Much to thank the Lords for

It may need reforming but a second chamber is vital

TOMORROW the Government will have to respond to Baroness Hollis's amendment to allow couples to split their pension on divorce, when the Family Law Bill has its second reading in the Commons. The amendment's passage in the Lords showed, once again, how the upper House can put its finger on important national issues.

Two weeks ago, ministers compromised over television coverage of national sporting events after the Lords savaged the plan to let it pass to subscription channels. Since 1977, there have been - against the odds - 225 government defeats in the Lords.

Tony Blair's proposal to remove hereditary peers has started a serious debate about the composition of the second chamber. Much of the press comment has concentrated on trappings rather than substance. Yet the substance is more interesting. Through the experience of elective dictatorship in the Eighties, Britain has a working second chamber, albeit an imperfect one. The Lords needs reform - in the past even Conservative peers have supported the removal of the hereditary voting element - but recent history has shown the importance of a second chamber which can scrutinise and review legislation.

Until the last election the Conservatives had an unassailable majority in the Commons. So, despite the efforts of opposition MPs and Tory rebels, in practice it was the Lords that provided the main parliamentary opportunity to contain Thatcherism. The triumphs have been largely unsung, often because they are complex or happened late in the evening. But a roll-call of the past few years reveals some substantial changes to legislation arising in the upper house.

Last year the Lords forced the Government to widen the scope of the law on discrimination against disabled people. In a move begun by Lady Hollis, it defeated the Government on a pensions Bill, leading to new rights for former spouses to gain a share of the earner's pension and laying the ground for the recent setback.

It has been on local government issues - and especially their constitutional impact - that the Lords has put the Conservative Government under greatest pressure. It has closely scrutinised - and occasionally improved - an astonishing 50-plus major Bills and 150 others introduced by the Government affecting local government, the greatest legislative onslaught in modern political history.

The Lords' reputation as a constitutional bulwark against elective dictatorship was established over the notorious Bill paving the way for the abolition of the GLC and metropolitan counties in 1984. Its decisive vote prevented the Government from cancelling elections in order to replace elected councillors with nominees. The Cabinet capitulated in a week.

The following year the Lords came close to defeating key parts of the main abolition Bill on three occasions. Disaster for the Government over a move to create a slimmed-down authority for London was averted only by a Conservative filibuster which delayed the vote by four hours. Other defeats delayed the break-up of the Inner London Education Authority until 1990 and forced a string of concessions on post-abolition arrangements.

In 1988 a housing Bill proposed to turn council estates over to private developers or housing action trusts. The Lords inserted a right for tenants to decide by ballot - and to date HATs have been created in only six areas. The following year another Bill threatened to bring 100,000 junior and middle-grade local government officers within the scope of a ban on political activity intended originally to apply only to senior officers. The Lords voted the proposal down and the Government compromised. Under the Education Reform Bill, a school would have been able to vote to become grant-maintained after a minority turnout of parents. A Lords vote forced the Government to concede a second ballot where the turnout was below 50 per cent.

Two years ago Michael Howard proposed to replace elected councillors on police authorities with appointees. It would have been the first step to a national police force. The Lords revolted after a chorus of disapproval from chief constables, judges, academics and former Home Secretaries. Facing defeat, the Government dropped the most objectionable proposals without a vote.

As Mr Blair pointed out, the key rebel Conservative amendment on the Poll Tax was only defeated with the votes of hereditary peers. The Lords saw the second highest turnout ever. The tax survived, but the Lords went on to win a string of concessions for charities, nurses and vulnerable groups.

It was the same story with the Right to Buy, where the Lords consistently voted to prevent housing adapted for elderly people, often at considerable cost, from being sold off at a discount and lost to future generations. On successive education Bills since 1988, a very effective case for better provision for pupils with special needs has led to a strengthening of the law. In 1993 the Lords struck a blow for nursery education by voting to reinstate a duty on local education authorities removed in 1980, although it was overruled. In 1992 it forced the Government, on the eve of the election, to drop plans to let schools choose their own inspectors.

The lords have been careful not to exceed their limited powers, always bowing to the will of the Commons. Their famous delaying powers have scarcely been used. Instead they have amended Bills to give the executive a chance to think again. Which is about the right balance, if you believe that those elected at a general election should have the ultimate say.

This a fair record of achievement against the odds, particularly since the size of the government bloc, and the ingrained attitudes of many peers, mean that conservative arguments get a disproportionate hearing. The purpose of a revising chamber is to ask awkward questions in the interests of getting legislation right. The Lords has been the place where outside groups with a case to plead have at least had a chance of getting something done, at a time when the Government's majority in the Commons frequently made it almost impossible there.

The author, who writes in a personal capacity, is Assistant Secretary for Parliamentary Affairs at the Association of Metropolitan Authorities.