Can parliament bind it's successors with the provision in the Northern Ireland Act 1998, s.1 (1)?

Authors Avatar

Can parliament bind it’s successors with the provision in the Northern Ireland Act 1998, s.1 (1)?

The problem to be addressed in this essay is the issue of the British Parliament’s ability to bind its successors, with particular attention to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 s.1 (1). Parliament’s ability to limit its successors also relates to other issues which I will be looking at in detail. I will be focusing on a brief history of parliamentary supremacy and to what extent it is supreme, considering both the positives and negative of this. It seems appropriate to briefly look at the opinions of AV Dicey as well as cases where some think Parliament has bound its successors or has been bound by its predecessors. I will also be looking at the theory of ‘manner an form’ in terms of legislation and how this applies to the provision in the Northern Ireland Act 1998, s.1 (1).

I defend the thesis that parliament should not be able to pass legislation which, in any way, limits or redefines it’s successors, although in this case it becomes apparent that this might have occurred in relation to the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Can Parliament limit its successors?

In the case of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, we must first look at s 1(1).

“It is hereby declared that Northern Ireland in its entirety remains part of the United Kingdom and shall not cease to be so without the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland voting in a poll held for the purposes of this section, in accordance with schedule 1.”

The section entails that Northern Ireland will remain part of the United Kingdom, and therefore is under its law-making power, until such a time that the people of Northern Ireland wish otherwise. This entails that any future parliament is bound as it will have lost the legal capacity to repeal the Act of 1998. The Act might not be repealed; it requires a poll to take place with a majority outcome in favour of no longer being part of the United Kingdom. In this way, the Act of 1998 s 1(1) has indeed subjected future Parliaments to be bound, until such a time that the people of Northern Ireland vote otherwise.

Although, an Act of this kind is an example of a restraint which Parliament has placed upon it, but which doesn’t debilitate Parliament from acting.

Overall, it is accepted that no Parliament may bind its successors, in as much as future parliaments may repeal Acts from past parliaments which it does not wish to inherit. While certain Acts are seen to bind future Parliaments, these future Parliaments which we talk of are perfectly able to repeal the Acts which they refute. There is an exception to this, this is apparent over the issue of ‘manner and form’. Parliament may limit it’s successors as to ‘manner and form’ of legislation. The provision in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 has bound its successors in terms of ‘manner and form’ by determining the only way in which the Act may be repealed, through a majority poll by the people of Northern Ireland.

Join now!

 A good example of a Parliament possibly binding its successors as to ‘manner and form’ can be found in Hilaire Barnett’s Constitutional and Administrative Law.

I’ve included a brief summary of it here. For example, a Labour parliament may be in power and it passes an Act which could not be repealed or amended unless the Bill to do this received two-thirds of the votes in the House of Commons. Then say that a future parliament, perhaps a Conservative one, passed an Act to repeal the earlier Act then the courts would uphold that the subsequent Act was valid, ...

This is a preview of the whole essay