COMMONS AMENDMENT (Hansard, 6 May 1986)

§ Viscount Davidson
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9. Clause 13 of the Bill provides for the Secretary of State to suspend the operation of a licence or certificates, if he considers it urgently necessary for the welfare of any protected animals that this should be done. This is an enabling provision and therefore the wording of the Bill provided that the Secretary of State "may" suspend licences or certificates where it appears to him to be urgently necessary to do so. During consideration of the Bill in another place, it was suggested that the word "may" could with advantage be altered to "shall". It was felt that the word "may" sat rather unhappily with the situation envisaged by the clause in which the Secretary of State is of the opinion that urgent action is necessary. We accept that view and therefore accepted Amendment No. 9 in the terms in which it is now before the House. This is a drafting change, but a worthwhile one and I commend the amendment to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Viscount Davidson.)

§ Lord Houghton of Sowerby
My Lords, the difference between "may" and "shall" is one of the bugbears of the statute law and of parliamentary debate. I do not know how many hours I have spent in both Houses of Parliament debating the difference between "may" and "shall". I think we need an Act of Parliament to resolve this difficulty in the statute law and to declare once and for all that "may" means "shall" and that there is no further argument to be conducted about it. Anyway, in this case "may" has been translated into "shall". Of course, we know that it meant "shall" all the time, but I need not pursue it any further.

§ Lord Scarman
My Lords, I should like to say this to the noble Lord. If the word "shall" is used, the judges will interpret it as "may". If the word "may" is used, the judges will interpret it as "shall".