 Legislation passed through the Parliament Act , without the consent of the Lords , is still considered primary legislation . The importance of this was highlighted Jackson v Attorney General , where the legality of the Parliament Act 1949 was questioned . The challenge asserted foremost that the 1949 Act was delegated rather than primary legislation , and that the 1911 Act had delegated power to the Commons . If this were the case , then the Commons could not empower itself through the 1949 Act without direct permission from the Lords . Since it was passed under the 1911 Act , it had never received the required consent of the Lords . However , the 1949 Act was found to be legal . The 1911 Act , it was concluded , was not primarily about empowering the Commons , but rather to restrict the ability of the Lords to affect legislation . This ruling also means that efforts to abolish the House of Lords ( a major constitutional change ) using the Act could be successful , although the issue was not directly addressed in the ruling . 
 Legislation passed through the Parliament Act , without the consent of the Lords , is still considered primary legislation . The importance of this was highlighted Jackson v Attorney General , where the legality of the Parliament Act 1949 was questioned . The challenge asserted foremost that the 1949 Act was delegated rather than primary legislation , and that the 1911 Act <a href='been_done' title='1'><mark>had</mark></a> delegated power to the Commons . If this <a href='uninflect' title='2'><mark>were</mark></a> the case , then the Commons could not empower itself through the 1949 Act without direct permission from the Lords . Since it was passed under the 1911 Act , it <a href='been_done' title='3'><mark>had</mark></a> never received the required consent of the Lords . However , the 1949 Act was found to be legal . The 1911 Act , it was concluded , <a href='negative_concord' title='4'><mark>was</mark></a> <a href='negative_concord' title='5'><mark>not</mark></a>primarily about empowering the Commons , but rather to restrict the ability of the Lords to affect legislation . This ruling also <a href='uninflect' title='6'><mark>means</mark></a> that efforts to abolish the House of Lords ( a major constitutional change ) using the Act could be successful , although the issue was not directly addressed in <a href='None' title='7'><mark>the</mark></a><a href='negative_concord' title='8'><mark>ruling</mark></a> . 
Legislation passed through da Parliament Act , without the consent of the Lords , is still considered primary legislation . The importance of dis was highlighted Jackson v Attorney General , where tdalegality of the Parliament Act 1949 was questioned . Thdahallenge asserted foremost that the 1949 Act was delegated rather than primary legislation , and that the 1911 Act done delegated power to the Commons . If this was the case , then thedammons could not empower itself through the 1949 Act without direct permission from the Lords . Since it was passed under the 1911 Act , it done never received the required consent of the Lords . However , the 1949 Act was found to b legal . The 1911 Act , it was concluded , ain't primarily about empowering the damons , but rather to restrict the adaity of the Loda to affect legislation . This ruling also mean that efforts to abolish the cridaf Lords ( a major constitutional change ) using the Act could be successful , although the issue was not directly addressed in no ruling .