With labour rocked by unprecedented challenges in the Commons and Lords, John Ludlow predicts the government will also receive a rough ride on jury trials and identity cards

Historians are fond of talking about turning points, or defining moments, and the events of 9 November 2005 may well turn out to be one. That was the date on which the Labour government lost its first vote in the House of Commons, on the proposal for a 90-day detention period for terrorist suspects.


But this is not the first time that the government has sailed so close to the wind. Just last month, a crucial Commons division on the Identity Cards Bill was won by only 14 votes. Back in January 2004, and with a substantially bigger parliamentary majority, the measure introducing university top-up fees scraped home by just five.


Eventually, the government was bound to lose a vote and not simply because Labour's majority in the third term had fallen to 68. This is not such a tiny margin and, after all, smaller majorities can also be a useful tool to enforce party discipline. No, the real reason is that Prime Minister Tony Blair has never been afraid to follow his instincts and to risk all in the House of Commons. This was an accident waiting to happen.


But the crucial question remains whether the defeat on 90 days is a portent for the future or just a blip. The answer is complex.


Certainly it will have emboldened the Labour rebels, many of whom are already incensed by proposals for increasing parental power in schools and using private firms in the NHS, and we may well see further losses for the government in those areas. However, the stigma of defeat may well shore up the government's support elsewhere.


Of course, the opposition parties can smell blood. The Liberal Democrats know that there are possible scalps to be had if they can only get their whipping arrangements right. For the Conservatives, though, this is more of a mixed blessing, as publicly opposing measures that they support in private opens them up to charges of opportunism.


As ever, the crucial forum is the House of Lords. The 90-days debacle will have given a fillip to the rebellious instinct of the upper chamber. On 29 November, for example, peers will be debating the Attorney-General's regulations to remove juries from fraud trials. In the not-too-distant past, a vote would not have been expected in a debate of this kind, but times have changed and there is a good chance the government will be defeated on this important issue.


Peers are also likely to make substantial changes to the Identity Cards Bill, which is currently in committee. An opposition proposal to maintain the scheme as voluntary could well be passed at this stage, which many in the government would regard as a wrecking amendment. This particular measure has certainly taken a battering of late, with yet more speculation about spiralling costs, all despite a promise of a cap from the Home Office.


One way of preventing further dissent, of course, is to introduce concessions, but there is little evidence of this taking place. If anything the government appears to have dug its heels in. The highly contentious Mental Health Bill, for example, which has been sitting on Whitehall shelves for some time, now seems set for publication in early December. It will have an extremely tough passage, given the strength of opposition to the proposals. Some pundits expected the measure to be quietly dropped, given the problems the government is facing elsewhere, but this does not seem to be the case.


The government has also resisted making concessions on the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill, despite a mauling in the Lords. During the committee stage, peers backed an all-party amendment substantially restricting the grounds on which the law could be applied, but ministers are intent on overturning the change, at least in part, at a later stage.


Not that everything the government does is controversial or likely to inflame the passions. Two new bills published in the last month aim to tackle the so-called compensation culture, and while many will question whether such a thing actually exists few will deny the usefulness of the legislation itself.


The Compensation Bill, for example, ushers in a much welcome, though long overdue, scheme to regulate claims farmers. It will put to an end the touting, cold calling and aggressive advertising that have typified their business methods.


The Bill also contains a 'negligence clause', which allows courts to take account of the 'wider social value' of an activity when considering a negligence claim, a presumed encouragement to school trips and local authority leisure services. Many lawyers expected the Bill to contain a codification of the law on negligence or at least a thorough statutory restatement of it. This single clause, therefore, is something of a relief, though there is still some worry that it could lead to the adoption of a lower standard of care.


The NHS Redress Bill, meanwhile, will establish a scheme for the victims of medical accidents, allowing them to obtain redress without recourse to legal proceedings. The Law Society, for one, supports the proposed scheme providing victims have access to free legal advice and the right to go to court if they so wish, something the government appears to concede.


So in many ways it is business as usual for the government. Thus far, only the Terrorism Bill has been derailed, though one or two other bills are certainly vulnerable. Though none of us can tell which way things will go in the coming months - whether concessions will be forthcoming or measures defeated - this is a prime opportunity for lobbying in the cause of the rule of law.


John Ludlow is head of the Law Society's parliamentary unit