§ Lord Lester of Herne Hillasked Her Majesty's Government:
What changes, if any, have been made in ministerial and administrative practices in the light of the decision in Pepper v. Hart that the courts may have recourse to Hansard for the purposes of construing legislation.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe)An implication of thePepper v. Hart decision is that, if 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.
Textual clarity and precision, and the avoidance of ambiguity, will continue to be high priorities in drafting legislation. Nonetheless, in the light of the ruling, administrative procedures are being put into place for avoiding or correcting any errors or ambiguities arising out of ministerial statements during the passage of legislation. In particular: speeches and speaking notes will generally be reviewed by a department's legal adviser for possible influence on interpretation; the Hansard record of Ministers' contributions to debates on legislation will similarly be reviewed to consider whether there is any inaccuracy; and, where it seems sensible to do so, Ministers may more frequently offer to reflect and take further advice on points of interpretation that are raised in debate.
If it does prove necessary to correct a ministerial statement, the aim will be to do this as promptly as possible at an appropriate point during the further consideration of the Bill.