POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK BILL (Hansard, 7 March 1966)

§ LORD CHAMPION
In the absence of my noble friend Lord Snow, it falls to me to answer the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. May I begin by thanking him for the clear way in which he put the Amendment and the doubts which exist in the minds of those banks who think that from now on the Post Office Savings Bank will to some extent be in competition with them. This is an important matter. Clearly, if it were the case that relief was being given from stamp duty under the word "may", this might cause competition with the trustee savings banks to be severe—it almost might prohibit them from getting satisfactory business. So I can well 908 appreciate the point the noble Earl has made.
I must admit that I was not happy about the word "may" when I began to look at this. Although one has so often heard discussions in Parliament about uses of the words "may" and "shall", it seemed to me, when I looked at it first, particularly, that the word "shall" should have been used in paragraph 2(1)(b) of this Schedule, because, as I understand it—and I have looked up the dictionary—the word "may" does imply the possibility with contingency; but the word "shall", which the noble Earl would like to use, declares what is to take place. In some ways, I should have thought it much more satisfactory if the word "shall" had gone into the Bill. I am not a Parliamentary draftsman, and the ways of Parliamentary draftsmen, I have discovered, are rather different from the ordinary mind, which mine happens to be.
But my job here to-day is to assure the noble Earl that paragraph 2(1)(b) of the Schedule creates an obligation upon the other party to the agreement—that is to say, the agreement with the Commissioners—namely, the local authority, to pay the Commissioners the amount which would have been chargeable by way of stamp duty if the loan had been secured by a formal mortgage deed instead of an agreement under the Bill. At this point, I can specifically give the noble Earl the asurance which I am sure he wants, that the word "may" is not included here in order to give the Commissioners power to do something which they ought not to do in competition with the Trustee Savings Bank. I can give him a categorical assurance that this will not take place.
The second point that I have to make—and I do not regard this as such a powerful argument—is that paragraph 2 follows a precedent set by Section 3 of the Public Works (Loans) Act 1965, under which the Public Works Commissioners are recovering stamp duty from local authorities. This is working quite satisfactorily. There is no doubt at all that it follows absolutely the appropriate section of that 1965 Act.
The next point I have to make is that the Amendment is unnecessary, because the National Debt Commissioners already have ample powers under the Bill to 909 recover duty, and their clear intention is to use those powers. Then, I must make the point that the Amendment, in any case, is technically unacceptable, in view of the words "from any other party" in line 34. But I do not want to rest on technicalities here. What I want to do is to assure the noble Earl that this follows precedent; that it is not being put in to imply possibility with contingency (the words that I used just now), but is put in in the normal way of drafting. And I can tell the noble Earl that the Commissioners—and I am sure he knows or has some idea who the Commissioners are; they are a very reputable body—are in agreement with the assurance that I have given him. I hope, in view of what I have said, and the fact that we both, I am sure, want this Bill to go on the Statute Book, that the noble Earl will find it possible to withdraw the Amendment.

EARL FERRERS
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Champion, for explaining the position so clearly. Indeed, if I may say so, he has jumped into the position of the noble Lord, Lord Snow, with remarkable alacrity. It was Lord Snow's clarification of all the previous points that I raised that resulted in only one Amendment being on the Marshalled List. The noble Lord has given me the assurance which was the object of my putting down this Amendment. However, I am bound to say that it leaves me still a trifle confused, because he has not really said why the word "may" is so essential, other than the fact that it follows precedent. I should have thought that, if it is the clear intention of the National Debt Commissioners to get this money hack from the local authorities, there should be an obligation to put it in the Bill; in other words, it should state that they "shall" collect the money from the local authorities. I am not really clear—and perhaps the noble Lord would care to have another shot at it—why the word "may" should be used, because, as he says, it almost puts a caveat into the Bill that on some occasions this shall not be done. I do not know whether the noble Lord could give me any further explanation on that.

§ LORD CHAMPION
The noble Earl has asked me if I could give any further explanation of it. The answer to that 910 is that I would if I could, but I cannot. I have gone just about as far as I can in reply to the noble Earl. But I think the assurance he is seeking is really the one that matters in this connection, and I hope that Parliamentary draftsmen in the future, when they are faced with putting in "may" or "shall", will read what the noble Earl has said, and what I myself have said, in this connection.

EARL FERRERS
I could not ask for a more lucid explanation. I am grateful to the noble Lord. I will rest content on the assurance that he has given me, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.