Constitutional History of the United Kingdom

Constitutional Law

British Constitution

               Topic – Constitutional History of the United Kingdom

ì  Britain or The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a collection of states.

ì  It comprises of: England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

British Map

 The Three Eras of British History

For ease of understanding, let us divide British history into three distinct stages:

§  The Pre Civil War Era

§  The Civil War Era

§  The Post Civil War Era

 Each era has had a profound effect on the legal development of the UK. 

British Personnel

Pre Civil War Era

ì  For most of its history – the land that formed the United Kingdom has been subject to countless invasions.

ì  1500 BC – Celtic tribes from Mainland Europe came to the areas of modern-day England & Wales and mixed with indigenous inhabitants.

ì  Then came the Romans under Julius Caesar in 54-55 BC. They conquered the area and founded some of the most iconic cities today: London, Bath, Exeter, Lincoln, Manchester, Colchester, Leicester etc. 

The Anglo-Saxon Invitation

ì  During the 5^th Century – the Roman Empire was falling from grace so they abandoned Roman Britain to protect Rome.

ì  The Celts – they began fighting amongst each other.

ì  One of the tribes had the (foolish) idea to invite the Germanic tribes (Angles, Saxons and Jutes) for help.

ì  An invitation was sent. 

An Invitation Accepted

ì  5^th – 6^th Century – the Germanic tribes decided to accept the invitation and arrived in Britain.

ì  After the fighting stopped, the tribe that invited them thought that they would leave. That did not happen.

ì  Instead, they decided they wanted to rule. 

Britain During Anglo Saxon Era

Formation of the Heptarchy

ì  The Anglo-Saxon tribes pushed the Celts into Wales and Cornwall.

ì  They set up 7 kingdoms: Kent (the Jutes), Essex, Sussex and Wessex (the Saxons) and Anglia, Mercia and Northumbria (the Angles).

ì  These seven kingdoms were known as the Anglo-Saxon heptarchy and ruled the area from 6^th Century to the middle of the 9^th Century.

Governance during the Anglo-Saxons   

 FOLKMOOTS

ì  Folkmoots (also called a ‘thing’) was an assembly of free people of the community.

ì  It was presided over by a ‘lawspeaker’, who recited all the laws and rules.

ì  Participants of the folkmoot legislated, resolved disputes, and helped elect Chiefs and Kings of the society. No concept of an ‘absolute monarchy’ yet.

ì  They are considered a precursor to the modern Parliament of the United Kingdom.

WITENAGEMOT (WITAN)

ì  It means ‘meeting of the wise men’.

ì  It was a political institution, comprising of an assembly of various people of importance: noblemen, landlords, religious figures.

ì  Their function was to advise the King on certain affairs: taxation, jurisprudence, internal and external security. 

Unification of England

ì  9^th Century – the Danes (people from Denmark) began conquering swathes of Western Europe.

ì  10^th – 11^th Century – the Danes invaded Northeast of England and created a new kingdom, named Danelaw.

ì  The other kingdoms resisted a complete Danish take over.

ì  Finally, with one last push, the Danish King, ‘Canute the Great’ finally conquered England. 

the Danes(People from Denmark) 

A fight for Kingship

ì  After Canute, came his two sons, and after that, came Edward the Confessor.

ì  Edward was childless and nominated his second cousin, William, the Duke of Normandy to become his successor.

ì  But instead, Harold Godswin, the Earl of Wessex crowned himself king.

ì  William led an army of 12,000 men into the English mainland to fight for the throne. 

Symbol Of British Crown

The Battle of Hastings

ì  William and his men succeeded – with brute force and superior tactics.

ì  Harold was killed – as legend has it, with an arrow shot through his eye!

ì  Harold’s grandmother offered her grandson’s weight in gold, for custody of his body. William refused, and had the body thrown into the sea.

ì  William sat on the throne and was crowned as William I of England.

ì  To this day, the royal family of England are all descended from William I (also known as William the Conqueror). 

Battle Of Hastings

A broken brotherhood

ì  William the Conqueror’s lands were divided between his sons:

§  Robert got Normandy.

§  William II got England.

§  Henry I got nothing.

ì  William II was despised – addicted to every vice, lacking in social manners etc.

ì  William II died in a hunting “accident” in 1100. His death is disputed. Many say he was killed by his own men, in a plot hatched by the younger brother.

ì  Henry I immediately went to secure the Royal Treasury, and was quickly crowned the King.

Henry I – the Charter of Liberties

ì  Many of the nobles did not like William II – and Henry I decided to pacify them.

ì  He began reigning through the CURIA REGIS.

ì  He granted the ‘Charter of Liberties’ – a series of assurances to the barons.

ì  The most important line: "that by the mercy of God and the common counsel of the barons of the whole kingdom of England I have been crowned king of said kingdom".

ì  Why? It is a step away from absolute rule. 

Constitutional developments

ì  From Henry I till the Civil War – there have been multiple battles and conspiracies to see who would assume the throne.

ì  Plus – in between these struggles of power – there has been a constant struggle for democratization – leading to major constitutional developments.

ì  We will now study a few of these developments.

King John and the Magna Carta

ì  King John (1167 to 1216).

ì  His rule was marked by many tensions – conflict between England & France, England & the Pope and between the King and the barons (mostly due to taxation).

ì  A group of the barons rebelled – disavowing their oaths of allegiance and rallying under a new leader.

ì  At last, they ended up conquering the city of London, bringing King John to the negotiation table.

ì  The result of this negotiation was the famous Magna Carta (meaning, the Great Charter).

ì  It made a number of assurances:

§  All free men shall have the right of justice and the right to a fair trial.

§  No taxes can be demanded by the King without the ‘general consent of the realm’ (meaning, the noblemen and the high clergy).

§  Church rights will be protected. 

King John (1167 to 1216) 

The Civil War

ì  During the Tudor period (1485 to 1603) England reverted back to the idea of absolute monarchy.

ì  This absolutism was carried forward by the two Stuart Kings – James I and Charles I.

ì  They all believes in the ‘Divine Right of Kings’

ì  However, Parliament was not happy about this at all!

ì  Parliament raised a single slogan: “NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION”.

ì  It caught on and violence ensued. This was the Civil War.

ì  In the end, Parliament won and Charles I was beheaded. 

The Commonwealth of England

ì  After Charles I was executed – Oliver Cromwell took control of England and styled it as ‘the Commonwealth’.

ì  He disbanded the Parliament and became the Lord Protector and ruled the country almost dictatorially.

ì  He died of an illness and his son, Richard Cromwell gained control.

Restoration of Monarchy

ì  Richard Cromwell failed to uphold the Commonwealth.

ì  He was overthrown and the Parliament was re-established.

ì  It began the Restoration of the Monarchy and handed the reinstated Charles II as King.

Post-Civil War developments

ì  Charles II was succeeded by James II.

ì  Once again, Parliament had problems with him and quickly passed the ‘Bill of Rights 1689’

ì  Major provisions:

§  The Monarch cannot dispense/suspend laws without permission from Parliament.

§  Freedom of speech in Parliamentary proceedings.

§  No Standing Army in times of peace.

§  No levying taxes without Parliamentary permission.

What has happened so far?

ì  The powers of the Monarchy have been stripped away.

ì  The powers of the Parliament have gradually increased.

ì  England has become – a constitutional monarchy!

Further developments

ì  Act of Settlement 1701

ì  Established the independence of the judiciary.

ì  It stated that a judge could only be removed after approval from both Houses of Parliament and the Monarch. 

Acts of Union

ì  Over the years, England signed two Acts of Union – one in 1700 with Scotland and one in 1800 with Ireland.

ì  Thus, the UNITED KINGDOM was formed. 

United Kingdom Map

A.V. Dicey’s postulation of the Rule Of Law

                                                          Constitutional Law

                                                          British Constitution

                                                 
                                                        Topic – Rule of Law

Introduction

The rule of law is a fundamental principle of the British Constitution. The ‘rule of law’ is often seen in contradistinction to the ‘rule of man’. The essence of the concept is that every person, irrespective of rank or status in society, must be subject to the law. Simply put, it indicates that society should be governed, not by the arbitrary whims or men, but by the certainty and clarity of law.

Professor A. V. Dicey

A.V. Dicey’s postulation of the Rule of Law

In his famous book, ‘Introduction to the Study of the Constitution’, Professor A. V. Dicey gave the classic postulation on the ‘rule of law’. According to Dicey, it is comprised of three limbs:

1. No punishment except for a breach of the law
2. Equality before the law
3. General principles of the Constitution derive from common law

Introduction to the Study of the Constitution

Now the points of A.V. Dicey’s postulation of the Rule of Law are discussed one by one in detail. 

Limb I – No punishment except for breach of law

According to Dicey, ‘no man is punishable or can be lawfully made to suffer in body or goods except for a distinct breach of law established in the ordinary legal manner before the ordinary courts of the land.’

Meaning behind Limb I

The meaning behind this limb is that no one should be punished unless they have clearly breached a law currently place and unless that breach of the law is proved beyond doubt in a court of law.

Purpose behind Limb I 

In autocratic governments with no respect for the rule of law, the Government can often detain, imprison and fine people without any justification. In societies where the rule of law is respected, if the Government decides to punish anyone, it must:

• investigate 
• charge the person with a breach of law
• prove that breach of law

Thus, the purpose behind this limb is to ensure that the Government is not allowed to punish people without any authority. It is designed to limit arbitrary or discretionary exercise of executive authority.
Requirements of Limb I

According to Limb I of Dicey’s postulation, it is necessary that:

• Laws should be clear and unambiguous;
• Laws should be publically available (published in an official document);
• The judge must be independent, impartial and neutral; and 
• All parties must be given a right of hearing. 

Analysis of Limb I 

Limb I explicitly disallows retrospective punishment and ordinarily, retrospective punishment is considered illegal and an antithesis of the rule of law. However, there are certain situations where retrospective punishment has been justified in the UK.

For example, where Parliament legislates with retrospective intent – judges have no choice but to follow.

When the HOL awarded compensation for the destruction of oil installations in wartime in the case of Burmah Oil v. Lord Advocate (1965) the Parliament quickly passed the War Damages Act – nullifying the effect of the judgement.

 In R v R (1991), the HOL convicted a man of marital rape, even though at the time of the rape, marital rape was not considered a crime.


Limb II – Equality before the law

According to Dicey, ‘no man is above the law; every man and woman, whatever be his rank or condition is subject to the ordinary law of the realm and amenable to the jurisdiction of the ordinary tribunals’.

Interpretation of Limb II

Generally, commentators interpret this to mean that every person has the same legal rights, powers and capacities. This is a misinterpretation, since in reality there are many exceptions to this statement. For example:

Exceptions to Limb II

1. Police have special powers above ordinary citizens
2. Foreign diplomats enjoy immunity from certain crimes and actions
3. Acts done by judges in their judicial capacity are exempt from prosecution
4. Parliamentarian enjoy privileges from defamation
5. The Monarch enjoys immunity – under the maxim, ‘Against the King law has no coercive power’ and ‘The King can do no wrong’.

Dicey was well-aware of these exceptions. His real argument was that everyone is answerable to the law. The manner in which government is held responsible is through the process of judicial review.

Judicial review

This is the process through which administrative authorities (such as Ministers, government departments and local authorities are confined by courts to powers granted by Parliament. In an application for judicial review, a judge can decide whether a public body has acted ultra vires or intra vires.

Equality before the Law

Limb III – Principles of the Constitution derive from common law

According to Dicey, ‘the general principles of the constitution (as for example, the right to personal liberty or the right to public meeting) are, with us, the result of judicial decisions determining the rights of private persons in particular cases brought before the courts’.

Interpretation of Limb III

This is the most ambiguous of the three limbs. Dicey spent much of time contemplating on the differences between the British constitution and the constitutions of other European states. In this limb, Dicey highlights his preference for the British Constitution, over those of other states.

According to Dicey, where fundamental rights flowed from judicial decisions, it was much more difficult for a ruler to sweep them inside. On the other hand, where they flowed from a particular statute, they could be swept aside at the ‘stroke of a pen or the point of a sword’.

Thus, he claimed that common law provides the best protection for fundamental rights.

Analysis

It is doubtful whether this still holds true – or if it ever held true at all. After all, despite largely developing from common law, the UK has had to give statutory footing to fundamental rights in the form of the HRA 1998.

                                   Rule Of Law Explained by different Illustrations


Features of the legal process

According to Dicey, if a legal system respected the rule of law – it must exhibit the following features:

Accessibility

The law must be accessible to all. This means that the cost of seeking legal remedies (such as through litigation) must reasonable so as to accommodate a majority of people. Where people are unable to pay for availing the legal process, they must be provided with legal aid (Granger v UK (1990).

Procedural Fairness

1. The law must also exhibit fairness in its procedure. This means that:
2. Judges must be independent, impartial and neutral
3. Jurors must be independent, impartial and neutral
4. Jurors must belong to a representative class of society
5. Proceedings must be intelligible to all parties
6. All evidence must be collected legally.

Rule Of  Law Explained By Triangular Diagram 

Parliamentary Sovereignty/Supremacy in British Constitution

                                                            Constitutional Law

                                                            British Constitution

                                    Topic – Parliamentary Sovereignty/Supremacy

Questions on this topic

Q.1 The British Parliament can do everything except make a woman into a man and a man into a woman. Discuss the concept and enumerate the limitations on its supremacy.
Q.2 Discuss the doctrine of supremacy of Parliament under the British constitution.
Q.3 Discuss the sovereignty of Parliament under the British constitution.
Q.4 What do you mean by Parliamentary sovereignty? How is this concept applied in the British constitution?
Q.5 Discuss the principle of sovereignty of Parliament and limitations, if any, upon the exercise of such sovereignty in Britain?

Introduction

The doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty or supremacy is one of the fundamental principles underpinning the British constitution. Under any constitutional arrangement, there must be a source of ultimate authority. In most jurisdictions that have a written constitution, this ultimate authority is the constitution itself (e.g. Pakistan, India, United States of America). Under the unwritten British constitution, this ultimate source of authority is said to be the Parliament of the United Kingdom.


Meaning of the word ‘Parliament’ 

In the context of the doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty, the word Parliament refers to the reigning monarch, the House of Lords and the House of Commons. These bodies, acting together, are defined as the ‘King (or Queen) in Parliament’. Thus, whenever we refer to Parliament, we actually refer to the combination of this trichotomy of institutions.


Meaning of supremacy/sovereignty

The Oxford Dictionary defines ‘supremacy’ as the ‘state of being superior to all others in authority, power or status’. It defines ‘sovereignty’ as ‘supreme power or authority’.


Legal and Political sovereignty

Legal theorists such as A V Dicey, Edward Coke and William Blackstone all insist upon drawing a distinction between legal sovereignty and political sovereignty.

According to these theorists, political sovereignty belongs to the people of the state (the electorate), while legal sovereignty belongs to the ‘King (or Queen in Parliament)’.

Thus, the supreme political authority is the people of the United Kingdom, while Parliament is only the supreme legal authority.

Professor A V Dicey

Dicey’s formulation of Parliamentary sovereignty

The classic definition and understanding of sovereignty is derived from the work of Professor A V Dicey. In his seminal book, he underlined that the supremacy of Parliament is the ‘dominant characteristic of our political institutions’.

His elaboration of the principle allows us to extrapolate three different but interdependent limbs about the operation of Parliamentary sovereignty:

Parliament is the supreme law-making body and may enact laws on any subject matter.
No Parliament may be bound by a predecessor or bind a successor.
No person or body, including any court of law, question the validity of Parliament’s enactments.

In order to ascertain whether these postulations are correct, and whether they still hold true, we must examine the way in which they translate to the reality of the United Kingdom.

We will examine each of them in turn.

Limb I Parliament can legislate on any subject matter

The first limb of Dicey’s formulation is the simplest one. It merely means that there is no restriction or limit upon the legislative powers of the Parliament. Parliament can enact a law on any subject matter whatsoever.

Examples: 

• Parliament can legislate to alter its term of office. In 1716, the Parliament, fearing the effects of an election, passed the Septennial Act extending the life of the Parliament from 3 to 7 years.
• Parliament may legislate to alter its powers. The Parliament passed the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949, which curtailed the legislative powers of the House of Lords.
• Parliament may grant independence to dependent states, be they dominions or colonies (e.g. Nigeria Independence Act 1960 and Zimbabwe Independence Act 1979).
• Parliament can also legislate with retrospective effect (as in the case of the War Damage Act, which overruled the decision of the House of Lords in Burmah Oil v Lord Advocate (1965)).
• Parliament can also legislate with extra-territorial effect.

Limits on this power – theoretical vs. real supremacy/sovereignty

A number of commentators have argued that this unlimited legislative power is only theoretical and does not translate into reality.

Sir Ivor Jennings gives the hypothetical example of a scenario where Parliament passes an Act of Parliament declaring that all men are now women and that all women are now men, or where it declares that it is imposing a ban on the streets of Paris. According to Sir Jennings, while this law will be valid, and it will be legal – it will simply be of no consequence. It will not be followed, and it will not be adhered to.

Sir Ivor Jennings

Similarly, Sir Leslie Stephens gives the now-famous example of a scenario where the Parliament passes a law that declares that all ‘blue-eyed babies’ must be put to death. In theoretical and legal terms, this will still be a valid law. However, realistically, Parliament could not and would not enact such a law, for fear of public outcry.

Sir Leslie Stephens

What these examples show, is that Parliament may hold total supremacy to make any law whatsoever in ‘theory’ but this does not mean it shall pass laws which go against the moral character or ethos of its electorate.

Limb II No Parliament can be bound

The second limb of Dicey’s formulation asserts that no Parliament may be bound by any of the Parliaments that preceded it and that no Parliament can bind any of the Parliament that such succeed it. In order for a Parliament to be supreme/sovereign in the true sense of the word, every Parliament must enjoy the same unlimited legislative powers as the Parliament that came before it.

Doctrine of implied repeal
The practical manifestation of the second limb of Dicey’s parliamentary sovereignty can be observed through the doctrine of implied repeal.

According to this concept, the judiciary will always give effect to the latest expression of the will of Parliament. Thus, if a case arises, where there are two contradictory Acts of Parliament, the courts will always give effect to the Act of Parliament which has come later in time and the earlier Act will stand as impliedly repealed.

Examples:

Vauxhall Estates Ltd v Liverpool Corporation (1932)
Ellen Streets Estates Ltd v Minister of Health (1934)

Limits and challenges to Dicey’s second limb

The second limb of Dicey’s formulation of sovereignty is said to be challenged by the following scenarios:

• The Acts of Union with Scotland and Ireland;
• Grants of independence;
• The devolution of powers;

I - The Acts of Union with Scotland and Ireland 

The Acts of Union refer to two separate Acts of Parliament – the Act of Union with Scotland 1707 and the Act of Union with Northern Ireland 1800.

It has been suggested by commentators that after the Acts of Union, the new Parliament of the United Kingdom was ‘born unfree’. Such commentators claim that the Acts of Union have attained the status of a form of ‘higher law’, which cannot be altered or repealed by Parliament through its ordinary legislative process.

Dicey on the other hand, argues that the Acts of Union have no greater status than the Dentists Act 1878 or any other unimportant Act. According to Dicey, the Acts of Union have the same constitutional importance as any other Act of Parliament and can therefore be changed or altered by the Parliament in any way that it sees fit. The evidence to date clearly supports the position taken by Dicey.

Example: 

Sillars v Smith (1982) – in this case it was argued that the Westminster Parliament had no authority to repeal the Scotland Act 1978 (which had created a legislative assembly for Scotland) and pass the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980. The court expressed the classic view that ‘no court of justice can enquire into the manner in which [an Act of Parliament] was introduced into Parliament’.
Universities (Scotland) Act 1853 and Parochial and Burgh Schoolmasters (Scotland) Act 1921 – requirement that teachers must belong to the Protestant faith was removed.


II - Grants of independence 

Another challenge to the idea that a Parliament cannot bind its successors is grants of independence. As noted above, Parliament has the power to grant independence or partial competence to a dominion or territory.

The Statute of Westminster 1931 was enacted to give force to the constitutional convention that the United Kingdom Parliament would not legislate for dominions without their consent. The question that arises is whether the Parliament can in the future revoke such a grant of partial competence.

In British Coal Corporation v The King (1935), it was declared by the Privy Council that as a matter of ‘abstract law’, the Statute of Westminster could be repealed, but that this could not happen in practice since ‘legal theory must march alongside practical reality’.

However, it may be said that this only a declaration of one of the practical, extra-legal limitations on sovereignty, and not a legal limitation.


III - Devolution of powers 

Through the Scotland Act, Government of Wales Act and Northern Ireland Act 1998 – the Westminster Parliament gave up a significant amount of its legislative competence to the newly established Parliaments of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales respectively. Thus, each of these territories now has its own form of local governments and local assemblies.

By convention, the Westminster Parliament no longer legislates on matters that have been devolved to these subordinate Parliaments, and does not even discuss their domestic affairs. In such circumstances, the question that arises is whether Parliamentary sovereignty remains intact?

Theoretically, two aspects of sovereignty remain. Firstly, Westminster could still pass an Act of Parliament for the devolved territories contrary to the wishes of the subordinate Parliaments. While this would lead to political problems, the laws passed would still be valid. Secondly, Westminster could pass an Act of Parliament abolishing the Scottish Parliament and therefore reclaim all devolved powers.

While this could happen theoretically – it is almost impossible that this would occur in reality, without causing a political breakdown in the United Kingdom.

Limb III No one can challenge an Act of Parliament 

When an Act of Parliament has been passed through the proper legislative stages and received royal assent, no court of law can invalidate or question such an Act. It will be upheld, no matter the subject of the law. This is the classic position taken by the judiciary (Pickin v British Railways Board (1974)).

Contemporary challenges to parliamentary sovereignty

There are two contemporary challenges to Parliamentary sovereignty that must be considered:

• Member of the European Union
• Human Rights Act 1998

Membership of the European Union

Through the European Communities Act of 1972, the UK became a member of the European Communities (now the European Union).

According to the European Court of Justice (ECJ), when member states become accepted into the European Union, they limit their own legislative competence in all matters over which the EU has jurisdiction. In such matters, ultimate legislative supremacy belongs to the EU. Thus, whenever there is conflict between a domestic law and EU law – EU law is supreme. This has been established in a string of cases: Costa v ENEL (1964), Van Gend en Loos (1963), Simmenthal (1977) etc.

Slowly and steadily, the UK judiciary has also upheld the supremacy of EU law. In Macarthys v Smith (1979) and Garland v British Rail Engineering Ltd (1983), the courts declared that the age-old notion of implied repeal did not apply to the ECA 1972. Instead, if the Parliament wished to deviate from EU law, it would have to expressly do so in an Act of Parliament.

For reasons such as the aforementioned, it has been suggested by some theorists such as HWR Wade that with the ECA 1972, the UK Parliament has, for the first time ever, ‘entrenched’ an Act of Parliament so as to bind future Parliaments.

However, this position is open to challenges. It may be argued that despite appearances, the Parliament’s sovereignty remains intact. The ECA 1972 is simply an Act of Parliament like any other, through which, the UK Parliament has ‘voluntarily’ given away some of its legislative capacity. If the UK Parliament wished, it may deviate from EU law and the judiciary would give effect to this deviation.

NOTE: Recent developments such as the BREXIT referendum indicate that the Diceyan view of Parliamentary sovereignty remains intact. Now that the referendum has shown that the British populace wishes to leave the EU, convention dictates that Parliament will have to follow suit and activate Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, thereby beginning the proper procedure for UK’s exit from the EU. 

Human Rights Act 1998 

The newest challenge to the classic formulation of Parliamentary sovereignty is the coming into force of the Human Rights Act of 1998. The HRA incorporates into domestic UK law, all ‘fundamental rights’ protected and enshrined under the European Convention on Human Rights.

The parts of the HRA that create complexity are primarily sections 3, 4 and 19.

Section 3 – mandates that judges must interpret all legislation in a manner, which is compatible with Convention rights.

The reason why this provision is such a potent mechanism for undermining Parliamentary sovereignty is because it allows judges to exercise a significant amount of creativity in attempting to interpret statutes. At times, it allows judges to undermine completely, the will of Parliament. Example: R v A (No. 2) (2001).

Section 4 – allows judges to issue a ‘declaration of incompatibility’ if an Act of Parliament is incompatible with Convention rights.

Some commentators have argued that section 4 empowers judges to undermine parliamentary sovereignty, however, this position is untenable. While a ‘declaration of incompatibility’ may damage the credibility of the Act, it does not invalidate the Act of Parliament.

Section 19 – mandates that a Minister, at the second reading a Bill for which he is responsible, must give a declaration that it is compatible with Convention rights.

As with most challenges to the doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty, it is important to distinguish between what is a legal or theoretical limitation and what is a practical, extra-legal or political limitation. The HRA 1998 imposes a great number of practical and political limitations, but at the end of the day, if the Parliament wished to repeal the HRA, it can do so.

                    Concept Of Parliamentary Sovereignty Discuss In Detailed

NOTE: In fact, with Theresa May in charge of Britain at the moment, there is increasing talk that the Conservative government wishes to scrap the HRA 1998 and create a ‘British Bill of Rights’.