Ministers and Lords have locked horns over contentious legislation on terrorism, identity cards and a bill to make changes to Acts of Parliament. But how much power do peers really have? Asks John Ludlow


As expected, the government managed to get some of its more controversial measures through Parliament before the Easter recess, and without giving too much away.


Yes, there were fireworks and the Lords were in a particularly confrontational mood, but it resulted in few real concessions by ministers. In the case of the Terrorism Bill, peers simply caved in after rejecting the glorification offence no less than four times. On the Identity Cards Bill, peers' opposition to so-called 'compulsion by stealth' went on longer, but ended in a deal whereby applicants who renew their passports in 2008 will not be forced to have an ID card until 2010. Few could honestly see this as a significant compromise.


Perhaps it is all too often forgotten that the upper house concedes in the vast majority of cases where it is at odds with the Commons. For all their rebelliousness, and for all their sound and fury, peers know that, ultimately, ministers will get their way. Yet the image persists - grows stronger even - that the Lords can force the government into a rethink.


Occasionally it is true. Concerted opposition from peers has led the Attorney-General to abandon his plans to use the statutory instrument procedure to remove juries from serious fraud trials. He really had no choice, as their lordships would have almost certainly voted it down. However, this particular issue is not dead, Lord Goldsmith having already promised a stand-alone Bill 'when parliamentary time allows'. Our hope is that delay will mean a kick into the long grass. Certainly the Law Society will keep up the pressure on ministers in the meantime.


It is also fair to say that ministers do not always welcome a scrap with the Lords, especially where they face problems elsewhere. In the case of the controversial Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill - which allows changes to be made to existing Acts of Parliament by statutory instrument - ministers are keen to pre-empt a mauling in the Lords following the criticism it received from the regulatory reform committee.


In what is certainly a wise move, Cabinet Office minister Jim Murphy has recently announced several concessions for the Commons report stage. These include an all-important new statutory veto on the face of the Bill, to ensure that select committees can block contentious orders. Mr Murphy has also announced his intention to rewrite the power contained in clause 1, so that it focuses 'more on... such things as productivity and competitiveness and reducing bureaucracy rather than replacing legislation'.


It is not clear whether these changes will satisfy the measure's many detractors, some of whom have described it, perhaps a little waggishly, as the 'Abolition of Parliament Bill'. The Law Society has never taken that view - seeing some potential for good in the Bill - but it will want to see the shape of the actual amendments before deciding whether the proper safeguards are in place or not.


Certainly, there are several other issues to engage the legal profession at the moment. One such concerns the changes to the inheritance tax (IHT) treatment of trusts, quietly announced by the Chancellor in the footnotes of his Budget statement. The changes - which include applying IHT to trusts set up to protect assets until children reach 21 or 25 - have led to fierce lobbying from the Law Society, working with a consortium of professional groups opposed to the changes. It is doubtful whether anyone in the Treasury could have predicted such a vociferous and sustained opposition. Let us hope it has the desired effect.


The issue of small claims also continues to bubble away, though we still seem some way from a government decision on whether or not to raise threshold for claims. Recently, in a heated debate in Westminster Hall, MPs specifically addressed the report of the constitutional affairs select committee, which had called for a rise from the present £1,000 to £2,500 limit for personal injury and housing disrepair claims.


The Law Society's stance - one backed by the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers and others - is that the limit should stay where it is at present, an argument taken up by claimant personal injury specialist Andrew Dismore during the debate. Interestingly, while the committee's chairman Alan Beith stuck to the original recommendations of the report, fellow committee member Keith Vaz seemed to distance himself from it, concluding that 'we may have made a mistake in recommending that the limit be raised to £2,500'.


Department for Constitutional Affairs minister Harriet Harman, as expected, gave a non-committal reply, but those who favour no change or just a small rise for inflation could gain some succour from her remark that 'before considering such an increase, we must consider its impact fully and be sure that we are increasing, not reducing, access to justice'.


The Law Society has lobbied continuously on this issue, often using actual case studies to show MPs how changes would impact on claimants. It seems now that the government may be starting to listen.


John Ludlow is head of the Law Society parliamentary unit