land, there is an important principle involved because charities are there to assist and to help the less well-off. They assist the very people who cannot afford to buy their own accommodation. I should have thought that charities such as the universities and the other charities we have heard about will feel their whole charitable purpose is being eroded if the amendment, or something like it, is not made to the Bill. The whole basis of the concept of the charitable use of land will be eroded.

It is a different position from that of local authorities. Charities perform, by definition, charitable purposes. The local authorities are there to provide housing. If one permits the lessee of charitable freehold land the right to buy, then one is in fact going against the very purpose for which the charities may have been set up—to help the less well off and those in need. Therefore, I hope the Minister will reconsider the rather hostile position he has taken to what I believe are very well-intentioned amendments.

I hope I am not taking hostile positions in this early stage of our proceedings. May I say how pleased I am to see the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, in his place. May I remind the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol—she who waxes so indignant about the 1967 Act and its contents—that it was a Lahour Government which brought in that legislation. Indeed, I would go further and remind her that the very attempt that was made by the Conservative Opposition at that time to bring in exactly the kind of clause now proposed was passed in your Lordships' House and reversed by her Government in another place, where it was taken out again. So I think we should make it quite clear as to who is supporting whom, and when.

The Minister now has a very good opportunity to undo what he feels was so wrongly done by the Labour Government.

I was well aware when I made the comment I did that that might be a riposte, but the fact is that just as the then Labour Government felt it was wrong at that time so the present Government feel it is wrong now. Having said that, I want also to say that I am not without sympathy for the points made, and that as in so many matters of this kind it is not always a question of right and wrong or black and white. There are situations which I acknowledge are a cause of concern to my noble friends, in particular, and I do not seek to deny that. My noble friend Lord Molson said that the Cambridge situation quoted was concerned with flats but that it might just as well have been houses, and in that case what would the position have been. I accept that as a very fair point. I hope that he and the Committee will in turn accept that the great majority of these developments do concern flats rather than houses.

Of course, as always we will look at what has been said, but it would be wrong for me to give an impression that we intend to come back at a later stage with something on this. That is not my remit, and although I have respect for the points made I am bound to say that I am not convinced.

May I say that I strongly support this amendment and will certainly support it in the Division Lobby. I challenge the Minister in his assertion that charitable freeholders are already protected when redevelopment is to take place within 10 years. That may well be so, but on the whole we are not talking about redevelopment taking place in 10 years, but about a much longer timescale.

My noble friend was very quick to chide the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, for apparently changing sides since her party introduced the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, but my noble friend will not have forgotten the hostility with which his party greeted the Leasehold Reform Act then, first on the ground of the confiscatory nature of the compensation which was to be paid by an enfranchising tenant and, secondly, if I remember correctly, where it affected such bodies as charities. At a later stage I shall be speaking to my Amendment No. 28, in which I seek to exclude the effect of the Leasehold Reform Act altogether from this Bill. But I should like to say that I shall not find it possible to vote against this amendment if it goes to a Division.

I must say that I am disappointed at much of what my noble friend has said. He has simply given a flat refusal to consider the position of charities. He is putting charities in a disadvantageous position. For instance, in future housing associations will not be able to buy land for development in the way that private institutions can. A private developer will easily be able to develop land and will be in no danger. Therefore, the owners of the land will let to private associations and not to housing associations. That is clearly and definitely a disadvantage. I take up another point that my noble friend makes. The associations must apparently let as flats, and not as houses. Without any doubt at all, most people prefer houses to flats. It is imposing a definite disadvantage, which I think is wrong.

My noble friend asks me to wait for Amendment No. 69. Is that to evade the issue, or will he give me something on Amendment No. 69? If he says that he will give me something on that, I shall consider it; otherwise, I think that we must divide on this as it is such an important matter. It is very close to the welfare of certain big charitable associations in this country, which deserve our fullest consideration.

I beg to move that the House do now resume.

My Lords, with permission, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport. The Statement is as follows:

My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for repeating what is a very serious Statement, and, at the outset, from these Benches we wish to join in sending sympathy to the inspector, Sir Michael Giddings, and to his wife and family. What is described in the Statement is appalling, and we wholeheartedly join in the condemnation of the activities that have been set out. It is disgraceful that anyone performing a public duty of this kind should be subjected to such treatment as is outlined in the Statement, and that the inquiry procedures should be violated in this way.

However, without commenting on the merits or demerits of the proposals, may I ask whether it is not a fact that under this and the previous Administration earlier inquiries have been bedevilled by a failure to produce a very important consultants' report? Time has passed since the original proposals were put forward, and is it not essential to take account of new circumstances? Therefore, I would urge that the Secretary of State should arrange to present to the new inquiry an up-to-date report to take account of any effect on the original proposals that has come about by the development of the M.25 and the lorry bans at weekends and evenings which have been imposed by the GLC, and which we understand have brought considerable benefit and have been much appreciated by the people in the area.

I wish to ask another question. What arrangements will be made to compensate those who have suffered loss of earnings and other costs in attending to give evidence at this and the previous abandoned inquiry?

My Lords, I can only deepen the gloom with which the Statement has been received. This is not an isolated occasion. The Statement itself reveals that in 1978 the previous Archway inquiry had to be abandoned. Is it not a fact—and I know that the Minister will be able to confirm this—that just round the corner there has been a closely associated inquiry into the widening of the North Circular Road at East Finchley? That has had to be abandoned on two occasions within the last two years, each time because the protesters had so misbehaved themselves that the inspectors felt obliged to resign because their health was suffering. Is it not a fact that it is very largely the same group of individuals who have been interrupting the two inquiries? Is it not perfectly clear that they have set themselves up as a carefully knit, tightly organised group of skilled protesters determined to dislocate every inquiry which they feel disposed to attend? But not only are they doing that: they are also frightening ordinary citizens from attending the inquiries and putting forward their own views.

Is it not the position that each of the two inquiries are into proposals which were first made about 10 years ago? Can we really tolerate in a democratic society a state of affairs in which perfectly simple proposals—and I do not comment on the merits either way—cannot be determined for such a long period entirely because of the self-seeking activities of a small minority?

I know that the noble Lord the Minister will agree that not only has Sir Michael Giddings suffered harassment outside the inquiry but inside the inquiry, too, obstruction has taken place, and will not the Minister consider whether perhaps the law dealing with this type of behaviour at public inquiries has become a little fragmented among various Acts; whether it is not entirely clear; and whether there is some confusion in certain areas as to whether it is for the police or the inspector to initiate proceedings to prevent this kind of obstruction? In those circumstances, will the noble Lord consider looking at the whole area to see whether we can improve matters in such a way as to prevent this kind of appalling disruption?

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, for their expressions of concern to Sir Michael Giddings and his family and, indeed, for their condemnation of the matters giving rise to this Statement which, as both say, is extremely serious and extremely disturbing. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked whether reports on previous inquiries should be produced to augment the inspector's report. I can say that all matters that have happened previous to the abandonment of this inquiry will be carefully considered by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. My right honourable friend will decide whether these should be made public. But the Statement says that a further inquiry will be set up, and it may be injudicious to prejudge, by the advancement of some further information, at this stage.

So far as the M.25 and lorry bans are concerned, surveys are certainly being undertaken. The results of such surveys will be made available before the next inquiry takes place. That matter could therefore be considered. As to costs, I can tell the noble Lord that the department will invite claims for costs from all qualified objectors and letters to the objectors will tell them how these claims may be sustained. The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, asked whether the harassment was by the same group that has interfered in three previous inquiries. It is a fact that we believe that it is indeed the same group. It is also true that this inquiry stemmed from a report in 1956. The first inquiry, of course, happened some years ago. This is the third to have been abandoned.

The noble Lord asked me specifically about what is popularly called the East Finchley inquiry. Noble Lords may not be aware that that inquiry finished in December last year. The inspector's report is awaited. The noble Lord would not therefore expect me to say anything about that specific inquiry. I understand, however, that the third inspector at that inquiry was similarly harassed. If this is true, it is to be deplored. The noble Lord asked me whether we would be reviewing the procedures. These are laid down by statute. If we find, on further inquiry into this abandonment and other events, that the procedures are not entirely satisfactory, they will of course be looked at, and the Government will make sure that appropriate action is taken.

My Lords, may I clarify the first question that I put to the noble Lord? I was not asking so much that reports of previous inquiries should be made available. My information is that requests at previous inquiries for the very important report of the consultants to be presented to the inquiry were refused. I was asking whether consideration could be given to making sure that it is presented at any new inquiry.

My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord if I misunderstood. I think he is probably referring to the Scot Wilson Kirkpatrick report on the A.1 through Hampstead Garden Suburb. He will know that objectors pressed for its publication some time ago, but, at the time, Ministers took the view that even with a strongly worded disclaimer it would cause considerable blight throughout the area. They refused publication then. The matter was put before the ombudsman in 1976. In 1977 he reported, and cleared the department of accusations then made. Subsequent requests for publication have been made and have been refused for much the same reasons. However, other events have taken place, notably the construction of the M.25, and the fact that this development is not now so crucial to the Archway inquiry. My right honourable friend is considering right now whether it would be in the public interest to release that report.

My Lords, is it not time for wider consideration to be made if it be the case that the present powers are impotent to deal with this intolerable interference with a public right, namely, to attend and to be able to present evidence before a public inquiry? These inquiries are essentially for the benefit of the public. In these circumstances, if the facts alleged are true—they are asserted to be true by the Government—is there not now an urgent case for considering extending the provisions of contempt of court to the proceedings before these tribunals? That power already exists in relation to tribunals held under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, but not, apparently, to these tribunals. Can the Government therefore give urgent consideration to this matter?

Furthermore, what is the relevance of the various provisions of the Public Order Acts in this field? Are we entirely impotent in this situation? If so, should not urgent action be taken to remedy it, if necessary, by an urgent change in the law?

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord opposite will, of course, know that the inquiries are governed under two sets of rules, the Highways (Inquiry Procedure) rules and the Compulsory Purchase by Ministers Inquiry Procedure rules. Certainly if these are found to be lacking in the light of recent events, then the Government will take measures to give further support. So far as the protection—it is this that I think concerns us this afternoon—where the inspector is concerned, when a new inspector is appointed, we shall certainly take steps to ensure that all possible protection is given to him. The best protection, of course, would be for everyone concerned, the public and objectors, to dissociate themselves wholly from such behaviour and to work together to see that it does not happen again. The public inquiry procedure is set down to ensure that all legitimate and proper objectors have a proper place in which to raise those objections. Whether or not the existing powers under the Public Order Acts are sufficient is perhaps debatable, but I can tell the noble and learned Lord that those Acts are currently under review.

My Lords, will the noble Lord consider that there is probably a feeling on all sides of the House that not much more evidence is required that the present procedures have already proved inadequate and that this gives rise to a very serious matter of public policy? Will he draw the attention of the Home Secretary, the Lord Chancellor and others to our anxiety in these matters?

My Lords, while accepting the sentiment behind the expressions of my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft, I have to say that there are innumerable inquiries up and down the country that have not given rise to this kind of behaviour. It is, in fact, only in London, and, as I said earlier in response to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, we believe that it is the same group that is causing this disruption. I think therefore that the matter has to be kept a little in perspective—

Oh, do not excuse it.

Nevertheless, I shall certainly convey to my right honourable friends the concern that has been expressed in the House this afternoon.

My Lords, on any view this is disgraceful conduct? which strikes at the very root of the rule of law, and even if there were no further instances what has happened already is a very serious matter. May I raise two matters with the noble Lord the Minister? First, since it seems that half the problem is disruption in the face of the tribunal itself, will he bear very much in mind the point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones and consider whether a quasi-judicial tribunal of this nature should not have the same power to refer to a judge of the Queen's Bench Division—as can happen in the case of a county court or a tribunal of inquiry suffering contempt in its face—information relating to that particular contumelious conduct. Secondly, I wonder whether the Minister can give some indication to the House as to how many abandonments of tribunals there have been in respect of such misconduct as this in the past 10 years.

My Lords, I very much regret that I am not able to tell the noble Lord how many abandonments there have been in the past 10 years. I can tell him that there have been three in very recent times sufficient to cause concern in government because the causes have always been the same. I am sure the noble Lord will accept from me that I am not sufficiently qualified to make the kind of comparisons that he has done. May I, however, just assure him most sincerely that I will ensure the point that he has expressed will be brought positively before my right honourable friends.

My Lords, the noble Lord the Minister will have realised by now how united the House is in asking for action on this matter. Can he inform the House how far police inquiries have gone—if, indeed, they have been made—into investigating the origins of the people concerned in this matter? Also can he say whether or not the police have been informed that on the next hearing of this inquiry their presence is very much to be seen?

My Lords, yes, I accept very sincerely from the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, the concern which has been expressed in the House this afternoon. I cannot tell him, however, how far police inquiries have gone relating to the origins of the people concerned; this would be very much a matter for the police. In so far as any action by the police is concerned, again, I am sure he will recognise that I am not able to tell the House what the police propose to do. With regard to the future, I have little doubt that the police will take what steps are considered necessary to ensure proper order at the inquiry.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that this evil is not confined to London, and that a similar but lesser evil took place in the Aire Valley Inquiry a few years ago? In that case prosecutions were brought and some convictions secured. Would he therefore inquire more widely in order to see the other areas which have also been affected?

My Lords, I was not aware of the disruption in the Aire Valley Inquiry to which my noble friend refers. I take the point that he makes, and I can only repeat that the evident concern of your Lordships will be brought before my right honourable friends.

My Lords, can I have clarification on one point? If the objectors are able to ask for compensation for work lost, is there any way of distinguishing the people who are causing the trouble, most of whom will be objectors? I shall be very sorry to see them being paid for work lost.

My Lords, I am sorry but I did not hear the last part of the noble Lord's Question.

My Lords, if objectors are able to claim for compensation for work lost, as the people who have wrecked the party will mostly be objectors, is there any way of distinguishing them from genuine objectors so that they do not get compensation for what they have done?

My Lords, in so far as any claims for costs are concerned, they will have to be made to a certain set of criteria, and objectors will be told that. I do not think that I can promise that there could necessarily be differentiation in the case of a legitimate claim.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that whatever may be the strength of opinion in this House, the gang—or gangs—who brought off the considerable coup of expelling the inspector will be holding a celebration party tonight, and that in lawlessness nothing succeeds like success? Will he recognise that this is a very serious matter and a public challenge to law and order, and the Government can do something about it?

My Lords, I feel that anybody who succeeds in upsetting an upright and respected man and his family, who is conducting his duties in a quasi-judicial manner, and who can find success in his withdrawal from that office, can hardly be expected to celebrate. I have said on more than one occasion during the course of this exchange that the Government treat this matter seriously. I hope that the words I have used this afternoon express to noble Lords in all parts of the House the concern of the Government—and, indeed, the further concern in my receipt of these expressions from all sides of the House.

My Lords, can the matter be referred immediately to the Law Officers of the Crown? I am sorry to have to suggest this to the Minister, who is doing his best with a difficult scene; but this merits examination soon by the Law Officers of the Crown. If I may say so, we are slightly dismayed at the thought that little has been done in this grave situation.

My Lords, I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord is dismayed that so little has been done. So far as his first and perhaps rather more pertinent question is concerned, I have said that I will—and I repeat I will—before this day is out convey to my right honourable friends the expressions of concern which have been made in the House.

My Lords, knowing the area very well, may I ask my noble friend very briefly where the inquiries are held? It does seem to me that if the inquiries are held where people can be apprehended for bad order, then it would be more beneficial, and it would help all round if the inquiries could be held in a slightly more judicial atmosphere than they are at present. I should like to know where exactly the inquiries are held now.

My Lords, at the pre-inquiry meetings the inspector establishes where and how the inquiries will be conducted; whether they shall be during the daytime; whether they shall be in a large hall; whether manuscripts shall be published and whether the inquiry proceedings shall be held in the evenings. All this is within the authority of the inspector himself.

moved Amendment No. 2.

Page 2, line 7, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert ("for a term exceeding 21 years commencing with the relevant time.")

The amendment to Clause 1 which was tabled by my noble friend Lord Coleraine would, as he said, allow tenants to buy a sub-lease of both fiats and houses in all cases where the landlord's own lease has more than 21 years to run. Clause 1 as drafted provides that in the case of flats the minimum term must be 50 years. Perhaps I may explain why we have decided on this different treatment of houses and flats.

Under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, anyone who acquires a long lease of a house—that is a lease for more than 21 years—can subsequently acquire the freehold if he meets the relevant qualifying conditions. Consequently a lease of that term or longer is always marketable because it carries with it the opportunity to acquire the freehold.

However, different considerations apply to flats. As I said previously, the Leasehold Reform Act 1968 does not apply to flats and the value of the asset acquired by the tenant is related directly to the term of the lease granted. Although the tenant will have a statutory right to a mortgage when he buys his lease, 50 years is the minimum unexpired term normally acceptable to private sector mortgagees as security for the purchase of the residential property. To give a right to buy and a right to a mortgage in respect of flat leases for shorter terms, as my noble friend's amendment proposes, could mislead many tenants into buying their flat, only to find later that it is virtually unmarketable.

As regards the new clause—which in fact is Amendment No. 26, tabled by my noble friend Lord Coleraine and which is part of the same general subject—this seeks to deny the right to enfranchise to tenants acquiring a house lease under Clause 1. Whether or not right of enfranchisement should apply in such cases is a question to which the Government have given the most careful consideration, and it is a subject on which I have written to my noble friend. I have noted what my noble friend has said about the general principle of leasehold enfranchisement, but the issue in this context, I would respectfully suggest, is one of consistency in the treatment of long leaseholders, rather than the merits of leasehold enfranchisement as such.

We do not think that it would be justifiable not to apply the normal leasehold enfranchisement rules to one particular group of leaseholders simply because they acquire their leases under this Bill. To do so would be to treat "right to buy" lessees of houses differently from other long leaseholders of houses and we think that it would lead to some very strange discrepancies. Let me give an illustration of what we have in mind. Local authorities can already grant subleases of houses in which they themselves have a leasehold interest if they wish to do so and if the terms of their own lease permit it. If they grant sub-leases of the appropriate term, rights of enfranchisement can arise. If we refuse such rights to those who buy under Clause 1, we will create a situation in which former tenants who bought their house leases under "voluntary" sales schemes can acquire their freehold, but those who bought their leases under the right to buy cannot. I do not see how one could defend such an anomaly and I would be interested to hear whether my noble friend Lord Coleraine would agree with that view, and then decide what to do about the amendment.

My noble friend rather lost me in the middle of his reply; I shall have to read it very carefully. However, I should like to take him up on the point he made about mortgages. I think he said that in order to obtain a mortgage on a flat the normal unexpired period of the lease must be 50 years. If that is so, why should somebody who perhaps does not need a mortgage on a flat be prevented from taking a long lease when the head leaseholder still has an unexpired term of 40 years? If a person does not require a mortgage, why can he not exercise the same rights as a person with a house, to get a long lease on a flat?

On a point of clarification, what I actually said—and I can well sympathise with my noble friend for not following what is a complex matter—was that 50 years is the minimum unexpired term (and we are talking here of leasehold) normally acceptable to private sector mortgagees as security for the purchase of residential property.

How certain is the Minister of what he has just stated? I daresay that some building societies have that rule, but in the West End of London, leases of up to 30 years are perfectly satisfactory security for any bank.

I was, of course, referring to residential property. If the noble Lord is saying that what he has said is so in the case of residential property in the West End of London, then I certainly would not quarrel with him. But what I have stated is the generally accepted rule, as I understand it.

It just does not happen to be true.

I am sure that my noble friend did answer my point. He certainly answered points that I had not made and I think he also answered points that I may be making in a speech on a later amendment. But, so far as I can see, his attitude is directed not so much to the question of leasehold enfranchisement, as to pushing forward a very strong line in official paternalism. However, at this stage in today's debate I do not wish to push the matter to a Division. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 3:

Page 2, line 18, after ("building") insert ("or land").

Before commenting on the detailed points which my noble friend has made, I should like to put this subsection of Clause 2 into its wider context. It is part of a package of proposals in Clauses 2, 23 and 29 of the Bill designed with two objects. The first is to bring certain county council tenancies within the scope of the security of tenure and right to buy provisions of the 1980 Act. The second is to supplement and refine the categories of dwellings which are excluded from security of tenure and/or the right to buy for certain operational reasons. These two objectives are related. In extending security of tenure and the right to buy to county council tenancies, we clearly need to ensure that counties' operational responsibilities are not prejudiced.

But we are also taking the opportunity to provide that a common set of provisions on the fact of the main legislation governs all dwellings on land which is held for other than housing purposes. The Housing (Extension of the Right to Buy) Order made in May 1983 extended the right to buy to most local authority council dwellings held other than under housing powers. This order is to be repealed. The right to buy will apply equally to county and other local authority dwellings, but subject to the common set of "operational" exceptions which we are now discussing.

I should like to turn to the detail of this particular amendment. Clause 2(1) provides that the right to buy shall not arise where a dwelling is within the curtilage of an operational building, and where it has been let to an employee in consequence of his employment. It is sensible that the right to buy should not arise in such circumstances. Where a dwelling is within the curtilage of, say, a town hall, a school, a fire station, there will be security and operational considerations which could be prejudiced by a sale.

These amendments would extend this exclusion in two respects. First, they provide that the right to buy should not arise where a dwelling is one which it is the practice of the landlord to let to a warden or caretaker. I do not wish to quarrel with my noble friend's basic objective here, but I believe that the situation which she has in mind is adequately safeguarded in the existing provisions. Paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 excludes from security of tenure and the right to buy any tenant who is an employee of his landlord and whose contract of employment requires him to occupy his home for the better performance of his duties. Most wardens and caretakers are likely to be covered by this exclusion and I do not think we would wish to go wider. In addition, in Clause 29 of the Bill, we are proposing that there should be a new category of exclusion covering dwellings normally let under contract of employment, but exceptionally let otherwise on a short-term basis.

Secondly, these amendments extend Clause 2(1) so that any dwelling which is within the curtilage of land held for non-housing purposes would be excluded from the right to buy. For this reason the Government could not accept this amendment as it stands. County councils are not housing authorities and do not hold land for housing purposes. It follows that the effect of the amendment would be to exclude from the right to buy all county council dwellings, which, of course, is contrary to our intention.

Nevertheless, I accept that there may be defined categories of land to which we need give further consideration. Indeed, I thought that my noble friend made a particularly telling case when she referred to cemeteries, which must be a special case, and said that dwellings within them should be excluded from the right to buy. We have been having discussions with the associations on the details of the proposals, and they have suggested further amendments which may be needed to the proposed categories of exclusion. As I say, I am certainly impressed, as indeed I almost always am (and I had better qualify that if my noble friend will allow me), by my noble friend Lady Faithful!: and in the light of what she has said I shall certainly undertake to take this away and look again at this part of the Bill with a view to bringing forward amendments for consideration at the Report stage. With that undertaking, I hope that my noble friend may feel able to withdraw her amendments.

I thank my noble friend the Minister very much for his consideration of this matter. I shall read very carefully in Hansard all that has been said. I am very grateful to him for his help. I may perhaps wish to bring this matter back at the Report stage, as indeed he does. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No.5:

Page 2, line 20, leave out ("(a) the tenant or his predecessor in title was") and insert ("the dwelling-house was let to the tenant or to a predecessor in title of his in consequence of the tenant or predecessor being").

moved Amendment No. 6:

moved Amendment No. 9:

What I said on Amendment No. 3 I should like to say again to my noble friend. I think that this is part of what I understood we undertook to look at carefully and, hopefully, bring back at Report in a manner which she will think covers the points she makes. I gladly undertake to do with this amendment what I undertook to do with that one.

I thank my noble friend the Minister, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 10:

I should like to support this amendment for three reasons. The first is the breadth of support that it has in the country, about which the noble Viscount has already told us in his opening speech. It is quite clear that there is a very widespread feeling that it would be an injustice if this amendment were not agreed. The second reason why I should like to support the noble Viscount is because it is our duty in your Lordships' House, it seems to me, to take particular care of those who are disadvantaged and who cannot always speak with the facility and ability with which the disadvantaged Members of your Lordships' House are able so eloquently and well to speak as banner bearers for many others who simply feel helpless, isolated and unable to make themselves heard. For that second reason I hope the Government will give a great deal of sympathy to this amendment.

The third reason is because, in a way, I think the Government have agreed the principle. The Government's own wording in Clause 2(2)(a) is:

"the dwelling-house has had those features since it was constructed".

It seems to me that there is no matter of principle here. The Government have in fact already agreed in principle that the right should be related to this clause. This is simply an extension of work that has been done after construction, and therefore it is very much what the Government appear to have in mind to be wanting to do. Therefore, I hope it is something that the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, will almost naturally agree to without thinking any more about it.

I will not repeat the points that have been so cogently put by my noble friend Lord Ingleby. I wish only to emphasise one point, and that is that I feel that in a number of provisions of this Bill the Government are a little inclined to take the short view and to consider the present generation without having regard to a subsequent generation. They feel that it is wrong to deprive disabled people of the right to buy; that the right to buy means that accommodation which is particularly adapted for the use of disabled people will go out of the category of the housing which is specially reserved (shall I say?) for disabled people and will become part of the general stock of the housing of the country.

I think it is a mistake to attach too much importance to the idea that the disabled person now occupying that accommodation should have the right to buy without taking into account the importance of preserving as large a stock as possible—and it is very small relative to the demand at the present time—of accommodation which is specially suitable for disabled people in order that it may be available for another generation. I feel that the Government have this general consideration in mind but I feel that they ought to be willing to go a little further, in the way that is indicated by my noble friend and has been emphasised by the right reverend Prelate. I hope that the Government will not consider this as being a departure from the principles to which they are attached, but merely an extension in a suitable case for the preservation of accommodation for a category of people of whom, unfortunately, there will be future generations as well as the present generation.

This amendment has been so eloquently commended to the Committee by those who have already testified in its favour that I feel it needs no more commendation—or, at least, not from myself. I rise very briefly to add my support to it for one principal reason in particular. The fact that my name is not among those tabling this amendment enables me to say that which reasons of modesty forbid them to say; that is, to congratulate them on the clarity and simplicity of their drafting. That is not an invariable characteristic of this type of legislation. Many years, I fear, now having been spent by me in my forensic capacity in statutes dealing with property law, planning law, landlord and tenant law, public health law and the like, make me only too aware of this circumstance.

In this case it is clearly drafted by the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, who, characteristically modestly, invites suggestions for the improvement of the drafting. For myself I have none and I venture to say that I cannot see any single phrase in this draft which is capable of that doubt and dispute which so often arises in these cases. It is certainly an improvement on the words for which it is proposed to be a substitute. For that we have to go to Part I of the First Schedule to the Housing Act 1980, which reads:

"The dwelling-house has features which are substantially different from those of ordinary dwelling-houses and which are designed to make it suitable for occupation by physically disabled persons".

The words "substantial" and "substantially" are notoriously difficult and dangerous words in law. I seem to recall—the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, will correct me if I am wrong—a case in the House of Lords on the meaning of the word "substantial" which after long and learned argument through the courts came to the conclusion that it means "not substantial".

Here we have very specific criteria which seem to me to be incapable of doubt in the course of their interpretation and application. While respectfully commending the noble Lords who are sponsors of this amendment, I testify to my support for it and hope the Minister can accept it.

I feel very humble in speaking in opposition to this amendment after the distinguished speakers who have gone before. On a number of occasions in recent years I have been told by disabled people that they have unexpectedly found a house to live in, suitably adapted to their needs. In some cases this has occurred when a family has had to change districts, probably because of a job. To find a ready-made place is a godsend—and here I am referring to substantial adaptations. Obviously it is not only council properties and those controlled by voluntary organisations that have been constructed to suit disabled people. There are houses in the community that have been privately designed and constructed and their presence can lend greater freedom and mobility to households with a seriously disabled member.

I wonder, really, who it is basically that the movers of the amendment seek to benefit. With growing numbers of young disabled people who through the progress of medical science survive and live on in the community, of course adequate accommodation should be available for their needs, if possible widely distributed throughout the country to allow such freedom and mobility of housing as required in a modern industrial society. If the occupant of a substantially adapted council house wishes, and only if he wishes, to take up the offer to purchase his home and if in later years he decides to sell, the usefulness of the substantial adaptation does not just vanish from the scene. I know this too well because in the last 40 years it has happened to me in various parts of the country. Houses have been substantially adapted privately and have been used by other people who make use of those adaptations. I feel it is a fair point to make. Indeed, if he is wise, the seller will point out in the advertisement, or whatever, the adaptations and their suitability for physically handicapped persons. In some cases it would even be wise to state the type of physical disablement that the adaptation was carried out for. This enables a family with a disabled person needing to move from another district to find their new nest.

Let us say that the assumption is that the right to buy is not granted for the reasons of the amendment, in a district where all other occupants of council houses have the right to buy, but the adaptation has disqualified this right. May I repeat the gist of what I said on Second Reading. This to me is extraordinarily hard discrimination. Let us think of the disabled person concerned. He knows that this is one more financial disadvantage that he has caused to his family. Neighbours to the right and to the left are gratified at their chance to invest in buying their home gradually and over time, rather than paying rent to the council. What the amendment does is to deny the family the right to take up this opportunity and to deny the council the purchase money with which to add to the adaptations and make more suitable housing. Most of all it denies the facility to move about more freely and instead one must he restricted to all the difficulties entailed in transfer. So I still search for the reason that prompts this amendment.

I am bound to think that it must stem from a wish to hold people to municipal housing instead of encouraging them to plant their stake in the country with their own home. I fail to see why disabled people should be picked on for this and for these reasons I oppose the amendment.

I should like a very short word. I agree with what the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, and the noble Lord, Lord Molson, have said. My experience comes from being responsible for starting a home for the disabled—not for permanent stay but to enable them to improve their capacity to join in the ordinary living world of the community rather than staying either in hospital or in a home. One of the things that has happened in my experience in the city of Birmingham is that quite a number of houses have been altered so that people living in this place, Prospect Hall, can go out into the community and live an ordinary life. It has taken a long time to persuade the local authority to do this and the people in this place could not in any circumstances afford to buy a house of their own. This has been a great success. It would be extremely unfortunate if those houses which have been specially built for the severely disabled who can live in the community were not available for them to go to. They could not build such houses themselves. Therefore it is most important that this amendment should be adopted by the Government because it does the one thing that enables people who are not rich enough to build their own houses to go out into the community and live an ordinary life. I hope the Government will accept this amendment.

I should like to ask a couple of questions of the movers of the amendment. I see this in everyday life as the chairman of a new town where we have dwellings such as this. I wonder whether they could face up to the problem which I am having to weigh up in my mind which is that some of these people were tenants of a house before an adaptation took place. For many years they have felt that they would like to own their own homes. They see their neighbours, who have not perhaps fallen on unfortunate days and do not have the misfortune of being disabled, buying their houses. Suddenly, because adaptations are made to their houses, they are disqualified in the queue. This could cause a great deal of anguish to those people who feel that their misfortune has meant that they are doubly—

Penalised.

I thank my noble friend for helping with the phrase—doubly penalised.

Secondly, I am wondering whether the movers of this amendment are worried more about another aspect of the matter that they have not revealed. Is it not the case that, with the discounts available, scarce money which has been used to adapt these houses is in effect being wasted because someone is getting an adaptation paid for very cheaply so far as they are concerned because they have been disabled? Is it not the discount that is really worrying the movers of the amendment? Would it meet their case if the discount system were altered so that the purchaser of the house in this case did not get a discount on the cost of the adaptions? Money would then be available—and I take the point put by the noble Lord, Lord Molson, about scarcity—because the cost of the adaptions would then go back to the authority, who could spend the money on somebody else. In that way in the end nobody would be disadvantaged. I think we could meet what I suspect is the real worry behind the amendment and also meet the concern expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, that many people are desirious of owning their own home and feel terribly penalised if their misfortune prevents this.

It seems to me there is a great deal to he said both for and against this amendment. I wonder whether there might not he a solution which would be moderately satisfactory to both sides: that would be for the housing authority or the owner to retain a right of pre-emption should the house come on to the market again.

I am worried about the financial aspects of housing for disabled people. A house specifically built from the word 'go" costs quite a lot more than a house which is built for a person who is not disabled. It needs wider corridors, larger bathrooms, larger doorways and all sorts of things. Houses or flats that have been adapted later on in their lives specifically for a disabled person cost a great deal to adapt.

If the dwelling is sold to the disabled tenant and that tenant then dies, the dwelling can be passed on to an able-bodied person who does not need those particular adaptions, so a certain amount of money is then in effect wasted by taking out those adaptions where they can. It means that there is a dwelling for a disabled person that is lost, and I do not think we should allow that. If the dwelling is kept in its adapted state it can be used for another disabled person.

There is another aspect which has not so far been mentioned. We have a steadily ageing population in the country and there are people who become physically disabled not through accident or disease but purely through age. We will require a greater proportion of dwellings for disabled people over the coming years, and I think it is a great mistake that we should lose any at this stage.

Another point on dwellings that are properly adapted for physically disabled people, or built for them in the very first instance, is that this amendment does not mention such things as bathroom and kitchen fittings; but the modern practice is to install fittings that can be adapted for people with different disabilites, needing different heights of work-surfaces, and so on. Those are not necessary for an able-bodied person and they will represent more wasted money. I am all in favour of this amendment.

First, let me say that I think there should he far more housing suitable for disabled people built and more houses built with bathrooms downstairs. I also serve on a new town: in fact two new towns. I have been trying over the years to encourage them to do something they do not seem to like, that is to build suitable houses for disabled people. I think that is a great pity. I wonder whether the Government can give special grants for more housing which is suitable for disabled people and which would also serve the large population of the elderly. It seems such bad luck, if you are a young disabled man with a family living and working with colleagues who are buying their own council houses. They do not want to be singled out, and if they are disabled they want to have the same chance in life. And they are being singled out if this amendment goes through.

The elderly are a totally different matter. I am concerned about the young family with a disabled member. I should be grateful if the Minister could tell us how easy it is to get a family to move out of an adapted council house if the disabled person dies. There is no doubt in my mind that there should be far more suitable houses and flats. If that was the case we should not be in this dilemma now.

At the outset I should like to say that my noble friend Lady Masham has raised some points which I hope the Minister will deal with. I rise again to answer, on behalf of my noble colleagues and myself, the question which was put by the noble Lord opposite. We did not have in mind at all the question of discounts when we framed this amendment. It really is in order to try to preserve in the special category housing which is suitable and specially adapted for disabled people and to prevent it, as a result of sale, from going out of that special category and into the general stock of housing suitable for everyone in the country.

When for eight years I was on the central housing advisory committee, I quickly discovered that one must not only regard the general stock of housing of the country as a whole but also consider the housing that was specially adapted and suitable for special categories of people. In the case of a dwelling which has been made specially suitable for a disabled person, it is extremely important in the interests of future generations that that dwelling should be kept in the special category of being suitable and available for disabled people and not merged into the general housing stock of the country. I hope that is a fair and straightforward answer to the question put to me by the noble Lord opposite.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, suggested that if these houses which have been specially adapted for the disabled were sold to anyone the money would go back to the local housing authority and could therefore be spent on producing more housing for the disabled. I have a nasty feeling that this would not be the case—far from it, in fact. I feel that it' I were working for a local housing authority—and we all know that money is very scarce these days—I would be disinclined to spend my taxpayers' or ratepayers' money on adapting houses for the disabled if I knew that in a few short years that house could be sold off and bought by someone who was not disabled. I therefore support this amendment.

The practical effect of this amendment—and let us be quite clear about it—would be to perpetuate what many people feel is a sense of injustice and discrimination among the disabled people who would be affected. The Government have concluded—on the basis of their experience over the last three years, the arguments put forward in the House last spring and the many representations we have received from physically disabled tenants—that this sense of unfair discrimination is very real and should be removed. It arises particularly where tenants in adapted dwellings are denied the right to buy. We believe the answer is to draw a clear distinction between dwellings purpose- built for the physically disabled and those which have simply been adapted. So I am sure that my noble friend Lady Elliot will be satisfied when I confirm to her, again, that dwellings which have been purpose-built for the disabled do not come within the right to buy legislation.

1 have listened to the arguments put forward by my noble friend Lord Ingleby and by other noble Lords, both today and during the Second Reading debate, as to why costly adaptations should continue to be excluded from the right to buy. But I have to say that I am not convinced. The level of investment is clearly a factor to be taken into account. It is one of the reasons—but not the only one—why we are not proposing to extend the right to buy to purpose-built dwellings for the physically disabled. However, the average cost of adaptations, at less than £1,000, is only a fraction of the cost of providing a purpose-built dwelling. And while I accept that we have undertaken a relatively small number of expensive adaptations, the average figure I have just quoted shows that they are a small proportion of all adaptations. Another point to bear in mind is that it is often difficult to differentiate between the costs that relate directly to the works for the disabled tenant and general upgrading works that the landlord might take the opportunity to have done at the same time.

I do not want to dwell too long on the argument about costs, not because I think it is unimportant, but because I believe it would be a mistake to decide whether the right to buy should arise solely on that basis. There are other and, in some ways, more important considerations to be taken into account. First, it is still the case, even where major adaptations are concerned, that private owners can get grant assistance to carry out works of the same kind. Why should a tenant be denied the right to buy—a right that is available to his more fortunate neighbours—simply because his landlord carries out similar work before the prospective sale? Why should disabled tenants be put into the invidious position of feeling that they then have to refuse adaptation works—works that could help them live fuller and more independent lives—in order to preserve their right to buy?

Secondly, may I remind your Lordships that there is still the requirement in paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 to the 1980 Act that, in order to be excluded from the right to buy, a dwelling has to have features that are "substantially different" from those of ordinary houses? Neither the Government's amendment to Clause 2 of the Bill, nor the amendment of my noble friend Lord Ingleby, would remove that requirement. But are all the types of adaptation included in this amendment really such as to make a property "substantially different" from an ordinary dwelling?

This type of equipment is generally provided by social service departments to both tenants and owner-occupiers alike, so there is no argument for denying the right to buy here. Is my noble friend Lord Ingleby and those who support this amendment really arguing that an extra room, or a downstairs shower or toilet are really substantially different features? No, I do not believe that that argument can be sustained. Your Lordships do not need to take my word for it. May I refer you to legal precedent? In the interesting case of Freeman v. Wansbeck District Council last year, the Court of Appeal ruled that a downstairs lavatory installed in a council house for the use of a disabled child was not a feature that rendered the house a substantially different dwelling.

Thirdly, I think it is very important indeed that whatever distinction we draw in the right to buy legislation between properties that can or cannot be bought is not only clear and fair, but is seen to be clear and fair by those affected. The correspondence we have had from disabled tenants suggests that there is a clear perception of the difference between purpose-built and adapted dwellings, and only in respect of the latter do tenants feel strongly that they are being unjustly denied the right to buy. I do not believe that the average disabled tenant would understand, and I certainly do not know, how an extra room or additional toilet facilities would make his home "substantially different" from those of other tenants who have the right to buy.

The overwhelming impression we have is that many disabled tenants in adapted dwellings are willing to buy and are prepared to pay a fair price. That price would, of course, reflect the market value of the property including the adaptation—and the "cost floor" rules would, of course, apply if the expenditure had been incurred since 1974. I do not believe that we should go further.

Perhaps I may say this in answer to some of the many points which have been made. First, I am grateful for the point which the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, made. I suspect, however, that the discount is not the major point here. The major point here is the extent to which a dwelling is adapted so that it stays within the general totality of the stock, and is available to the people concerned. My noble friend Lady Masham said that we should build more houses for the disabled, and I do not think one would quarrel with that. She asked me how easy it is to get someone out if a disabled person dies. The answer is that that is a ground for repossession, but it may be necessary to go to the court to get it. But it is a ground on which a court will grant repossession.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich hoped that the Government would have sympathy on this point. I should like to assure him that we very much have sympathy. This is a matter which I thought the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, put very fairly, when she said that there are different points of view about it. The suggestion which I should like to make is exactly the one that she made; namely, in an attempt to accept that there are points of view, that there is a case for those who are disabled not to be discriminated against and an equal concern about the availability of this accommodation, I propose, if my noble friend Lord Ingleby is agreeable, that the Government should take this away and be prepared to consider bringing back at Report stage an amendment that would give a landlord the right to impose pre-emption convenants on the sale of dwellings adapted for the disabled.

This would operate very much on the same lines as those proposed for non-sheltered elderly persons' dwellings under Clause 7. It is indeed a compromise, but in a situation like this that is probably a fair solution. If my noble friend Lord Ingleby feels able to do that, then I shall he glad to undertake to bring it back in that way.

I was interested to hear what the Minister would say on this amendment and he has certainly said it. He talked, first, about perpetuating a sense of injustice and I agree that there is some truth in that. There is a certain amount of discrimination, but that is brought about because of the law of supply and demand. If there were enough dwellings for the disabled, either purpose-built or adapted, there would not be any question of having a right to buy. This is not a question of whether or not one should have a right to buy.

If I may try to answer the second question—and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Molson, answered one of the questions put by my noble friend Lord Northfield—it was: if there were tenants before adaptations took place, why can they not then buy and will they not feel aggrieved? It is the same sort of point as that made by the Minister when he said that people would feel that they could live fuller and more independent lives if they were able to buy their houses, rather than have them adapted for their disability and not be able to buy. Those of us who are extremely lucky not to be disabled would have to ask most disabled people whether they prefer to live in a house which they own but which has none of the adaptations that improve the quality of their life rather than in a house which has been adapted for disabled people and which gives them security of tenure, although it does not give them ownership of the house.

The Minister asked what was meant by "major adaptations". The noble Viscount and the other co-signatories to the amendment were delighted by what the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, had to say about the drafting. We were very worried about it. The Minister prayed in aid "substantially different". We had this argument about old people's dwellings when we discussed the Housing Bill 1980. The House was influenced by the fact, which many of us pointed out, that the use of the phrase "substantially different" would mean a heyday for lawyers and long delays and would probably get us nowhere. The noble Lord said that a downstairs lavatory would not be considered to be a substantially different feature. If it were a lavatory alone, this would probably be so and I could understand it. But that is not what the amendment says. It refers to:

"(ii) the construction of an additional bathroom with a water-closet;

(iii) the removal or relocation of internal walls in conjunction with the relocation of a bathroom, fixed bath or shower or water-closet".

Therefore, the adaptations are very much greater than simply a downstairs lavatory.

The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, touched on the point that if, as the Government have quite rightly said, dwelling-houses have had these features since they were constructed, it seems to be quite illogical not to accept an amendment which refers to these major adaptations. Adaptations of the nature that we have put down, and which could be even larger and more costly, could cost almost as much as a purpose-built house. If these houses are sold with an extra bathroom downstairs there may not have to be a great deal of adaptation. What we are concerned with has got nothing to do with discounts, principles of faith, or anything else. The four of us who have put down our names to this amendment do not often agree on other matters in the Division lobbies. This is a case of making sure that dwellings which have been adapted in this way stay within the pool of dwellings for the disabled. It is also to ensure that local authorities and the other organisations who put both money and work into these buildings will know that they will be doing it for the disabled and that these dwellings will be used in perpetuity by the disabled.

The Minister spoke about coming back with preemption. We do not believe that this is the answer. That point was made when we discussed the 1980 Bill and it was turned down as far as the elderly are concerned. The noble Lord has not explained how pre-emption would work. I do not know whether it means that as soon as somebody dies or moves from the house, whoever inherits it would have the right to it. I should have thought that is how it would work. Pre-emption would exert itself only if the house or flat came up for sale. Again, this is very uncertain. First, we do not know whether it will. Secondly, the cost of buying back a house which has already been adapted to a large extent in this way will be very high for local authorities. I should not have thought that it was a satisfactory solution. Like other noble Lords, I do not understand why the Government cannot accept something which we have already restricted to a very great extent.

I do not want to draw out the debate, but I do not agree with the noble Baroness. When we speak about supply and demand, we pre-suppose that dwellings which are bought are lost. As with any other right to buy, how can it be said that if a disabled person who lives in a home as a tenant buys it and continues to live in it as the owner-occupier, the dwelling is lost to the availability of the housing pool for disabled people? It is just not so. What about all the thousands of pounds that the Government give in grants for the conversion and the adaptation of homes for this purpose? I recognise more clearly than does the noble Baroness the fact that there are different points of view. I am not sticking rigidly to the Government's point of view. I am taking the very fair suggestion—I had it in mind to do so and was glad that the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, made the same point—that we should come back with an amendment to give preemption rights to local authorites. If the person who has bought the house wishes to sell it, or if anybody else wishes to sell it, the local authority will have the right to buy it back. There can be no question, therefore, of it being lost to the pool of dwellings. I do not accept, however, that it will be lost. Nevertheless, accepting that there is another point of view, the Government are prepared—and I hope it will be felt that they are being fair about this—to take that line in this case.

Could the noble Lord tell us what will be the buy back price that the local authority will have to pay if we agree to pre-emption? Will it he the value of an extended house, which means the value of the property and the improvements which have already been paid for once?

The noble Baroness makes a very fair point. I should like to consider it and tell her when we bring the matter back at Report. It is no good the noble Baroness shaking her head and saying, "No". Nobody knows yet what we shall say. That is what we intend to do when we bring it back at Report.

Can I inquire of the noble Lord the Minister how it can be ensured that a house which has been bought for use by a disabled person will continue to be used by disabled people in the future? Will estate agents say that they will sell these houses only to people who can show that they have a major disability? As somebody who has dealt with property all his life, I do not believe that to be a practical proposition. Secondly, there is a certain meretricious attraction in this suggestion. I am not suggesting that the noble Lord is putting foward the idea of a pre-emption right in order to dazzle the movers of the amendment into a false sense of security, but this pre-emption right will not be of much value because of the very severe limitations which Her Majesty's Government are imposing upon public expenditure in every sector.