Investigatory Powers Bill
zenadsl6186 at zen.co.uk
Sat Jul 23 16:24:48 BST 2016
On 16/07/16 20:18, Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
> Peter Fairbrother said:
>> BTW, things said in the Lords (or Commons), even by Government
>> spokesmen, have approximately zero legal significance. What the Courts
>> look at is the wording of the Act.
> Not always. See Pepper v Hart.
Yes, not always. Approximately zero is not zero.
And I'd agree that. where the statute is ambiguous, the intentions of
Parliament - by which I mean what the members of Parliament as a whole,
not the Government spokespeople, thought they were voting for - should,
or at least could, be taken into consideration.
Not quite what happened in Pepper v Hart - the only evidence from
Hansard considered was that of a single Treasury Secretary, rather than
the entire debate.
I suppose that it would be hard to determine the intentions of
... which is at least in part why,  according to Stefan Vogenauer
[...] "the scope of Pepper v Hart has been reduced to such an extent
that the ruling has almost become meaningless".
So, approximately zero.
-- Peter Fairbrother
More information about the ukcrypto