Government of Wales Act 2006 gives effect to these pro-
posals. The 2006 Act:
■establishes the Welsh Assembly Government as an
entity which is separate from but accountable to the
National Assembly;
■introduces a mechanism for conferring legislative
competence on the Assembly in respect of specified
matters, with the approval of the Westminster Parlia-
ment (these forms of secondary legislation are known
as Assembly Measures);
■makes provision for a referendum to be held on
whether the Assembly should be able to pass primary
legislation on matters specified by the Westminster
Parliament;
■makes provision for the election and remuneration of
AMs and the establishment of an Assembly Commis-
sion to support the operation of the Assembly.
The Northern Ireland Assembly, which was created
following a referendum supporting the 1998 ‘Good
Friday Agreement’, consists of 108 members elected by
proportional representation. The Assembly has legislat-
ive and executive authority in respect of matters which
were previously within the remit of Northern Ireland
government departments, e.g. agriculture, education,
the environment, health and social services, economic
development and finance. The Northern Ireland Assembly
was suspended and direct rule from Westminster restored
in October 2002. An agreement to British and Irish Gov-
ernment proposals for restoring devolved government
was reached with the major political parties in Northern
Ireland at talks held in St Andrews, Scotland in October
- The Northern Ireland (St Andrews Agreement) Act
2006 provided for a Transitional Assembly whose pur-
pose was to assist with preparations for the restoration
of devolved government. Elections to a new Assembly
took place on 7 March 2007 and on 26 March 2007 the
leaders of the DUP and Sinn Fein agreed to enter into a
power-sharing Executive from 8 May 2007.
Parliamentary sovereignty
The supremacy of Parliament in the legislative sphere is
known as the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. It
means that Parliament can make any laws it pleases, no
matter how perverse or unfair. Parliament may repeal
the enactments of an earlier Parliament; it may delegate
its legislative powers to other bodies or individuals. The
courts are bound to apply the law enacted by Parlia-
ment; the judiciary cannot challenge the validity of an
Act of Parliament on the grounds that the legislation is
absurd, unconstitutional or procured by fraud (Pickinv
British Railways Board(1974)). However, the courts
may challenge the validity of UK legislation if it is in
conflict with EC law.Part 1Introduction to law
18
Factortame Ltdv Secretary of State for
Transport (No 2)(1991)
The Merchant Shipping Act 1988 introduced a requirement
that 75 per cent of the members of companies operating
fishing vessels in UK waters must be resident and domi-
ciled in the UK. The legislation was designed to stop the
practice of ‘quota hopping’ whereby fishing quotas were
‘plundered’ by vessels flying the British flag but whose
real owners had no connection with the UK. The appellants
were companies registered in the UK but which were
essentially owned or controlled by Spanish nationals. Their
fishing vessels failed to meet the new requirements and
they were barred from fishing. The appellants argued that
the 1988 Act was incompatible with EC law. Since it would
take several years to resolve the matter, the appellants
asked the court to grant interim relief suspending the
1988 Act until a final ruling could be made. The House of
Lords referred the case to the European Court of Justice
which ruled that, if a rule of national law was the sole
obstacle to the granting of interim relief in a case con-
cerning EC law, that rule must be set aside. Applying this
ruling, the House of Lords made an order suspending
the operation of the disputed provisions of the Merchant
Shipping Act 1988 pending final judgment of the issue.
Comment. In 1999 the House of Lords held that the
UK’s breach of EC law in passing the Merchant Shipping
Act 1988 was sufficiently serious to entitle the appellants
to compensation (RvSecretary of State for Transport,
ex parte Factortame Ltd (No 5)(1999)).Rv Secretary of State for Employment,
ex parte Equal Opportunities
Commission(1994)
In this case the House of Lords upheld the right of a
statutory body, the Equal Opportunities Commission, to
challenge restrictions on part-time workers’ rights to re-
dundancy pay and unfair dismissal protection under UK
law using the procedure of judicial review (see further,
Chapter 3 ). Their Lordships held that the five-year
qualifying period for protection in relation to redundancy
and unfair dismissal for those working between eight
and 16 hours a week laid down in UK legislation was in
breach of EC law (see further, Chapter 16 ).