Taking A Look At Dicey's Model

Dicey’s model is challenged in the case of Jackson v Attorney General , where the Hunting Act challenges the sovereignty of Parliament. This shows how Parliament can change its own procedures and how Parliament can determine how future Parliaments legislate. The Parliament Act 1911 changed the length of time it takes to create an Act of Parliament and restricted the power of the House of Lords. If the House of Lords rejected a bill from the Commons three times, it would go straight up to Royal assent for it to be passed. Causing a delaying power of a bill to 2 years. The Parliament Act 1949 further restricted the Lords’ power by reducing the rejection instances to 2, therefore reducing the delaying power to 1 year. This meant it was possible
The case went up to the House of Lords, now the supreme court, where the appellants argument was that the Parliament Act 1949 was not valid, therefore any acts created through that procedure would also not be valid. But what does this mean for the sovereignty of Parliament? The House of Lords held that the 1911 Act procedure could be used to amend the 1911 Act itself. This suggests that Parliament are supreme, and are able to change their own law making procedures such as removing hereditary peers from the House of Lords using the House of Lords Act 1999 . But this does also show how the courts can strike down any Act of Parliament and that Parliament cannot use its powers from the Parliament Act 1911 and 1949 in any way they desire. There are still some constraints such as not being able to extend their time in
The UK signed the European Communities Act in 1972 , which has clearly limited the power of UK Parliament. The act states in section 2(1), ‘All such rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions from time to time created or arising by or under the Treaties … are without further enactment to be given legal effect or used in the United Kingdom shall be recognised and available in law, and be enforced, allowed and followed accordingly’. This means the UK Parliament must follow the EU treaties and incorporate EU law into our legal system. However, section 2(4) then goes on to say, ‘any such provision (of any such extent) as might be made by Act of Parliament, and any enactment passed or to be passed, other than one contained in this Part of this Act, shall be construed and have effect subject to the foregoing provisions of this section.’ In particular, the statement’s ‘shall be construed’ and ‘have effect’ suggests that an Act of Parliament will only be effective if it consistent with EU law. This is a highly significant change for UK law as this Act makes UK Acts of Parliament subordinate to the EU. This was demonstrated in the case of Factortame where the UK law, the Merchant Shipping Act , conflicted with EU law. Parliament were struck down by the EU and had to allow them to fish in British waters, but also