Example sentences of "[be] say [prep] parliament " in BNC.
Next page| No | Sentence |
|---|---|
| 1 | This submission appears to me to suggest a way of making more effective proceedings in Parliament by allowing the court to consider what has been said in Parliament as an aid to resolving an ambiguity which may well have become apparent only as a result of the attempt to apply the enacted words to a particular case . |
| 2 | Questions of construction may be involved on what is said in Parliament and I can not see how if the rule is modified in this way the parties ' legal advisers could properly come to court without having looked to see whether there was anything in the Hansard Report on the Bill which could assist their case . |
| 3 | Finally , to use what is said in Parliament for the purpose of construing legislation would be a breach of article 9 of the Bill of Rights as being an impeachment or questioning of the freedom of speech in debates in proceedings in Parliament . |
| 4 | If the Attorney-General 's submission is correct , any comment in the media or elsewhere on what is said in Parliament would constitute ‘ questioning ’ since all Members of Parliament must speak and act taking into account what political commentators and other will say . |
| 5 | Plainly article 9 can not have effect so as to stifle the freedom of all to comment on what is said in Parliament , even though such comment may influence Members in what they say . |
| 6 | Relaxation of the rule will not involve the courts in criticising what is said in Parliament . |
| 7 | In both types of case , the minister 's words are considered and taken into account by the court : in both , the use of such words by the courts might affect what is said in Parliament . |
| 8 | It was said in Parliament that ‘ The courts were to become agencies for the rescue as well as the punishment of children . ’ |
| 9 | Having once looked at what was said in Parliament , it is difficult to put it out of mind . |
| 10 | One of the cases also incidentally raises the question of whether , and to what extent , it may be desirable to have regard to what was said in Parliament at the time when the legislation was under discussion . |
| 11 | The wording is very clear and in view of the dicta in the Vestey decision and the major shift in the approach to be adopted to that section — restricting the same to the settlor and his spouse and taking into account the provisions of TA 1988 , s740 — it is felt that the Revenue will have to concede this point unless they change the law ( in which case one would have to watch very carefully what was said in Parliament to see how the change is to have effect ! ) . |