ABSTRACT

When parliamentary business resumed in January 2000, the majority of hereditary peers had been ousted. It soon became clear, however, that the ‘new’ House of Lords was not prepared to be more acquiescent towards government legislative proposals. Even before the new year started, the Lords were proclaiming their renewed ‘legitimacy’ as a revising chamber, and soon made an impact on the government’s legislative programme. An example of this was seen in relation to the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill, which in part removed the right of defendants charged with ‘either way offences’, such as theft and burglary, to choose their mode of trial, and which was introduced in the Lords. The Parliament Act procedures do not apply to Bills introduced in the Lords, thus making it easier for the Lords to press home its objections to the Bill successfully. The Lords rejected the Bill, forcing the government to reintroduce the Bill in the Commons where at second reading the government secured a substantial majority. The House of Lords again rejected the Bill and it was withdrawn.