ABSTRACT
Central to the argument was whether the Parliament Act 1949 was primary legislation or delegated legislation. It was argued that legislation is not ‘primary’ where it depends for its validity on a prior enactment. If it was in fact delegated legislation, then the principle came into play that a body which had been delegated power could not, without there being express permission in the delegating (parent) Act, enlarge its own powers. Applying that argument to the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, it was argued that the 1911 Act delegated power to the Crown and Commons to enact legislation, under specified circumstances and subject to stated exceptions, without the consent of the House of Lords. It followed that when the Parliament Act 1949 was enacted without the consent of the Lords and reduced the time period during which the Lords could delay legislation, it increased the powers delegated to the Crown and Commons and thereby infringed the principle that a delegate cannot increase its powers. Lord Bingham rejected the view that the 1911 Act delegated legislative power to the House of Commons. The overall objective of the Act, he stated, ‘was not to delegate power: it was to restrict, subject to compliance with the specified statutory conditions, the power of the Lords to defeat measures supported by the majority of the Commons . . .’26
