Local Government Finance Bill

Amendment 27 is a probing amendment designed to test the Government's intentions with regard to the implementation of the scheme. The Bill states that the ““Secretary of State may””—the phrase is repeated throughout the schedule—by regulations determine whether a local authority is required to make a levy payment and, if so, the amount of that payment. What we want to know from the Minister is why the Bill uses ““may”” in this case rather than ““must””. It is clear from clause 1 that any regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure, but it is not clear whether the Secretary of State intends to proceed by regulation in all cases. We are advised that the use of ““may”” rather than ““must”” or ““shall”” implies that he might proceed in some other way. I am not sure how, although it might be by ministerial diktat, by a written ministerial statement or by a finance report, but it is important to make the situation clear, because the Committee is dealing with an enabling Bill that gives huge power to the Secretary of State, without being clear about how it will be used. We would therefore like to hear from the Minister exactly what the Government's plans are, because the Bill is not consistent. In several other places, it uses ““must”” in relation to regulations, so what is the reason for the different wording in the case before us? The Minister must forgive me if I appear to be developing a suspicious nature; it comes from dealing with him for so long on this Bill. But we would welcome an assurance from him that the regulations on this point, and on the others that we have highlighted in this group of amendments, will be placed before the House and not simply introduced through a statement from the Department.