When we discuss of the intention of parliament, we always have to find out what exactly do we mean of Parliament. The Parliament is the place where the voice, demand and need of the citizen will be debate thru their representative so call Member of Parliament. The player of the Parliament for example Parliament of Canada ,the repressentive will be the head of the states. They will be the members from the ruling Government and the opposition parties.
Most of the Government policies, current issues and bills will be debated here before its take effects Anyway its doesn't means that Parliament is the place where most of the common Law been passed because it the law actually been granted or passed with the consents of commons Lord, Queen or The King. Parliament will create the Acts and the doctrine of the Parliaments intention will be apply by the courts. Sometimes the "Law" makes arguments that who is the Supreme.
Parliament or the Court. Even its very difficult to answer but we can notice the intention of Parliament smoothly applied because no other governing bodies can override the intention of parliaments, even the court also will never question on the decision which been passed or gazette by parliament . Its more likely a game. Whether the organizations or the Governing body had the powers or the referees?. Judges place them self as referees because they have to follow the Parliaments rulings.
Under the English Legal System the only body has the rights to override the Law is Parliament. When Dicey published The Law of the Constitution in 1885 he identified parliamentary sovereignty as meaning that, "Parliament has, under the English constitution, the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and further that no person or body is recognized by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament" This can very clearly can be proof thru cases like Edinburgh & Dalkeith Railway Co. Wauchope (1842)
In this case a man was appealing to the court against a private Act obtained by the railway company as it adversely affected him. The court however would have nothing to do with it and Lord Campbell pronounced that The court cant question the legitimacy of the Parliament s long the act been passed accordingly and received the Royal Assents, the judges will never argue the Statutes. This is known as the 'enrolled Act' rule. Courts in UK will always obey the statutes it's regardless its fair or not.
Anyway the judges being flexible in certain matter such as interpreting the Statutes in order to achieve the actual intension of the Parliament. Even they flexibility allow them to interpret the statutes according to the issue of the case, but the judges still need to follow the actual intention of the Parliament, and no time should divert out of the true intension of the parliament. The House Members fully aware the actual sense have Statutes, and its will always benefit and the intention of the House been debate by the society's representative.
In other ways its help the juridical to use its as the platform before passed any judgments and its wont place the judge or court from divert they focus and control they attentions on the case itself. Its also assisting the court from being confuse such as, If a judge or the court been given the power amend the statutes, the total set of the acts which been design by the House or Parliament become mess and each and every judges will be change the act according to his view without any restrictions.
Finally the whole system will change and the court might not be Justice anymore. The public might lose confidences on the total juridical system. The advantages are it's save the time of the court from being analysis on the bills or Act. For example, LAWS OF MALAYSIA ACT 333 ROAD TRANSPORT ACT 1987 .. NO taxies will be allowed for picking up passenger at the bay, which specially design for buses. The law very strictly said at no time another public service vehicle other than buses, pick or drop passenger at the bay and the bay for buses use only .
So the intention of the Parliament very clearly give the instructions The bay reserved only for buses, even a taxi also consider as public service transport too, still taxies not allowed. Here the concept gives convenient fiction necessary to make sense of the status even its seems not justice for the another group of Public transport and the public itself . The intention of the Parliament indirectly assist the court to being very clear and firm on its decisions.
Anyway Parliament and Court thru using another analogy its like a join venture teams, Parliament will produces a product and Court become the salesman. It's likely making and sell. Anyway without effect the primary legalisations, court can do delegated legislation. The main reason is its save the Parliament time and allow such rules changes without going thru the complex parliamentary processes. Courts are allowed to challenge delegated legislation as ultra vires if it exceeds the scope of authority confirmed by primary legislation or if the correct procedures have not been followed.
In the case of Hoffman La Roche v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry  2 All ER 1128 Lord Diplock said, '… In constitutional law a clear distinction can be drawn between an Act of Parliament and subordinate legislation… I entertain no doubt that the courts have jurisdiction to declare [subordinate legislation] to be invalid if they are satisfied that in making it the minister who did so acted out with the legislative powers conferred on him…; and this is so whether the order is ultra vires by reason of its contents (patent defects) or by reason of defects in the procedure followed prior to it being made (latent defects)'.
This trust placed in the courts by Parliament clearly shows the importance placed in the courts concerning legislative matters. Briefly if we looks at Europe and it necessary too because since England join EC on 1972, where they was few conflict between Europe Statutes and English statutes, where the Court or judges once again use the power to interpretate the law And have often construed an English statute to confirm with an EC statute.
For English Judges to apply the law with having conflict with European. The cases of Garland v British Rail Engineering Ltd  2 AC 751 and Pickstone v Freemans plc AC 66 show clearly how judges apply a 'purposive interpretation' to English statutes to make them conform. Its not very clear what will happened if he Parliament enacted the statutes in directly confuse the European Laws, event its seems might not to happened under political but judges bound to apply a conflicting UK Statutes irrespective European Laws.
Finally to conclude the intention of the Parliament and the concept is a convenient fiction necessary to make sense of statutes is not to shows the power of The parliament and parliament completely hold the Court but its just to insure this two bodies working together and to insure the law been apply fairly. At no time the Parliament control the Courts, because its will effect the confidences of the society towards the Juridical Systems.