• In the case of Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593, if there is a case where legislation is unclear, the Hansard can be a reference point which departs from previous authority.

Facts of the Case

  • C, Hart as well as other teachers at a private school, were given a “concessionary fee” scheme for their children.
  • This scheme would allow the children to be taught at the school for a lower rate.
  • The cost of the scheme was to face income tax under section 63 of the Finance Act 1976.
  • Inland Revenue asserted that the cost of educating each child would be the average of the cost of the scheme, which amounted to over £1 million.
  • Cs argued that the cost of the scheme ought to be a marginal cost instead.
  • C applied for judicial review of Inland Revenue’s decision. C was looking to rely on statements made by ministers in Parliament during the time when the Finance Act was being passed. These were recorded in Hansard.
  • Both the High Court and the Court of Appeal found that the cost was an average cost and ignored the Hansard argument.

Issues

  • Were the Courts entitled to consider Hansard when interpreting a piece of legislation?

Held by the House of Lords

  • The House of Lords allowed the appeal and found that the cost was a marginal cost rather than an average cost and held that Hansard can be referred to when assessing a piece of legislation.

Lord Browne-Wilkinson

Elaborate on the judgment

  • Lord Brown-Wilkinson led the majority judgement and asserted that Hansard can be a reference point which can depart from previous authority if a piece of legislation is unclear, ambiguous or could potentially lead to a state of absurdity and the statements that were being relied upon were clear and free from ambiguity.
  • It was also found that referring to Hansard didn’t impeach parliamentary privilege or go against Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689.
  • “Relaxation of the [article 9] will not involve the courts in criticizing what is said in Parliament. The purpose of looking at Hansard will not be to construe the words used by the Minister but to give effect to the words used so long as they are clear. Far from questioning the independence of Parliament and its debates, the courts would be giving effect to what is said and done there.” [638H]

Lord Mackey (dissenting)

  • His lordship agreed with the majority on the interpretation of the Finance Act but refrained from turning to Hansard in his interpretation.
  • Lord Mackey took a practical stance and found that there are further costs involved when turning to Hansard and generally researching the parliamentary history of a statute.

Study Law in the UK

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.