Evaluate critically the utility of the principle of parliamentary supremacy in the context of our uncodified constitutional system
Evaluate critically the utility of the principle of parliamentary supremacy in the context of our uncodified constitutional system
I am going to be exploring the usefulness and practicality of parliamentary supremacy, also known as parliamentary sovereignty, which I shall be referring to it as. I shall be endeavouring to understand, exactly how parliamentary sovereignty works in our uncodified constitutional system. I shall do this by explaining, what parliamentary sovereignty is? Does it still exist to the extent to which it once did? What factors can affect the decisions made and how new legislation can impact upon this. These issues will be highlighted using relevant case law. Once I have evaluated parliamentary sovereignty, I will then express my opinion, following my critical evaluation. I can then determine whether it is still as practical as once was and is this principle as clear cut as it may sound. As there are a number of factors, that can affect this.
Parliament does not mean the Houses of Parliament, but acts passed with consent from the Commons, Lords and the Queen. Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution, stating that they are competent to legislate on any subject matter. Parliament can theoretically amend or repeal any current legislation, even a statue of constitutional importance. The doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty is regarding the relationship between those who create the acts and those who apply them. Raising the question of which infact has supreme power. Parliament is the highest source of law and if a law has been passed according to parliament’s rules, it is valid law and must be applied by the courts, even if it is unfair or unjust. This concept of sole legislative competence which came out from “glorious revolution” in the 17th century, which passed power to parliament from the monarch, The Bill of Rights 1689, this bill should potentially mean, that supremacy of parliament cannot be questioned, as to the validity of legislation by any other body. No other UK court exists to adjudicate in this way. In reality political and legal factors limit sovereignty in practice. A doctrine defined by A V Dicey was that parliament has ‘The right to make or unmake any law whatsoever and no person or nobody is recognised by the law of England as having the right to override or set aside the legislation of parliament,” The case of Dalkhem Railway Co V Wauchope (1842) exemplifies this issue. In this case a man was appealing to the court against a private Act, obtained by the railway company that adversely affected him. The court however would have nothing to do with it.Lord Cambell pronounced, ‘ all that a court can do is look at the parliamentary roll; if from that it should appear that a bill has passed both houses and received the royal assent, no court of justice can inquire into the mode, in which it was introduced into parliament. From this it is clear that courts will obey statues, as long as they are passed correctly, but that ordinary courts have no jurisdiction, nor are they willing to enquire issues concerning the internal affairs of parliament. This was again shown in the case of Ex Parte Canon Selwyn and was also emphasised in a later case of Pickin V British Railway Board (1974). Lord Reid reiterated the words of Lord Campbell in Edinburgh V Dalkeith (1842) and stated in judgement, ‘For a century or more, both parliaments and the courts have been careful not to act so as to cause conflict between them. Any such investigations as the respondent seeks could easily lead to such conflict and I would only support it if compelled by clear authority. But it appears to me that the whole trend of authority for over a century is clearly against permitting any such investigation. Once again this shows the courts unwillingness to question the validity of an act.
