THE Government is in trouble over much more than tuition fees. Its two main constitutional Bills, on the Lords and the judiciary, are also in difficulty. Tony Blair is partly to blame because he does not spend much time thinking about the constitution. For instance, his main concern over the abolition of the office of lord chancellor has been to have a Cabinet minister working full time on reform of the courts system.

In a rare Lords vote on the Queen’s Speech, the Government was defeated by 188 votes to 108 on Tuesday evening on a motion calling for the withdrawal of the two Bills, to allow further consultation. The defeat came even though the Liberal Democrats, normally the swing vote in the Lords, did not support the Tory motion. Lib Dem peers pressed their own amendment urging a majority elected House, which was easily defeated.

The Government faces two linked concerns. First, ministers have been accused of high-handedness over the Constitutional Reform Bill to abolish the lord chancellorship, to take the present law lords out of the second chamber by creating a supreme court and to establish an independent appointments commission. This would have required tactful handling at the best of times, given the innate conservatism of the old and the bold (however learned). But by suddenly announcing the changes without consultation, and with many loose ends, the Government fuelled suspicions about a threat to the judiciary.

No matter that the basic proposals are intended to formalise a separation of powers between the executive, legislature and judiciary. Many senior judges have seen no need for the change, have been worried about the appointments commission and have objected to the loss of the Lord Chancellor defending their independence around the Cabinet table. So Lord Falconer of Thoroton has used every opportunity to offer reassurance about judicial independence, which will be explicitly guaranteed on the face of the Bill. Most of this fuss could have been avoided.

On Lords reform, the Opposition accuse the Government of breaking its word by seeking to remove the remaining 92 hereditary peers without introducing longer-term reform, although it promised in 1999 to link the two. Lord Falconer argues that circumstances have changed because MPs failed last February to back any of the reform options. This was partly, of course, because Mr Blair intervened to oppose an elected House.

Behind all the posturing, the reality is that peers have got the appointed House that they backed by a three-to-one margin last February. Lord Strathclyde, the Tory leader in the Lords, still supports an 80 per cent elected senate, but many of his troops are quite happy with an appointed House. The Tories, however, are content to make trouble for the Government, as are the Lib Dems, most of whom backed an elected chamber. There is likely to be a lot of bargaining about how many hereditary peers will be offered life peerages, and the balance of parties in the Lords.

The bigger question is how far a largely appointed second chamber should recognise the limits of its legitimacy. Should there be a new convention, or rules, on the balance between revising and delaying (perhaps formalised on constitutional Bills)? But Mr Blair prefers to put the Lords to sleep.

Explore UK News

• Crime News

• Education News

• Health News

• Science News

• Scotland News

Times Recommends

• Donor organ allowed child’s own heart to heal
• Michael Jackson: Not the final chapter
• Brüno toned down for 15 rating