Note on Question: judgments in the House of Lords are set out in a different order than the way you are used to seeing them in Supreme Court decisions. Instead of the majority judgments appearing first and the minority ones then following, in the House of Lords judgments are written in a sequential order going from the most senior Law Lord to the least senior one. The case considered is a good example of this and you will have to read all of the judgments and work out who is in the majority and minority.
Additionally, please note that the Lord Advocate is not a judge, rather he is one of the Government’s lawyers and argued the case. ———-
‘Once the superior power of Parliament has occupied the territory the prerogative must quit the field.’
Lord Mustill (in the minority but agreeing on this point), R v Home Secretary, Ex parte Fire Brigades Union,  2 AC 513, 564F
1) Explain the nature of the relationship between the Government’s Prerogative powers (as used by ministers) and Statute. (500 words)
2) In the Fire Brigades Union case the House of Lords split 3:2 on the question of whether the Secretary of State’s decision to introduce the non-statutory tariff scheme was lawful. Evaluate the reasoning of the majority and minority and explain which you think is correct? Give reasons for your answer. (1000 words)
3) Evaluate what the House of Lords’ decision in Fire Brigades Union and other court decisions considering the relationship between Statute and the Prerogative demonstrate about the importance the courts place on the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty. (1000 words)
Further Notes: Where appropriate you should use cases to illustrate your answer. The word limits for each question are suggested only. You may find that you use slightly more or less depending on your arguments. However, the overall word count should not exceed 2,500.