Using Hansard to interpret a statute: the conditions in Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593
In a High Court claim heard in October 2026, the parties dispute the meaning of a phrase in a section of a 2019 Act. The judge accepts that the phrase is genuinely ambiguous and can reasonably bear either party's reading. Counsel for the claimant wishes to rely on two passages from Hansard: a speech at second reading by a backbench MP, Ruth Adeyemi, giving her own view of what the phrase meant, and an answer in committee by the minister promoting the Bill, which clearly and directly stated which of the two meanings the phrase was intended to have.
Which of the following best describes the extent to which the court may consider this Parliamentary material?
Choose one answer to see the reasoning.
Worked answer
Correct answer B: The court may consider the minister's clear statement, because the provision is ambiguous, but the backbench MP's speech is unlikely to qualify.
THE RULE TO REMEMBER
Under Pepper v Hart, a court may consult Hansard only where legislation is ambiguous, obscure or leads to absurdity, and then only for clear statements by the minister or other promoter of the Bill.
Using Hansard to interpret a statute: the conditions in Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593
In Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593 the House of Lords relaxed the exclusionary rule. Lord Browne-Wilkinson held that reference to Parliamentary materials is permitted where (a) legislation is ambiguous or obscure, or leads to an absurdity; (b) the material relied upon consists of one or more statements by a Minister or other promoter of the Bill, together if necessary with such other Parliamentary material as is necessary to understand them; and (c) the statements relied upon are clear. He added that he could not foresee that any statement other than that of the Minister or other promoter of the Bill was likely to meet these criteria. Here the phrase is genuinely ambiguous and the promoting minister made a clear statement directed at the very point, so it may be considered. The backbench MP's speech is merely her own view and is unlikely to qualify.
Why A is wrong: Pepper v Hart relaxed the exclusionary rule, so Hansard may be used where its conditions are met.
Why C is wrong: Only clear statements by the Minister or promoter of the Bill qualify, not any member's speech.
Why D is wrong: Hansard may be used only where the words are ambiguous, obscure or absurd, not to override a clear meaning.
Why E is wrong: The House held that this use of Hansard does not breach article 9, and no Commons leave is needed.
That's today's practice done. Another featured question tomorrow.
Related questions
Using explanatory notes and Law Commission reports as aids to interpretation (R (O) v SSHD)
Which of the following best describes the use the court may make of these documents?
Purposive interpretation and developments Parliament did not foresee (Quintavalle)
Which of the following best describes how the court is likely to approach the interpretation of section 1?
Presumption of mens rea where a statutory offence is silent (B v DPP)
Which of the following best describes the mental element the court is likely to require as to Danny's age?
A GOOD HABIT, DELIVERED
Tomorrow's question.
In your inbox.
One free question a day, with the answer and reasoning.
No course pitches. Just your daily practice.