It is
important to understand what devolution is and how it was established. In 1997
-1998 a successful referendum was held in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland
which evidently led to the ‘Devolution Acts’. This consisted on the Scotland
Act, the Government of Wales Act and the Northern Ireland Act (all in 1998).
These Acts gave the countries “their own directly elected representative
bodies”.[1] As
England did not take part in this, they established devolved administrations;
which they delegated certain powers to.1
A well-known
definition for devolution was provided by Bogdanor who stated that “Devolution
involves the transfer of powers from a superior to an inferior political
authority.”2 […] He also states that “Devolution involves the
creation of an elected body […] it seeks to preserve intact that central
feature of the British constitution.”[2]
So, essentially, devolution is the transferral of powers given to other bodies.
When
considering if devolution has limited Parliamentary sovereignty, it is
essential to look at the effects that it has had on the UK. In the Royal
Commission Report[3], it expressed that
Parliament were sovereign in respect to legislative devolution. The report
demonstrated the idea that as Parliament could repeal the Devolution Acts if
wanted, and that they could legislated on all issues, this held them to be
sovereign as this still respected the fundamentals of Dicey’s Doctrine.[4]
Although the report states that Parliament are sovereign, it states that before
enacting legislation the consent of the region must be given. Theoretically,
this means that Parliaments sovereignty is limited as it needs ‘the permission’
of the region before legislating. Although this can be seen as a limitation, it
can still be argued that Parliament maintain sovereignty as they still have the
power legislate above other bodies.
When
looking into the overall position of Parliament, Westminster retains all of it
powers in comparison to the three devolved institutions. This is evident
through the fact that the institutions are restricted from legislating against
the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). However, if Westminster wanted
to pass an act that opposed to the ECHR, they are entitled to do so. In
addition to this, Feldman supported the idea that Parliament were sovereign. He
suggests that the UK constitution has not changed yet the three devolved
nations have been changed by devolution.[5]
Hadfield then develops on this concept and stated that “Devolution shows how
much change is possible and how little is likely for as long as the government
dominates a sovereign Parliament.”[6]
Overall, it can be reasonably be drawn to the conclusion that although in theory Parliament remain sovereign, in reality there are limitations that are in place due to devolution. There are various arguments that devolution has in fact honoured the traditional view that Parliament are sovereign as seen in the Royal Commission Report whereby it states that Parliament can legislate on any matter. However, when looking at the underlying facts, it is also apparent that devolution imposes limitations on Parliament. This is evident through the fact that Parliament has to take into consideration the perspectives of the region. But surely Parliament can pass any law at any time? In relation to this, it can be argued that in some sense there is an ‘unspoken’ rule that Parliament are not to legislate on devolved matters. This clearly illustrates that devolution has placed some limitation of the sovereignty of Parliament as it restricts certain powers Parliament has. To sum up this argument, it is reasonable to state that devolution has both honoured and limited the sovereignty of Parliament.
Bibliography
- V. Bogdanor, Devolution in the United Kingdom (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), pp 2-3
- A.V. Dicey, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution
- D. Feldman, ‘None, one or several: perspectives on the UK’s constitution(s)’ (2005) 64 Cambridge
- Law Journal 329
- B. Hadfield, ‘Devolution and the changing constitution: devolution in Wales and the unanswered English question’, in J, Jowell and D. Oliver (eds) University Press, 2007), pp 271-92, at 291-2
- Complete Public Law: Text. Cases, and Materials (4th edn) pp.287, Lisa Webley and Harriet Samuels
- Royal Commission on the Constitution 1969 – 73. Report; vol.1 (cm 54 60, London; HMS0, 1973.) pp.234-5
[1]
Complete Public Law: Text. Cases, and Materials (4th edn) pp.287,
Lisa Webley and Harriet Samuels
[2]
V. Bogdanor, Devolution in the United Kingdom (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2001), pp 2-3
[3]
Royal Commission on the Constitution 1969 – 73. Report; vol.1 (cm 54 60,
London; HMS0, 1973.) pp.234-5
[4] A.V. Dicey, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution
[5]
D. Feldman, ‘None, one
or several: perspectives on the UK’s constitution(s)’ (2005) 64 Cambridge Law
Journal 329
[6]
B. Hadfield, ‘Devolution and the changing constitution: devolution in Wales and
the unanswered English question’, in J, Jowell and D. Oliver (eds) University
Press, 2007), pp 271-92, at 291-2
Updated 21 March 2026
This article remains broadly accurate as a general introduction to the constitutional relationship between devolution and parliamentary sovereignty. The core legal principles discussed — that Westminster retains legislative supremacy and may repeal or override devolved legislation — remain correct as a matter of constitutional law.
However, several significant developments since the article was written should be noted. First, the Scotland Act 2016 and the Wales Act 2017 substantially reformed the devolution settlement. In particular, the Wales Act 2017 replaced the Government of Wales Act 2006’s conferred powers model with a reserved powers model (mirroring the Scottish approach), and the Scotland Act 2016 gave statutory recognition to the Sewel Convention (the convention that Westminster will not normally legislate on devolved matters without the consent of the relevant legislature). This statutory recognition appears in section 2 of the Scotland Act 2016, which inserted section 28(8) into the Scotland Act 1998. The Wales Act 2017 contains an equivalent provision.
Second, and importantly, the Supreme Court in R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5 confirmed that the Sewel Convention, while now in statute, remains a political convention and is not legally enforceable by the courts. Westminster’s legal sovereignty therefore remains intact. The article’s general conclusion on this point is consistent with that ruling.
Third, in Reference by the Attorney General and the Advocate General for Scotland — United Kingdom Withdrawal from the European Union (Legal Continuity) (Scotland) Bill [2018] UKSC 64, the Supreme Court further clarified aspects of the Scotland Act framework.
Fourth, the article’s reference to the devolved institutions being restricted from legislating contrary to the ECHR, while Westminster is not so restricted, remains accurate under the Human Rights Act 1998 and the devolution statutes, though this area continues to generate debate given ongoing UK government discussions about reform of the Human Rights Act framework.
Finally, the article does not address the significant constitutional tensions exposed during the Brexit process or subsequent intergovernmental disputes, which have prompted continuing debate about the practical limits of parliamentary sovereignty in a devolved context. Readers should supplement this article with more recent sources addressing these developments.
