According to Dicey (1959), the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty is focused around the idea that parliament can “make and unmake any law whatever; and further, no person or body is recognised as by the law of England as having the right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament”. This clearly shows that Parliament can legislate on any subject-matter and no one but a subsequent Parliament can overturn the Acts of Parliament made. This supports the statement made by Tony Blair in the question.
Examples of Acts that illustrate this unlimited legislative power are the Act of Settlement 1700 which shows that Parliament can change the succession to the throne; and the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 which show that Parliament can change its own powers.
The one thing that Parliament cannot do though is bind its successor. But this does mean that a present Parliament is not bound by a previous Parliament and so the orthodox view of Dicey is maintained, and shows every Parliament to be supreme in its own right.
This supreme position of Parliament was confirmed in the case of Jackson v AG in which it was said that “statutes, formally enacted as Acts of Parliament, properly interpreted, enjoyed the highest legal authority”.
This idea that the most present Parliament is sovereign and cannot be bound by a previous Parliament is known as the doctrine of implied repeal. This means that where two Acts of Parliament conflict, the courts are required to apply the latest statute impliedly repealing the earlier Act.
Two cases which show this doctrine are Vauxhall Estates Ltd v Liverpool Corporation and Ellen Street Estates Ltd v Minister of Health. These were sufficiently similar in facts and it was held in the case of Vauxhall Estates that the Housing Act 1925 impliedly repealed the conflicting law in the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act 1919, which was confirmed in the case of Ellen Street Estates.
The fact that no other body has...