Commons Briefing paper by Richard Kelly. It was first published on Wednesday, 22 June 2005. It was last updated on Wednesday, 22 June 2005.
Pepper v Hart
Following the decision in Pepper v Hart in 1993, if primary legislation is ambiguous or obscure the courts may in certain circumstances take account of statements made in Parliament by Ministers or other promoters of a Bill in construing that legislation. Until that decision, using Hansard in that way would have been regarded as a breach of Parliamentary privilege.
Secondary information
- Type
- Research briefing
- Reference
- SN00392
- Subjects
- Legislative process Legislation Members Pepper v Hart
- Published by
- Parliament and Constitution Centre
- House of Commons Library
- Link
- View this Research briefing on researchbriefings.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2016-02-07 21:22:29 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/resources/343140
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/resources/343140
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/resources/343140
- Internal location
- http://researchbriefings.intranet.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN00392