0115 966 7966 Today's Opening Times 10:30 - 17:00 (GMT)
Place an Order
Instant price

Get help with your work from LawTeacher

Get it right the first time & learn smarter today

Place an Order

This essay has been submitted by a law student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.

Published: Fri, 02 Feb 2018

For centuries, the United Kingdom (UK) has prided itself

Sovereignty. The traditional doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty is a result of the absence

of a written constitution in UK. And due to that absence, Parliament is the most supreme law

making body among the other two institutional powers, namely, the executive (Government)

and the judiciary (Courts).

In the view of the famous nineteenth century historian A.V Dicey, under the traditional

doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty, Parliament is free to make any laws it wishes and no

other determinate body is able to override or set aside any Act of Parliament. Meaning,

Parliament made laws would be superior than all the other sources of law and would remain

in force even if the judges were to notice that the primary legislation is out of date. However,

the Acts can be subject to being expressly and impliedly repeal. Implied repeal is where, if,

any inconsistencies were to arise between the later statute and the former, then the later

statute would impliedly repeal the former and the authority for it is Ellen Street Estates Ltd

v Minister of Health (1934) [1] and Vauxhall Estates Ltd v Liverpool Corp (1932) [2] . But,

constitutional statutes (Such as the Human Rights Act 1998) could only be expressly

repealed. There is an added theory that Parliament is not bound by its predecessors or shall

bind its successors. Whereby, Parliament should not legislate in a way that would restrict the

law making functions of future Parliaments. And this could be seen when UK Westminster

passed the Parliamentary Act of 1949 which repealed the earlier Act of 1911The third

principle is that once the Parliament has legislated, no court or person is able to pass

judgment upon the validity of the legislation: Pickin v British Railways Board (1974) [3] ;

Edinburgh & Dalkeith Railway v Wauchope (1842) [4] ; Lee v Bude and Torrington

(1871) [5] . Meaning, the judges cannot challenge or question the Acts passed by Parliament

because the Parliament is of a superior status than the courts.

In recent times, however, it has been accepted that there are limitations to the traditional

doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty and that is in the words of MP Cash ‘serious threats’

towards the sovereignty of the Parliament. The power has been given to bodies like

Government Ministers and local authorities to make delegated legislation is one of it. And,

this has watered down the notion of Parliamentary supremacy as this falls out of Parliament’s

law making process. Furthermore, entrenched laws that are embedded in the constitution are

highly unlikely for Parliament to dismantle devolution policies (where the UK has given

some legislative powers to Scotland) are also one of the limitations to the concept of

sovereignty because of its historical, social, economical and political reasons in the

constitution. Also, because the Government has transferred its powers to certain areas by

statute and the possibility for Parliament to reassert its powers seems to be difficult and future

Parliaments may also not repeal the powers. But, in theory, that does not mean that the

Parliament is unable to do so, but in a pragmatic sense; chances of the Parliament doing so

would be unlikely. And this problem gives rise to question marks about the theory that

Parliament shall not bind its successors. Moreover, from the common law, it is true that

judges do make law especially in contract and tort law where common law development has

far outweighed the statutory provisions.

However, it should be noted that, the impact towards the Parliamentary Sovereignty is far-

greater, especially of UK’s membership in to the European Community. And even though the

Parliament claims itself to be supreme, UK’s accession in to European Community (EC)

since 1973 has indeed undermined its sovereignty. This can be seen in the case of Costa v

ENEL (1964) [6] that was brought to the European Court of Justice (ECJ), where the court

stated that, ‘the member states have limited their sovereign rights…and has created a body of

laws that would be binding on them and their nationals.’ In addition to that, in Simmenthal

(1979) [7] , the ECJ had gone on further stating that EC law is to be applied in its entirety in any

national court. Also, the courts are to protect the rights of EC and accordingly, to also ‘set

aside’ any provisions of domestic law that would be conflicting with EC law. And as a result,

the principles of the doctrine (as mentioned above) are no longer strictly accurate.

Moreover, if there is a domestic law that is contravening with Community laws, the latter has

to prevail. This has inadvertently also impacted on the workings of the Parliament and in

practice, also of the public and local authorities. But it is possible for the UK’s domestic law

to prevail over Community law. Lord Denning in the case of Macarthys v Smith (1981) [8] 

has himself said that if the Parliament were to pass an Act with the intention to act

inconsistently (with the Treaty) and had in express terms said so, and so it would be the UK

courts’ duty to follow the statute. However, the same principle as in Simmenthal [9] was

applied in the shipping case of R v Secretary of State for Transport ex parte Factortame

(1991) [10] . Here, the UK was found to be obligated to a duty to amend the Merchant Shipping

Act 1998 as it was found by the ECJ to be incompatible with Article 7 of the Treaty of

Rome (discriminations based on the grounds of nationality). And the House of Lords ruled

that when the UK had breached the community law, it amounts to a ‘serious breach’.

The UK had to also reluctantly give effect to the European Communities Act 1972, that

gives effect to the primacy of the European Community law and the doctrine of parliamentary

sovereignty has turned into a thing of a past as its glory has appeared to have faded away.

And, under Section 2 (1) of the European Communities Act, provisions of the EC law

should be directly applicable where it is clear and hence the direct effect principle (Van

Gend en Loos [11] ). And, in Section 2 (4) of the Act, besides the European Communities Act

itself, other UK Acts of Parliament would be subject to the provisions of the EC Treaty.

Hence, this demonstrates that, all the legislations that are passed by the Parliament have to

adhere to EC law. But, commentators, in an optimistic view, have interpreted Section 2(4) of

the European Communities Act 1972 as an ‘escape clause’. Meaning, in theory, the UK is

able to escape from performing its obligations under the EC law by just repealing just this

Section of the Act. However, pragmatically, the extent to which the law is entrenched and

also in the face of political reality, it is unrealistic for UK to leave the EC. Hence, it is true

that the impact of UK’s membership to EC since 1973 has the heavily undermined the

concept of Parliamentary Sovereignty.

A further effect on the principle of sovereignty is also of the Human Rights Act 1998, the

Act that is part and parcel of the Labour Government’s political manifesto in 1997. This Act

implements a large sum of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). And,

with this act, the courts are able to declare the domestic laws ‘incompatible’ if found to be

‘incompatible’ with the ECHR under Section 4 of the 1998 Act. And so the Parliament has

the duty to pass laws that are compatible with the ECHR. This power that enables the judges

to make a ‘declaration of incompatibility’ to, Professor David Feldman (2005) [12] , has been

‘a major move away from the…concept of parliamentary sovereignty.’ And also, the Home

Secretary in 2003, David Blunkett [13] has been quoted, saying, that he was ‘fed up’ because

the decisions made from the issues that were debated in Parliament are just being overturned

by the judges almost every time. And, surprisingly, Ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair, expressed

that the HRA is just ‘an abuse to common sense’ to a decision that gave refugee-status to

nine Afghan nationals that had hijacked a plane. [14] Hence, this is an example that Parliament

is no longer able to do whatever laws it wants to legislate. But, the UK could be able to

maintain its Parliamentary sovereignty by expressly repealing the HRA or choose not to not

respond to the judicial declaration of incompatibility, but it could not be able to do so as EC

law must be followed.

The vast amount of laws that streams out of the EU like, in the words of MP Cash, ‘a

tsunami’ has also affected the doctrine as well as every individual (i.e. voter, man, woman

and child) in UK. Whereby, almost everything is being decided increasingly by the EU,

everything, from the air to how straight bananas should be. In addition, in the case of Stoke-

on-Trent CC v B & Q plc (1993) [15] , the then Mr. Justice Hoffmann, commented that “…

[Subject to the right of withdrawal theory] Parliament has indeed surrendered its sovereign

right to make laws contrary to matters concerning of matters on social and economic [that is

regulated] to the provisions of the Treaty.” And constitutional writer, De Smith, commented

on UK’s membership in to EC, by stating that “… The UK Government has seated the

Parliament on two horses. One is straining towards the preservation of Parliamentary

Supremacy and the other horse is galloping towards the direction of the EC law

supremacy.” [16] These two quotes reveals the impact of the EC law towards the doctrine of

Parliamentary Sovereignty in UK and its issues has also somewhat relevance to the case of

Thoburn (2002) [17] . In Thoburn, Trading Standards Officers prosecuted a Sunderland Market

trader for the reasons of using imperial and not metric measurements and was found to be in

breach of the requirements in EC law. The courts confirmed that, where, the requirements in

EC law is conflicting with UK practices, the EC law would prevail, despite attempts made by

Thoburn’s counsel to invoke the strict view of the sovereignty of Parliament.

The ECJ, in the case of Commission of the European Communities v Council of the

European Union (2005), seems to have taken a further step to allow the EC Criminal Law to

be asserted and also to make sure that the rules on environmental protection were to take its

full effect to all Member States. According to the Times Newspaper [18] , ‘this lamentable

judgment has indeed struck the heart of national sovereignty and also towards Britain’s

capability of deciding and making laws for itself”. Surprisingly, academics seem to be not

angered or even surprised but merely pointed out that, in their view, the ECJ has merely

recognised the lack of competence in UK’s criminal law and that it is just an international

level proposal that was agreed upon. Besides that, Treaty provisions is to be treated as part of

national laws and would take precedence over any national law that is conflicting with it and

the EC Treaties are the primary sources of the EC law.

The Lisbon Treaty is considered to be the most controversial to date however.

And according to the Times Online [19] Mr Hague, which as a Shadow Foreign Secretary has

forced the then Government to accept a referendum towards the treaty under the

Conservative campaign, commented that, “If (Ex-PM Gordon Brown) signed the Lisbon

Treaty, the so renamed EU Constitution and backed it so much that he’s ready to break his

manifesto promise…(and) If he’s ashamed of signing this Treaty then why doesn’t he honour

his election promise and let the British people have their say?” The Lisbon Treaty was still

signed by the Labour Government and this shows the abandonment of their election

manifesto, which is to have a referendum to the people.

Thus, this brings the issue of, if referendum is the answer? Is the Act proposed by MP Cash,

the solution for UK to come out of its dilemma?

According to him, the United Kingdom Parliamentary Sovereignty Bill 2009-

2010 is a practical way and is of utmost importance as it contains fundamental issues that

needs the voters to decide as to ‘which laws would they (the voters) prefer to be governed

under’ [20] . The solution proposed by MP Cash is, under Section 2 (a.) and 2 (b.) of the 2009-

2010 Bill [21] , is, to have a referendum in the UK before the minister is to ‘sign or implement

any changes in a treaty or law that are inconsistent with the doctrine of Parliamentary

sovereignty or that which would increase the functions of the European Union (EU)’. Also,

under Section 3, the Act is to be effective by the courts regardless of (Section 3 (a.))

European Communities Act 1972, any exercise of international law rules or prerogative and

even any Act of Parliament or future Bill that would amend the contents unless expressly

stated and subject to a referendum as well under Section 4. However, the main issue here

would be whether this solution would enable UK to come out of its dilemma? According to

MP Cash, the limitations of Parliamentary sovereignty would be improved but if ignored, it

can create no stability in UK and may create a ‘vacuum that might be filled with rioting in

streets’. But it should be noted that, a referendum is time consuming and costly. However,

the ultimate reason of restoring ‘democracy and economic balance’ in UK should prevail and

thus preventing UK from a further ‘disastrous failure’. Also, referendums are very much

democratic as they include the people and their views or the purposes of legislation by

Parliament. Referendums have been used mostly on issues concerning constitution, and in the

UK, a referendum in 1975 relating to UK’s membership to European

Community. However, it should be noted that, a referendum would not be legally binding to

the government of parliament and so the parliamentary sovereignty is maintained in this

sense. This is because people’s opinion is just considered to be morally binding.

But, though the people’s opinion is just morally binding and not legally binding,

people’s sensitivity still play a huge factor when it comes to ‘making of laws.’

The very recent Europe-wide protest in Brussels (29/9/2010) [22] is one example. But the

results of the 2010 UK elections [23] , and where Labour suffered a huge blow for the

‘guillotining of Bills’, dragging UK to war and ignoring their election manifesto are clear

examples of the democratic power of the people. Furthermore, ignoring the concept of

parliamentary sovereignty is also like ignoring the ‘freedom of choice that people have’ [24] and

also the democracy element that it represents.

In conclusion the solution proposed by MP Cash under the UK Parliamentary Sovereignty

Act, should be a good solution to uphold the centuries old of UK’s pride, the doctrine of

Parliamentary sovereignty. It should be noted here that, very recently, there has been a Bill

(European Communities (Amendment) Referendum Lock Bill [25] , included

in the Queen’s Speech on 25th May 2010) that is still in

progress but aims to also give more powers towards parliamentary control towards the EU

when it comes to making decisions and to also make sure that there would be no powers

being transferred to the EU unless a referendum is made. The Bill has the aims of including

the people to be able to have ‘more say’ and emphasises on having referendums to ensure that

there would be no extra powers moving to Brussels from UK, thus, protecting the

Parliamentary sovereignty. Also, there would be amendments made to the ECA 1972 made

to this Bill, to ensure that a referendum to be made before important proposals like a

‘proposed future EU Treaty or amendment to it” takes place. Lastly, referendums should be

an effective tool as Parliament is not only including the Queen in Parliament but also the

electorate, Commons and the Lords into its ‘redefined’ composition.

[Word Count: 2,993]


To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.

Request Removal

If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have the essay published on the Law Teacher website then please click on the link below to request removal:



More from Law Teacher