Hansard may guide statutory interpretation in ambiguity, and taxable benefit value here was held to follow marginal cost.

Where statutory language is ambiguous, obscure, or absurd, limited reference may be made to clear ministerial statements in Hansard as an aid to construction without infringing article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688, because the court is giving effect to enacted words rather than questioning parliamentary proceedings. Applying that approach, the taxable benefit under section 63 of the Finance Act 1976 was valued by the marginal or additional cost to the employer, not by an average-cost apportionment of total expenses, because the parliamentary materials showed that this was Parliament's intended meaning and the language was capable of bearing it.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether reference to Parliamentary debates in Hansard may be used as an aid to construing ambiguous or obscure statutory provisions without infringing article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688 or Parliamentary privilege; (ii) whether the cash equivalent of the taxable benefit under section 63 of the Finance Act 1976 is to be measured by the marginal cost to the employer or by the average cost of providing the benefit.

Issue (i): Whether reference to Parliamentary debates in Hansard may be used as an aid to construing ambiguous or obscure statutory provisions without infringing article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688 or Parliamentary privilege

Analysis: The historic exclusionary rule against reference to Parliamentary materials was held to admit a limited relaxation where the statutory words are ambiguous, obscure, or lead to absurdity. In such cases, clear ministerial statements may be considered, together with only so much Parliamentary material as is needed to understand those statements. The use of Hansard for this purpose was held not to amount to impeaching or questioning Parliamentary proceedings within article 9, because it does not criticise proceedings but seeks to give effect to the words enacted by Parliament. No defined Parliamentary privilege beyond article 9 was shown to bar such use.

Conclusion: Reference to Hansard is permissible within strict limits, and it does not infringe article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688.

Issue (ii): Whether the cash equivalent of the taxable benefit under section 63 of the Finance Act 1976 is to be measured by the marginal cost to the employer or by the average cost of providing the benefit

Analysis: The statutory language of section 63 was treated as capable of bearing either meaning. On the Parliamentary history, however, the responsible minister repeatedly stated that withdrawal of the proposed valuation clause would leave in-house benefits taxable on the basis of cost to the employer and that the charge in the relevant cases would be nil or very small. Those statements were taken as a clear indication that Parliament intended the benefit to be valued by reference to the additional or marginal expense actually incurred, not by an average-cost apportionment of the total running expenses of the undertaking.

Conclusion: The correct measure is the marginal or additional cost to the employer, not the average cost.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded because the legislation, read in the light of admissible Parliamentary materials, required the taxable benefit to be valued on a marginal-cost basis, placing the taxpayers in a better position on the assessments.

Ratio Decidendi: Where statutory language is ambiguous or obscure, clear ministerial statements in Parliamentary debates may be consulted as an aid to construction, and if they disclose Parliament's intended meaning, the court may give effect to that meaning provided the words are capable of bearing it.

---