This paper argues that Parliamentary Sovereignty, as defined by Dicey, has been significantly altered by contemporary constitutional developments but has not been entirely eliminated. The analysis explores four major constraints: the Human Rights Act and judicial review mechanisms, European Union law supremacy, the devolution project, and common law constitutionalism. While these factors have created substantial legal and political limitations on Parliament's absolute power to legislate, Parliament retains formal sovereignty and retains the theoretical capacity to expressly repeal constitutional statutes. The paper concludes that Parliamentary Sovereignty has been confined in substance but preserved in form, with practical political considerations often restricting Parliament's actions more effectively than legal doctrine.
Parliamentary Supremacy has waned in importance since 1972. The increasing significance of European integration, the advent of legally enforceable fundamental rights, the devolution project, and persistence of the Parliamentary habit of legislating as if one Parliament were able to bind its successors have all contributed to the creation of restraints on Parliament's absolute power to legislate on anything.
According to Dicey's definition, Parliamentary Sovereignty is the "dominant foundation of our political institutions." Dicey suggested that Parliament can make or unmake any laws, override all legislation, is not bounded by its own precedents, and cannot be questioned by any individuals. Traditionally, Parliament is recognized as a constitutional structure after the Glorious Revolution, and the Bill of Rights 1689 placed Parliament's law-making power above that of the monarchy. While Parliament Sovereignty has indeed been altered greatly, its existence has yet to be denied completely. This essay argues that the statement in the question is substantially correct: Parliamentary Sovereignty has been significantly constrained, though not entirely eliminated. The following sections discuss the factors that have undermined Parliamentary Supremacy.
The Human Rights Act has fundamentally altered the significance of Parliament. The Joint Committee on Human Rights can commence judicial review on legislation and prevent Parliament from enacting Bills that restrict rights. The JCHR can question Ministers about legislation that contradicts the Convention, thus providing judicial scrutiny in the pre-enactment stage of a Bill. Parliament may face overwhelming pressure from public vigilance, the press, the Government, and non-governmental bodies, and also undergo a judicial checking system when laws violate the Convention.
Legal scholars such as Dworkin have argued implicitly that courts should not defer to Parliamentary Sovereignty when interpreting statutes and that a rights-based approach should be adopted. The Courts will presume that Parliament intended to act in accordance with the Convention if Parliament did not make its intention clear. If courts render all legislation compatible with the Convention, this creates a form of entrenchment against implied repeal. Section 3 of the Human Rights Act can be utilized by judges in ways that limit Parliament's ability to enact laws that violate the Convention.
The Courts may have the "last word" in deciding whether to follow Parliament's legislation, as they have the ability to conduct constitutional review, scrutinize, and effectively limit the sovereignty of Parliament. Although a Declaration of Incompatibility cannot strike down Parliament's legislation, it has been ignored by Parliament only in rare cases, demonstrating its persuasive force. Section 4 of the Act has significant legal weight as it is highly persuasive for judges to amend the law. Furthermore, under Section 10, the executive may amend domestic legislation to comply with the Convention. Parliament is therefore restricted in both legal and political terms—not only under overwhelming political pressure but also under international law to apply Convention rights. The Convention's legal significance should not be underestimated.
Britain's membership in the European Union (formerly the European Community) demonstrates the limitations of Parliamentary Sovereignty. The principle that European Union law has legislative supremacy over domestic provisions was firmly established before Britain joined the EU in 1973. Member States have limited their sovereign rights, albeit within circumscribed fields. The case of Thoburn v. Sunderland City Council established that if Parliament wants to repudiate a constitutional statute (including the Convention), it must do so expressly; it cannot repudiate the Convention impliedly.
Even though Parliament can still expressly repeal an Act, the possibility exists that a Parliamentary Act, despite clear intention to repeal a precedent, may be ineffective and thwarted. This means that Parliament's legal power to impliedly repeal an Act is rejected. The Fixed-Term Parliaments Act 2011 can also be viewed as a constitutional Act and would require express repeal. Thoburn gives legal recognition to the political reality that the European Union has had a fundamental effect on UK citizens' rights. When Conventions are expressly repealed, they will be subjected to public scrutiny and require legitimate democratic backing.
While Parliament has the legal power to withdraw Britain from the Convention and the EU by repealing the Human Rights Act and the European Communities Act 1972, it is a vague and remote prospect that is unlikely to occur in real practice. There is no realistic prospect, under current or foreseeable political developments, of the UK departing from the European Convention on Human Rights and the EU. When Parliament delegated its power to the EU and the Convention by accepting that EU law and Convention rights prevail over its own Acts, it voluntarily accepted limitations on its supremacy.
The powers of common law and the Executive have challenged Parliamentary Supremacy. The Government possesses Royal prerogative powers that Parliament cannot alter easily. For example, Parliament does not have sovereignty over the issue of declaring war; though its intention is taken into account, its words are not final and legally binding. Additionally, backbenchers may disagree with Cabinet policy and vote against Government Bills. The Executive can control the timetabling of Parliament's business and can effectively manipulate it to suit its needs. While Parliament holds the power of the purse over the Executive, it is the Executive that proposes policy and thus Parliament does not formulate it.
Common law constitutionalism establishes that there are important constitutional values Parliament cannot override. Lord Woolf wrote that "if Parliament did the unthinkable, then I would say that courts would also be required to act in a manner which was without precedent." Jeffrey Jowell states that Parliament's supremacy depends on the democratic and accountable nature of the legislature. This view was expressly supported by Lord Hope, who regarded Parliament's sovereignty as subject to the rule of law. This principle is exemplified in the Asylum & Immigration Bill 2003.
Clause 10 of that Bill limited the possibility of appeal and judicial review in most asylum cases. The courts rebelled against this Bill. Lord Hoffmann alleged that judges would not "give any effect" to the ouster clause. The courts were prepared to deliberately contravene Parliamentary intent and thus limit Parliament's supremacy. However, the Government retrieved the Bill before it could be debated in the Houses, showing the power of the Court's judicial review in limiting Parliament's power. As established in case law, domestic courts are the body "to which the scope and nature of parliamentary sovereignty are ultimately confided."
All of the above issues illustrate that Parliament Sovereignty is not absolute in real practice; however, it is a far cry from saying that Parliament Sovereignty is no longer. Parliament remains an important element in the UK's legal system. Although political considerations may suggest that Parliament would not do the "unthinkable," it does "not affect the legal position." Parliament is not in legal terms bounded by its precedents, as observed by Lord Langdale, who noted that "If two inconsistent Acts be passed at different times, the last must be obeyed."
Parliament's Supremacy is preserved in devolved matters. Devolution means that the British Parliament has less power over Scottish and Welsh territories as some legislative and administrative power is given to local authorities; however, the UK still maintains the final decision on major policy areas such as Foreign Policy, National Defence, Immigration, and Employment. In theory, Parliament may still legislate for Scottish affairs regardless of whether it is a devolved matter. Parliament abolished the Northern Ireland Parliament in 1972 to demonstrate that it can reclaim devolved powers. As a matter of law, Parliament can amend or repeal the Scotland Act without requiring a referendum in Scotland, even if it would be politically difficult to ignore the wishes of the Scottish people, as "freedom once given cannot be taken away easily."
Nevertheless, legal theories must give way to practical policies. Parliament faces legal limitations stemming from the UK's international obligations and the trend of globalization. Parliament is bound to amend any Acts that are incompatible with international laws. It is evident that Parliamentary Supremacy was clearly confined in its substance, but it was preserved in formal terms. The doctrine of Parliamentary Supremacy denotes the legal abilities of Parliament but not the practical limitations of it. In reality, Parliament must consider what is politically unfeasible and the adverse public reaction that might result.
You’re 90% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.