Investigatory Powers Bill

[Peter Fairbrother]

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 
Parliament ...

... which is at least in part why, [1] 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

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepper_%28Inspector_of_Taxes%29_v_Hart