1. Issues The main issue in the scenario is the conflict between the two Acts of Parliament: the Education Act 2013 (EA 2013) and the Education Reform Act 2016 (ERA 2013). The ERA 2016 is passed by reducing the school leaving age to 16 from 18 under the EA 2013 and without consulting Ofsted as required by the EA 2013. Madonna at the age of sixteen wishes to leave school now relying on the 'ERA 2016. The question then is whether EA 2013 or ERA 2016 would apply and why.2. IntroductionThe issue raises a number of questions regarding parliamentary sovereignty and the related issues of entrenchment and express and implicit abrogation. The principle of parliamentary sovereignty in the United Kingdom historically originates from the difficult relationship between the English Parliament and the Crown. The 1689 Bill of Rights created the basis for parliamentary sovereignty in which the Crown agreed with Parliament to limit its power. One of the key definitions of parliamentary sovereignty was given by AV Dicey who defines it as “Parliament has the right to make or unmake any law; and that no person or body is recognized by English law as having the right to ignore or override the legislation of Parliament. Dicey's theory has both positive and negative elements. Positive as it states that Parliament can pass any law on any subject as it sees fit and can make and unmake laws and is not bound by the previous Parliament nor can it bind the future Parliament. The downside to Dicey's theory is that no one can question the validity of Parliament's Act, not even the courts. JurisdictionParliament is supreme and can pass any law it wants. However, in the scenario considered, the Parliament approved the ERA 2016 without co...... middle of paper ...... the next Parliament will be bound by the modalities and form. In the case of Attorney General of New South Wales v Trethowan it was held that as the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 specified certain manner and form, the subsequent Parliament was bound by it. Similarly, in the case of Harris v Home Secretary, the court held that the South African Parliament had been created and given powers by the 1909 Act and subsequent laws which attempted to make changes without following the correct procedure were not valid. The modern attitude of the courts is changing, as can be seen in the case of R. (at the request of Jackson) v Attorney-General concerning the Hunting Act 2004, in which Lord Hope of Craighead held that parliamentary sovereignty is no longer , if it ever was, absolute, instead it is qualified.” Its enforcement by the courts is the ultimate controlling factor on which our Constitution is based.”Conclusion