Get ready for a phoney war when Parliament is recalled

SOME people find it impossible to take a holiday. It's not yet been three weeks since the House of Commons broke up for the Commons recess, yet a petition is already circling with 170 signatures from MPs demanding Parliament reconvenes so they can discuss and pontificate on world events. If there is to be a peace settlement between Israel and Hezbollah, then apparently it cannot be done without Westminster's finest having their say.

Tony Blair has not yet agreed to the recall of Parliament, but now that he has something to boast about - the foiled terrorist attempt - it is highly likely that he will recall the whole show in a couple of weeks. With Israel agreeing to the United Nations resolution, the issue of whether he calls for an immediate ceasefire has been conveniently resolved.

But another agenda has emerged from the drama of the last few days, which suits the Prime Minister's purposes. There are 23 suspected terrorists in custody, forming an ideal backdrop to one of his favourite themes: the need to have such people detained without charge for 90 days. It is the ideal chance to reopen this battle, portray it as a struggle between a savvy government and a naive group of MPs (including Conservatives) bleating about civil rights.

The battle lines were drawn out last Wednesday in a speech by John Reid, the Home Secretary. At the time, it seemed like another cheap swipe at the judiciary - but knowing what we know now about the terrorist attacks (what Reid probably knew then) - it takes on a new complexion. Blair may not lead this battle, knowing his personal unpopularity may vex matters. But Reid is already making the case to move into a post-human rights era. His thoughts are worth some study, as they may shape the parameters of political debate for the next few months.

The European Convention on Human Rights, he said, was devised "in the aftermath of the Second World War. It was shaped inevitably by that war and by what was happening across the Iron Curtain". That is to say, the ECHR - drafted in 1950 and adopted into British law by Labour in 1998 - is a product of its time. "Protections from unlawful detention, from forced labour, from torture, from punishment without trial came centre stage."

But today, he said, the terrorist threat is different. "The threat to our nation and hence to all of us as individuals, comes not from a fascist state but from what might be called fascist individuals." Or, as George W Bush called it last Thursday, Islamofascists. There is a new battle, and Reid named three foes that the Labour government faces.

One is the 1996 ruling by European judges that member states cannot deport terror suspects - no matter how dangerous - to countries where they may be tortured. Never before has this ruling been singled out by the government as such an obstacle to British law. His second opponent was, predictably, the media, for giving too much coverage to extremists and not enough to the kind of Muslim leaders of which Reid approves, such as the presidents of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Strikingly, his third enemy was the one which will be soon be reconvening en masse on the banks of the Thames. Reid told members of the Demos think-tank: "When I see opposition among our politicians to the measures which the police and security agencies say are necessary to combat this threat to our community and values, I sometimes feel that so many people who should be foremost in recognising the serious nature of the threat just don't get it." The MPs are, like leftie judges, seen as part of the problem. During the recall of Parliament, they are likely to be told as much.

It is a compelling narrative, but a false one. The Prime Minister's main enemy is his own lack of attention span and resolve. He excels at anti-terrorism speeches, and is doubtless drafting one on the Barbadian coastline as you read this, but the curse of his premiership is that he has always been weak on implementation. He dangles, but does not deliver. Of the 12-point plan he gave us after the July 7 bombings, just three have been enacted. The terrorist prosecutions he longs for are often lost in the labyrinthine legal mess created in England. MI5 has not asked for 90 days to detain suspects, and resents ministerial suggestions to the contrary. Data input and monitoring is a cumbersome task, but done properly, they can take under a week, not three months. The police lack the computer skills, and the flaws in their forensic competence were spectacularly exposed last week when Danny and Rickie Preddie were prosecuted for the 2000 murder of Damilola Taylor, a Nigerian schoolboy living in London. The evidence, his blood on one of their shoes, had been missed by the Home Office and was picked up years later when exhibits were sent for a second examination by a private forensics service.

This kind of incompetence, which by all accounts seems to be prevalent, is the real problem. The liberal bias in the English judiciary is like that in local government and education, having been engrained over years. It cannot be expunged by an act of Parliament, or a clever Number 10 plan. It is systemic, and has stayed in place over nine years of Blair's government.

Both terrorism and crime thrive in the gaps in the English policing and legal system, due mainly to many years of mismanagement at every level. The one exception in this case seems to have been MI5, which successfully infiltrated the terrorist cell and liaised with its Pakistani counterparts to apprehend them. If the rest of the police service worked like this, there would be no need for 90-day detention. It doesn't take draconian legislation, just good management.

But it is politically important for Blair's government to behave as if it is trying its utmost to take charge of the situation, and is being foiled by dastardly and unpatriotic MPs. The 90-day battle is the perfect phoney war. The issue is what can be done with existing powers, and existing spending - yet don't expect any of these issues to be discussed when MPs get back. When it is recalled, Westminster will fulfil its historic purpose: the perfect distraction from a sensible debate.

Fraser Nelson is political editor of The Spectator