Self-test questions: Parliamentary sovereignty

. Which of the following describe principles associated with the 'legislative supremacy' of Parliament?

The power of the Queen-in-Parliament to legislate is not subject to any legal limits.

The courts have no power to review the validity law of enacted Acts of Parliament.

An Act of Parliament can be repealed or amended by a later Act of Parliament.

Only Acts of Parliament, and not Orders in Council, constitute primary legislation.

An Act of Parliament will supersede common law where they conflict.

. The Bill of Rights 1688/9 is considered of constitutional significance because:

It limited the powers of the Crown relative to Parliament.

It changed the relationship between the House of Lords and the Commons.

It entrenched individual rights as part of the British constitution.

It established the rule of 'habeas corpus' (a rule against unlawful imprisonment).

It allowed British subjects the right to bring a case to the European Court of Human Rights.

. The 'enrolled bill' rule refers to:

The process by which a bill becomes an Act of Parliament, which includes passing both houses and receiving royal assent.

The process by which a bill becomes an Act of Parliament, which includes passing both houses and receiving royal assent or passes according to the procedure as set out in the Parliament Acts 1911/49.

The rule that once a Bill has been enacted as an Act of Parliament, the courts will not inquire into the procedures of parliament to assess its validity.

The process by which bills are scrutinised in parliamentary committees.

The rule that a bill must receive royal ascent to be passed into law.

. In both judicial and academic commentary it is sometimes stated that parliamentary supremacy has been 'qualified' by the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998). Which of the following best describes the reason for this?

The HRA 1998 is an entrenched form of legislation.

The HRA 1998 comprises a codified element of the UK constitution.

The courts can declare primary legislation invalid if it is incompatible with a Convention right.

The courts can find subordinate (secondary) legislation invalid if it is incompatible with a Convention right.

Under sec 3 of the HRA, the courts are required to interpret legislation to be compatible with Convention rights, so far as it is possible to do so.

. Which of the following statements describe the legal relevance of R (Jackson) v Attorney General [2005] UKHL 56:

It affirmed that the courts can assess whether a bill had been successfully enacted under the Parliament Act 1911.

It affirmed that parliament could change its own constitution.

It affirmed that the courts could not assess the validity of primary legislation.

It affirmed that legislation made under the Parliament Act 1911 was not delegated legislation, but primary legislation.

. In R (Jackson) v Attorney General [2005] UKHL 56, Baroness Hale stated that '[i]f Parliament can do anything, there is no reason why Parliament should not decide to redesign itself. . . [and] it follows that Parliament can allow its redesigned self further to modify the design.' [160]–[161]

In the context of the facts of the case, which of the following best describes what Baroness Hale is referring to in her statement:

The ability of Parliament to modify the Parliament Act 1911 without the consent of the House of Lords.

The decision to introduce more liberal peers to the House of Lords.

The decision to limit the number of hereditary peers in the House of Lords.

The ability of the courts to assess the validity of the Hunting Act 2015.

That a Parliament cannot bind itself in the future.

. Which of the following statements best describe why Henry the VIII clauses are sometimes considered controversial in terms of the legislative supremacy of Parliament?

Because Henry VIII clauses are a type of prerogative power that allow the executive to make primary legislation through Orders in Council.

Because Henry VIII clauses found in legislation give express permission to the courts to review (under the traditional grounds of judicial review) specific elements of the legislation.

Because Henry VIII clauses allow the House of Lords to veto specific provisions within a bill.

Because Henry VIII clauses are clauses in a bill that enable ministers to amend or repeal provisions in an Act of Parliament using secondary legislation, which is subject to varying degrees of parliamentary scrutiny.

Because Henry VIII clauses allow the Crown a prerogative power to veto specific provisions within a bill.

. In British Railways Board v Pickin [1974] A.C. 765 the respondents argued that:

The courts should disregard a section of an Act of Parliament because Parliament had been fraudulently misled during the process of their enactment of it.

The executive had a right to change a statutory provision where the statute expressly allowed for it.

The courts could set aside primary legislation where it conflicted with European law.

The courts should declare an Act of Parliament invalid because its introduction as a bill had not followed correct Parliamentary procedure.

Parliament can create law with retrospective effect.

. In Blackburn v Attorney General [1971] 1 WLR 1037 Lord Denning argued that 'legal theory must give way to practical politics.' Which of the following correctly references the issue to which this statement applied?

Although in theory, the Rule of Law indicates that law cannot be made binding retrospectively, Parliament can enact legislation with retrospective effect.

Although in theory the courts are tasked with interpreting and applying the law, they also make law.

Although in theory, Parliament cannot bind its successors, the reality of the Statute of Westminster 1931, or other Acts which have granted dominium to territories overseas, means that some laws cannot be reversed.

Although in theory Parliament is the legislator, in practice law is generally introduced by the executive, who then uses party disciple to ensure bills are passed.

Although in theory Parliament is sovereign, this sovereignty resides in the power of the courts to recognise law as enacted.

. In Thoburn v Sunderland City Council [2003] Q.B. 151, Laws LJ described a hierarchy of Acts of Parliament, distinguishing between 'ordinary' statutes and 'constitutional' statutes. Which of the following indicate the relevance of the distinction for the decision in the case?

Unlike ordinary statutes, constitutional statutes cannot be impliedly repealed.

Constitutional statutes involve protections of fundamental human rights and cannot be repealed.

Constitutional statutes are entrenched and require special parliamentary processes to repeal.

Constitutional statutes are examples of codified provisions for parliamentary processes.

Constitutional statutes are those that give effect to European law.

. Emily is a farmer and due to section 2(b) of the Pigeon Protection Act 2018 she is no longer allowed to shoot the pigeons on her property who often eat the seeds she has planted. She recently read an investigative report that found Parliament had been misled on key scientific facts – particularly relevant for section 2 of the Act – during their debates of the Bill before it was passed. Emily wants to challenge the validity of section 2 given this revelation. Which of the following provides the best description of how the courts would respond to her challenge?

(Note: the Pigeon Protection Act 2018 is fictional and is presented as part of a hypothetical scenario.)

Although the validity of the section cannot be challenged, the section can be 'set aside' (i.e. not applied) on the basis that the decision was irrational.

Although the validity of the section cannot be challenged, the section can be 'set aside' (i.e. not applied) because the integrity of parliamentary processes had been undermined.

The validity of the provision may be successfully challenged because the integrity of parliamentary processes had been undermined, but not the Act of Parliament as a whole.

The validity of the Act as a whole may be challenged because the integrity of parliamentary processes had been undermined, but not the individual provision on its own.

Neither the validity of the Act as a whole, nor the specific provision, can be challenged because parliamentary processes are non-justiciable issues.

. The government recently legislated (by Prerogative Order in Council) the Order for Safer Streets During the Pandemic 2020, which includes provisions that conflict with several sections of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Which of the following describes the legal effect of this conflict?

(Note: the Order for Safer Streets During the Pandemic 2020 is fictional and is presented as part of a hypothetical scenario.)

The provisions of the 2020 Order will prevail over the sections of the 1988 Act due to the doctrine of implied repeal.

The courts will apply either rule at their discretion for the most equitable outcome in an individual case.

The provisions of the 2020 Order will prevail over the sections of the 1988 Act because an Order in Council is a superior form of law to an Act of Parliament

he provisions of the 1988 Act will prevail over the Order in Council as an Act of Parliament is considered a superior form of legislation to an Order in Council.

The provisions of the 2020 Order will have the effect of suspending the application of the sections of the 1988 Act that conflict with the Order if, and only if, the Executive has declared the Order to have such effect due to a state of emergency.

. The House of Commons has passed the Stay at Home Bill 2020, but the Bill has been rejected by the House of Lords, who claim some of its provisions are an affront to the fundamental rights and freedoms of the people of the UK. Which of the following provides the best answer for whether the House of Commons can enact the Stay at Home Bill 2020 as legislation without the consent of the House of Lords?

(Note: the Stay at Home Bill 2020 is fictional and is presented as part of a hypothetical scenario.)

Yes. The function of the House of Lords is to provide greater scrutiny of proposed Bills, not to pass legislation, therefore the House of Commons can have a Public Bill enacted by Royal assent without the consent of the House of Lords.

Yes. The House of Commons can have any Public Bill enacted by Royal assent without the consent of the House of Lords according to the procedures as detailed in the Parliament Act 1911, as amended by the Parliament Act 1949.

No. As the 'Crown in Parliament' refers to the two legislative assemblies (both the House of Commons and the House of Lords) and the assent of the Crown, an Act of Parliament cannot be enacted without first passing both assemblies.

Yes. The House of Commons can have a Bill passed without the consent of the House of Lords provided the executive invokes their prerogative powers to require the Crown to enact the legislation through Royal assent.

No. The function of the House of Commons is to provide scrutiny of proposed bills and maintain the accountability of the executive through conventions such as Prime Minister's Questions (PMQs, colloquially known as Prime Minister's Question Time). The House of Lords, however, is the primary legislative assembly in the UK with final authority on what becomes law

. Parliament has recently enacted legislation that allows for the indefinite detention of individuals (without any charge) if they exhibit behaviour considered 'suspicious', explicitly repealing all previous provisions in existing legislation that would prevent this measure. Which of the following identify the likely result should the lawfulness of the legislation be challenged?

The courts may find that the legislation is unlawful on the basis that it contravenes the ancient common law doctrine of Habeas Corpus.

The courts may find that the legislation is unlawful on the basis that it contravenes Convention Rights as set out in the HRA 1998.

The courts may find that the legislation is unlawful on the basis that it is an affront to the principles of the Rule of Law.

The courts cannot question the validity of enacted legislation and so cannot find the provisions unlawful.

The courts may declare the legislation incompatible with the HRA 1998.

Quiz Content