Written question asked by Nicholas Winterton (Conservative), in the House of Commons. It was due for an answer on Monday, 10 February 1997. It was answered by Phillip Oppenheim (Conservative) on Monday, 10 February 1997 on behalf of the Treasury.

Treasury

Question: What assessment he has made of the implications of the legal case Pepper v. Hart for the interpretation of the Landfill Tax (Contaminated Land) Order 1996 in the context of previous correspondence with the construction industry. - (Holding answer 30 January 1997).

Answer: Mr. Winterton: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the implications of the legal case Pepper v. Hart for the interpretation of the Landfill Tax (Contaminated Land) Order 1996 in the context of previous correspondence with the construction industry; and if he will make a statement. [13597] Mr. Oppenheim: [holding answer 30 January 1997]: I understand that the Building Employers Confederation, in correspondence with HM Customs and Excise, has quoted Pepper v. Hart in questioning Customs' interpretation of the Landfill Tax (Contaminated Land) Order 1996. Pepper v. Hart establishes that statements made by a Minister or other promoter of a Bill with, if necessary, such other parliamentary material as was necessary to understand such statements and their effects, may be relied upon to interpret a statutory provision which is ambiguous, obscure or which leads to absurdity. The case did not concern interpretation of a statutory instrument. In Pickstone v. Freemans--PLC (1989) AC 66--the House of Lords, in construing a statutory instrument, had regard to what was said by the Minister who initiated the debate on the regulations. Neither Pepper v. Hart nor Pickstone v. Freemans considered whether correspondence from a Minister prior to the introduction of the relevant legislation could be relied upon. Such correspondence does not constitute parliamentary material.

Secondary information