Abstract

This article re-examines the House of Lords» decision in Pepper v Hart, which relaxed the rule prohibiting courts from using ministerial explanations of Bills in Parliament in the construction of statutes. It recognizes the importance of context in the interpretation of statutes, but questions the assumption in the case that intention can be attributed to Parliament. It argues that the case can be confined to authorizing the use of ministerial statements in Parliament when such statements can be shown to be inconsistent with arguments made by government before the courts on the meaning of the legislation. Any broader interpretation of the decision raises serious constitutional objections