Well, as I understand it, the EP acts (of which there were several) were the legal basis for the wartime government's right to conscript. So you could say that the Military Training and National Service Acts were specific applications of the general powers granted by the EPAs. I am sorry, but your understanding is wrong. Acts of Parliament frequently grant governments power to do various things, usually by secondary or subordinate legislation known as Statutory Instruments or Oders in Council. The Emergency Powers (Defence) Act 1939 was normal in form but unusual in the scope of powers it granted. That scope, however, did not extend to military conscription; theoretically conscription could have been included as one of its powers, but the government decided that conscription was such a significant step that it deserved primary legislation in its own right - hence the National Service (Armed Forces) Act 1939. passed a few days after the Emergency Powers Act. Moreover, since it is Parliament which necessarily passes all Acts of Parliament, there is no way that Parliament ever purports to pass an Act giving itself the right to pass another Act. For what it is worth, the process adopted in 1939 followed that of WW1, whereby the WW1 equivalent of the 1939 EPA, the Defence of the Realm Act (notoriously known as DORA) was passed in 1914, and then the Military Service Act in 1916. In the meantime, of course, there had been the Military Training Act 1939 introducing limited conscription from June 1939, without, of course, any reference to emergency powers. As to other EPAs, these followed the normal practice with such legislation in that they were amendments to the original, or what is always called the "principal", act, rather than acts which could be read on their own without reference to the principal acts. The same applied to the National Service (Armed Forces) Acts, of which there were a number of amending acts. Similarly, the introduction of post-1945 conscription required fresh primary legislation without reference to wartime or any other emergency powers. A distinction between law and policy, I think. It's not that the army couldn't send nineteen-year-olds to France: it just chose not to. Exactly, as I put it in a different way in my earlier post. At any one time a government is likely to have powers which it decides not to implement.