[T]he minister in charge of the bill stated that children’s catapults were not covered.

Parliamentary debates - Hansard

Hansard is now a legitimate aid to interpretation. In Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart [1993] AC 593 Lord Browne Wilkinson in the House of Lords said,

reference to Parliamentary material should be permitted as an aid to the construction of legislation which is ambiguous or obscure or the literal meaning of which leads to an absurdity. Even in such cases references in court to Parliamentary material should only be permitted where such material clearly discloses the mischief aimed at or the legislative intention lying behind the ambiguous or obscure words. In the case of statements made in Parliament, as at present advised I cannot foresee that any statement other than the statement of the Minister or other promoter of the Bill is likely to meet these criteria.

As you see there are three requirements to be satisfied before parliamentary materials may be used by a court:

1. the legislation is ambiguous or obscure or the literal meaning of which leads to an absurdity;
   
2. such material clearly discloses the mischief aimed at or the
   legislative intention lying behind the ambiguous or obscure words; and
   
3. the statement is that of the Minister or other promoter of
   the Bill.
   

Close Window