“The classic account given by Dicey of the doctrine of the supremacy of Parliament, pure and absolute as it was, can now be seen to be out of place in the modern United Kingdom…” (Lord Steyn in R (Jackson and Others) v. Attorney General)
Discuss.
For the sake of clarification, the term ‘parliamentary supremacy’ should be defined and elaborated upon before discussing how the doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty could be said to be out of place in the modern United Kingdom.
The Doctrine Of Parliamentary Sovereignty Explained
The ‘basic principle’ of the English constitution can be summed up simply: A statute, that is, a piece of legislation produced and passed by the Parliament, is generally regarded as the highest form of law within the constitutional structure. The Parliament is said to be a sovereign law-maker. This concept is derived from a legal theory articulated by an Oxford law professor from the nineteenth century, A.V Dicey in the book, ‘An Introduction To The Study Of The Law Of Constitution’.
The doctrine of parliamentary supremacy can be summarised in three points:
- The Parliament can make laws concerning anything.
- No Parliament can bind a future Parliament (it cannot pass a law that cannot be reversed by a future Parliament)
- A valid Act of Parliament cannot be questioned by the court.
Here we can see the application of the concept that the Parliament is the supreme lawmaker. In layman’s (and somewhat cynical) terms: “England is not governed by logic, she is governed by Parliament” and “Parliament can do anything except make a man a woman and a woman a man”.
The above quotes illustrate the power bestowed upon the Parliament upon the state (or sovereign state) and its omnipotence in its ability to make or unmake a law concerning anything whatsoever. If two Acts of Parliament cover the same subject, the earlier Act will be repealed by the later Act in what is known as ‘the doctrine of implied repeal’. On the fact that the courts may not question an Act of Parliament, Art 9 of the Bill of Rights states that a Bill is to be treated as an Act when it appears on the Parliamentary Roll.
Changes In Parliamentary Sovereignty: Developments, Changes, And Modernisation
In the course of history, it is inevitable that the doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty and its concepts would undergo developments, thus bringing about the possibility that the original ‘pure and absolute’ doctrine may one day be out of place in the modern United Kingdom.
The doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty prevents judicial review of any legislation passed by the Parliament. However, due to certain events, the notion of Parliamentary Supremacy was influenced and therefore modified, altering the otherwise complete sovereignty of Parliament. In its modification, Parliamentary Sovereignty can be seen to have been somewhat modernised as time passes, limiting its supremacy in some ways:
-
- A devolved government resulting in the granting of powers to regional assemblies in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.
This means that all three assemblies can pass primary legislation in areas devolved to them. The system remains non-federal.
-
- The United Kingdom’s membership into the European Union since 1973.
The European Court of Justice ruled that the European Union was a “new legal order of international law for the benefit of which the [Member] States have limited their sovereign rights”. The United Kingdom, as a part of the European Union, limited its sovereignty over state to a certain extent. However, some argue that the decision in Factortame leaves the doctrine intact and absolute and in his judgment, Lord Bridge suggest that the Parliament had chosen to exercise rather than surrender its sovereignty.
-
- Certain statutes are protected as Constitutional Statutes.
In the case of Thoburn v Sunderland City Council, Lord Justice Laws held that certain statutes of constitutional importance including Magna Carta and the European Communities Act 1972 could not be repealed by the doctrine of implied repeal (explained earlier). This, as well , limits the Parliamentary Sovereignty.
-
- The enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998.
This Act gives the courts the power to issue a declaration of incompatibility when they believe that the terms of an Act of Parliament are not in line with the rights guaranteed by the Human Rights Act
Theoretically, the Parliament remains almost entirely sovereign and the doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty remains untouched. In particular, the legislative supremacy of the Parliament has not been affected. It can therefore be said that legal sovereignty is not lost, as the Parliament maintains its powers based on the doctrine of Parliamentary Supremacy. However, although it is well within the Parliament’s capabilities to simply leave the European Union as well as abolish the devolved government, it is clear that it is highly unlikely that such an event would happen due to obvious political restrictions in the modern world.
Conclusively, A.V Dicey’s doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty, though still intact, pure and absolute in terms of the Parliament’s legal sovereignty, is otherwise limited in terms of political sovereignty. This, perhaps, is the reason that the traditional doctrine has been said to be ‘out of place’ in the modern United Kingdom.
Updated 16 March 2026
This article remains broadly accurate as an introduction to the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty and the key challenges to it, but several points require updating for current readers.
Brexit and EU membership: The article’s discussion of EU membership as a limitation on parliamentary sovereignty is now historically superseded. The United Kingdom left the European Union on 31 January 2020, and the European Communities Act 1972 was repealed by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Parliamentary sovereignty in its traditional sense was formally reasserted in domestic law. The article’s reference to EU membership as a continuing constraint, and its description of the European Communities Act 1972 as a protected constitutional statute that cannot be impliedly repealed, requires significant qualification: that Act no longer exists as operative law. The constitutional statutes doctrine from Thoburn v Sunderland City Council [2002] remains good law generally, but the specific example used in the article is obsolete.
Devolution: The article’s description of a devolved but non-federal system remains accurate in outline. However, devolution has evolved considerably. The Scotland Act 1998, Government of Wales Act 2006, and Northern Ireland Act 1998 have been amended and the powers of devolved legislatures expanded. Readers should be aware that the current position is more complex than the article suggests, particularly following the Internal Market Act 2020 and ongoing constitutional tensions.
Human Rights Act 1998: The article’s description of the declaration of incompatibility mechanism remains legally accurate. However, readers should note that there have been significant developments in this area. The government’s proposals to reform or replace the Human Rights Act were advanced through the Bill of Rights Bill, which was introduced in 2022 but was withdrawn in 2023. The Human Rights Act 1998 therefore remains in force as described, but this has been a live area of constitutional debate.
The quote attributed to Parliament’s powers (that Parliament cannot make a man a woman or a woman a man) should be treated with care in the modern context, given subsequent legislative developments around gender recognition law in Scotland and ongoing UK-wide debates, though it remains a conventional illustration of the Diceyan doctrine.
Overall, the article’s core exposition of Diceyan parliamentary sovereignty and its theoretical limitations is still sound for introductory purposes, but the EU-related sections are materially outdated and must not be read as reflecting the current legal position.
