Evaluate the extent to which the United Kingdom Parliament is sovereign

Authors Avatar

Evaluate the extent to which the United Kingdom Parliament is sovereign.  Consider both legal and political factors.

Before exploring the extent to which our Parliament is sovereign, one must first understand what Parliamentary sovereignty means.  When describing Parliament as sovereign, it means it holds the supreme power – the ultimate source of political authority and the authority to impose and amend laws.  In other words our Parliament is sovereign, and it owes obedience to no other.  However, there are some limitations on this power that need to be discussed.  How far can the United Kingdom Parliament be sovereign, if certain, more specific areas of law or other jurisdictions can overrule it?  In this essay I will explore how far Parliament is sovereign, and if there are limitations, what they are and whether they mean Parliament cannot be sovereign at all.

There are many arguments that suggest that even from the outset, Parliament had limitations put on it – in other words it was born unfree.  The 1707 Acts of Union brought about the Great British Parliament between Scotland and England, many agree that this itself induced limitations on Parliament’s Power.  This is most strongly argued by JDB Mitchell, TB Smith and Neil MacCormick on two points.

Firstly, the Acts of Union preceded the new Parliament, and were enacted by two separate entities – the Scottish and English Parliaments respectively which can be regarded as a constitutional act which created and limited Parliament.  This is due to the fact that in each of the treaties there were constitutional guarantees given to both entities, as effectively they were abolishing their own Parliaments.  The second point goes on to state that because the legislation of the Acts of Union were before the Parliament’s existence, it may indicate that they bind it.  This is further suggested by the wording of the Acts, in that a number of provisions are guaranteed; Parliament may govern “for ever”, and the Courts of Session and Courts of Justiciary should remain as they are “in all time coming”.

However, it can also be said that these arguments are ineffective, and with special regard to the second point Dicey makes it clear that legislation, which tries to bind future Parliaments will be ineffective.  An important example of this is the case of Ellen St Estates v The Minister of Health, where an earlier act (The Acquisition of Land Act 1919) had in its terms that anything “inconsistent with this act those provisions shall cease to have effect or shall not have effect”, and this was believed to refer to Acts previous to this.  In 1925 the Housing Act had slightly different terms, and it was argued that in fact this later Act could be ineffective because it also applied to subsequent acts.  This was struck down by the courts, who argued that the legislature cannot bind subsequent Parliaments.

Join now!

Moreover, Munro takes a similar view to Dicey and also adds that although the enactments were strange (the separate entities ceased to exist afterwards), it would be by no means accurate to suggest that they created a new Parliament after 1707 as it was not a completely clean slate – old laws in some cases still applied.  Consequently the 1707 Acts could not have created limitations on Parliament.  Munro goes on to state that the reason parliament exists is due to custom – when asking questions such as from whence did the idea that Parliament must consist of three ...

This is a preview of the whole essay