Introduction
This essay explores the question of whether Parliament should remain the supreme law-making body in the United Kingdom, a cornerstone of the UK’s unwritten constitution. The concept of parliamentary sovereignty, often attributed to A.V. Dicey, asserts that Parliament holds the ultimate legal authority to create or repeal any law, with no body able to overrule its decisions (Dicey, 1885). However, challenges such as the influence of devolution, the role of the judiciary, and membership in international organisations like the European Union (pre-Brexit) and ongoing international commitments raise questions about the extent of this supremacy. This essay will first examine the traditional arguments supporting parliamentary sovereignty, then consider counterarguments that highlight limitations and evolving dynamics, before concluding with an assessment of whether Parliament should retain this role.
The Case for Parliamentary Sovereignty
The principle of parliamentary sovereignty is deeply embedded in the UK’s constitutional framework. As Dicey (1885) argued, Parliament can make or unmake any law, and no court can question its authority. This ensures that democratically elected representatives have the ultimate power to reflect the will of the people, safeguarding accountability. For instance, major legislative changes, such as the Human Rights Act 1998, demonstrate Parliament’s ability to address societal needs through law-making (Bradley and Ewing, 2011). Furthermore, the absence of a codified constitution means that Parliament remains the central mechanism for legal adaptability, allowing it to respond to emerging issues without constraint from a rigid framework. This flexibility is often cited as a strength, enabling swift legislative action during crises, such as the Coronavirus Act 2020, which granted emergency powers to manage the pandemic (HM Government, 2020).
Challenges to Parliamentary Supremacy
Despite these strengths, several factors challenge the notion of Parliament as the supreme law-making body. Firstly, devolution to Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland has redistributed legislative powers, creating tension between Westminster and devolved administrations. The Scotland Act 1998, for example, grants significant autonomy to the Scottish Parliament, leading to debates over whether Westminster retains absolute authority in practice (Bogdanor, 2009). Secondly, the judiciary has increasingly asserted influence through judicial review, scrutinising the legality of parliamentary decisions. While courts cannot overturn statutes, cases like R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] highlight their role in ensuring legal compliance, arguably limiting parliamentary autonomy (Ewing, 2017). Additionally, prior to Brexit, EU law held primacy over UK legislation under the European Communities Act 1972, directly challenging sovereignty (Craig and de Búrca, 2011). Even post-Brexit, international obligations, such as those under the European Convention on Human Rights, continue to impose constraints, suggesting that Parliament’s supremacy is not absolute in a globalised context.
Balancing Sovereignty and Modern Realities
Given these challenges, it is worth considering whether Parliament should remain the supreme law-making body or if a more balanced approach is needed. Critics argue that unchecked sovereignty risks democratic deficits, particularly if parliamentary decisions lack scrutiny from other institutions. However, delegating supreme authority elsewhere, such as to the judiciary or international bodies, could undermine the democratic mandate of elected representatives. A middle ground, therefore, might involve maintaining parliamentary sovereignty while ensuring robust checks through judicial oversight and devolved powers, fostering accountability without eroding democratic legitimacy (Bradley and Ewing, 2011). Such a balance would reflect the evolving nature of the UK’s constitution, adapting to modern governance demands.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while parliamentary sovereignty remains a fundamental principle in the UK, its supremacy is increasingly contested by devolution, judicial review, and international influences. The traditional arguments for Parliament’s ultimate authority—democratic accountability and legislative flexibility—are compelling, yet they must be weighed against practical limitations and the need for checks and balances. Arguably, Parliament should retain its role as the supreme law-making body, but only with mechanisms to ensure its decisions align with legal and ethical standards. This debate reflects broader implications for the UK’s constitutional future, highlighting the need for ongoing discourse on how best to adapt sovereignty to contemporary challenges.
References
- Bogdanor, V. (2009) The New British Constitution. Hart Publishing.
- Bradley, A.W. and Ewing, K.D. (2011) Constitutional and Administrative Law. 15th edn. Pearson Education.
- Craig, P. and de Búrca, G. (2011) EU Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. 5th edn. Oxford University Press.
- Dicey, A.V. (1885) Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution. Macmillan.
- Ewing, K.D. (2017) ‘Brexit and Parliamentary Sovereignty’, Modern Law Review, 80(4), pp. 711-726.
- HM Government (2020) Coronavirus Act 2020. UK Public General Acts.
