As MPs break up for the long recess, there is much unfinished business in parliament on a raft of proposed bills. John Ludlow expects an early recall

Both Houses of Parliament rose on 21 July for the long summer recess, but it will be no surprise to learn that it was the London bombings that dominated proceedings in the final weeks. Ostensibly, it had been 'business as usual', echoing the spirit of the Blitz, but there have been a few topics of conversation beyond terrorism and suicide bombers.


The atrocities themselves have led to one of the rarest sightings in our political system - the onset of an all-party consensus. The home secretary and his shadows seem to be in full agreement over extending offences to 'preparatory acts' and 'indirect incitement', something that would have been unthinkable before 7 July.


Of course, the Bill, when it appears, is likely to go even further and include new offences of attending a terrorist training camp and of selling terrorist literature. The prime minister has also said he will consider allowing phone-tap evidence in court, and of raising the time-limit for detaining terror suspects from the present 14 days.


Such a show of co-operation between the parties is understandable - and in many ways laudable - though it would be worrying if the Bill which finally emerges in October is not properly scrutinised because of it.


Thankfully, some would say, this spirit of consensus has not been evident on other issues. The government's two most controversial Bills - identity cards, and racial and religious hatred - have continued to raise the hackles of parliamentarians on all sides. Both passed through their early stages in the Commons quite comfortably, bolstered no doubt by their new status as manifesto commitments, but each has yet to run the gauntlet of the House of Lords. Their fate there may well depend on whether the time-honoured Salisbury Convention - which requires the Lords not to vote down manifesto commitments - still holds sway. Many prominent peers doubt it.


The Violent Crime Reduction Bill has passed its second reading in the Commons and now awaits committee. Though there is much to commend in the Bill concerning the sale of knives and replica firearms, there is some disquiet concerning the new drinking banning orders. Given that the authorities already have extensive powers to deal with public drunkenness, many argue that the creation of yet another offence is hardly necessary.


However, far more controversial was the announcement made by the Attorney-General in June that the government would be invoking section 43 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to remove juries in serious fraud trials. Such a move is regarded by many as misguided, and the Law Society has been at the forefront of a campaign to force a rethink. In letters to ministers and in briefing sessions for MPs and peers, the Society has pointed out that it is not juries that prolong fraud trials but rather a lack of proper case management. Nor is it the case that jurors are incapable of following the evidence when so often the key issue in a fraud trial is whether the defendant's conduct was dishonest or not, an issue which jurors are qualified to decide.


The government has also now published its response to the joint Lords and Commons committee report on the draft Mental Health Bill. This has been portrayed in parts of the media as a 'relaxation' of the government's proposals. But while ministers have decided that doctors would not be able to compel people to undergo treatment solely because of drug or alcohol dependency, it should not be forgotten that the plans would still lead to an increase in the numbers of vulnerable people, often with only mild conditions, being forcibly treated in hospital or the community. Indeed, on most of the key areas they have rejected the joint committee's recommendations.


There remains a long way to go before we have a Bill that all those who work in or use mental health services can support and implement. The Law Society will continue to work closely with partners, including the Royal College of Psychiatrists, to ensure that further concessions are made.


The Society has also taken the government to task about the administration of the stamp duty land tax, which is proving an expensive headache for many solicitors and their clients. In a Commons early day motion tabled on 18 July, the government is criticised for its poor guidance, inadequate telephone helpline, and over-use of requisitions. This motion will stay on the order paper until November 2006, though it is hoped that ministers will make amends before then.


The summer recess is long - many would say over-long - with both houses due back on 10 October. However, with the present situation, the smart money is now on an early recall. That should keep us all busy.


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