Abstract

This Note is intended to stand as a short supplement to the compelling article by Stefan Vogenauer entitled, ‘A Retreat from Pepper v Hart? A Reply to Lord Steyn’ published in the Journal at the end of 2005.1 In his article, Professor Vogenauer calls in question the argument advanced by Lord Steyn in his article in the Journal, entitled ‘Pepper v Hart: A Re-examination’.2 In that article, Lord Steyn called for a retreat from the decision of the House of Lords in Pepper v Hart3 concerning the circumstances in which reference may be made to Hansard as an aid to statutory construction and for a reinterpretation of the decision in line with a theory that a Minister speaking in Parliament who gives an explanation of the meaning or effect of a clause in a Bill should be taken to create a binding legitimate expectation that the executive will apply the provision, once enacted, in that sense. In this Note, I express my agreement with Professor Vogenauer’s argument, and seek to support it with some additional points under three heads: (1) the proper interpretation of Pepper v Hart and its status as authority; (2) the basis in principle for adhering to that interpretation; and (3) conceptual difficulties attached to Lord Steyn’s legitimate expectation thesis