Parliamentary materials | Principles.tax

- Use of Hansard to identify background and mischief

"[80] In answering this question within its overarching inquiry into the alleged violation of Convention rights, the court can, without constitutional impropriety, have regard to Parliamentary materials which explain the background to the government's decision and in particular its policy objectives: Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (No 2)[2003] UKHL 40, [2004] 1 AC 816, paras 61 to 66." (R (DA) v SSWP [2019] UKSC 21)

"[119] In the present case we have been referred to Hansard, which shows that the government positively intended not to interfere with the court's exercise of the power to determine what information should be made available to the public about judicial proceedings, and that it viewed statutory inquiries in the same way as judicial proceedings. I do not consider this to be relevant or admissible for the purposes of construing s 32, which is unambiguous; but it is relevant background material when considering whether questions of disclosure of information about statutory inquiries are properly a matter for the courts, applying the common law." (Kennedy v Charity Commission [2014] UKSC 20)

"[187] Dealing with that issue first, we do not consider that the two passages referred to by Ms Sloane from Kennedy and DA justify us looking at Hansard, or other extraneous materials, in circumstances wider than those already identified, that is to say where the rule in Pepper v Hart is engaged or to supply context or identify the mischief at which legislation is aimed as an aid to interpretation. In both of the cases she referred us to, the Hansard extracts were being looked at for a purpose other than statutory interpretation." (WM Morrison Supermarkets Ltd v. HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1542 (TC), Judge Baldwin)

- Not to be used to identify meaning outside of Pepper v. Hart

"[32] In their written case the appellants sought to support their contention that a child’s acquisition of substantial ties with the UK by spending time in the UK in the first ten years of his or her life created a complete entitlement to citizenship by referring to statements by a Government minister, Timothy Raison, to the Standing Committee which considered an amendment which became section 1(4) to the 1981 Act. Such references are not a legitimate aid to statutory interpretation unless the three conditions set out by Lord Browne-Wilkinson in Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593, 640 are met. The three conditions are (i) that the legislative provision must be ambiguous, obscure or, on a conventional interpretation, lead to absurdity; (ii) that the material must be or include one or more statements by a minister or other promoter of the Bill; and (iii) the statement must be clear and unequivocal on the point of interpretation which the court is considering. It was not argued, and I am not satisfied, that the first and third conditions are met in this case. The court was not referred to any relevant provision of primary legislation that was said to be ambiguous and the statements in any event did not meet the stringent requirements of the third condition. Sir James Eadie in para 10 of the Secretary of State’s written case referred to a ministerial statement in the House of Lords during the passage of the 2014 Act which sought to explain the policy behind what became section 68 of that Act. But it is not argued that this reference is admissible because the first condition in Pepper v Hart has been met. I am satisfied that there is no such ambiguity, obscurity or absurd result in the relevant statutory provisions which would allow the court to have regard to that statement." (R (oao O) v. SoS for Home Department [2022] UKSC 3)

"[192] ... However, statements by Government ministers in Parliament are only admissible as an aid to construction (as opposed to a means of identifying the mischief the legislation was aimed at) where the three conditions set out by Lord Browne-Wilkinson in Pepper v Hart are met." (WM Morrison Supermarkets Ltd v. HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1542 (TC), Judge Baldwin)

- Consideration of Hansard where legislation appears to ask a question to which he answer is always "yes"

"[250] As far as the Pepper v Hart criteria are concerned, the second is clearly met. We agree with Ms Sloane that the first criterion is also met. On its face the legislation is clearly difficult to interpret. It appears to be asking whether the packaging being used retains heat, but (as we have already seen) that is a non-question. Mr Watkinson suggests that the legislation is perfectly clear as long as we read it subject to a de minimis disregard, but there is nothing before us to suggest that that is Parliament's chosen route out of this impasse or, as Ms Sloane pointed out, to show that there is such a thing as packaging with a de minimis effect on heat retention. We consider that it would be perfectly proper for us to take Mr Gauke's comments into account as an aid to interpreting these provisions if they are clear and unequivocal on the point of interpretation.

...

[255] With respect, we struggle to describe Mr Gauke's answer to Mr Gilbert's question as a clear and unequivocal confirmation on a point of interpretation." (WM Morrison Supermarkets Ltd v. HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1542 (TC), Judge Baldwin)