I acknowledge the fact that in Committee the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) discussed precedents for the use of "shall" instead of "may". He has nothing to apologise for. He did interesting research and turned up with precedents that few of us realised existed, but he will agree with me that precedents for the use of "shall" are pretty thin on the ground.

The hon. Gentleman raised the important matter of housing records. Our undertaking about the making of regulations in respect of access to housing records in England and Wales differs from the unconditional guarantee in respect of Scotland, and each Department has to make its own judgment on the practical issues that arise. The Department of the Environment examined the possibility — albeit extremely remote — of proposed regulations going out for consultation and being found to be irrevocably flawed. The Department of the Environment was concerned, too, about burdens upon local authorities. Bearing in mind its heavy responsibilities in such matters, it did not feel that it could give absolute guarantees in advance of consultations with the local authority associations. As I said in Committee, the Department of the Environment was anxious to make it absolutely plain that, when it said that it would consult, it meant it, and that the consultations, as I said in Committee, would not he mere window dressing.

These are difficult judgments for individual Departments to make. I must take responsibility for the form of the undertaking, but the hon. Gentleman has acknowledged that various Departments were involved in the exercise. I was the Minister responsible for gathering together the various strands that emerged from the Departments.

My remarks about the Department of the Environment do not mean that that Department would be deterred from making regulations simply because of Opposition from local authorities, even if such opposition arose. The Department would step back from doing that only if it was wholly convinced, following consultations, that there was no way of making practicable regulations. That, indeed, is a remote possibility.

As the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire said, my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction wrote to him because he was anxious to reassure him that the Department is fully committed to making all possible progress with the necessary regulations once the Bill is enacted.

In practical terms, the Amendment would place on the Secretary of State a duty to make regulations even if the regulations were unworkable. Clause 3(5) provides that regulations are to be made subject to affirmative resolution, so if either House rejected the regulations the Secretary of State would be in breach of his statutory duty through no fault of his own. That would be an impossible situation and entirely justifies sticking to the word "may" and eschewing the word "shall" in a case of this nature.

With regard to clause 3(3), I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Department of the Environment, the DHSS and the Scottish Office have no intention whatever of treating differently individual authorities within any one class of authority as listed in the schedule. To make it absolutely plain, that means that all Housing Act authorities in England and Wales will be treated in precisely the same way, so I hope that the worries expressed in some quarters are fully dispelled. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire for raising the matter again on Report. I hope that I have satisfied him that "may" and not "shall" is the right word.