§ Mr. Nicholas WintertonTo ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what assessment he has made of the application of the principles of Pepperv. Hart to ministerial comments (a) in the Official Report, (b) in ministerial correspondence and (c) outside the House; and if he will make a statement. [13599]
§ Mr. Freeman[holding answer 30 January 1997]: The decision in Pepper v. Hart enables courts in certain circumstances, if legislation is ambiguous or obscure, to take account of statements made in Parliament by Ministers or other promoters of a Bill in construing that legislation. It does not have application to statements made in correspondence or otherwise outside Parliament.
Textural clarity and precision, and the avoidance of ambiguity, are of course high priorities in the drafting of legislation. None the less, administrative procedures are in 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 departmental legal advisers 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.