---

Ms Marjorie Mowlam (Redcar): I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. I also thank the authors of the report, Dr. Peter North, Father Oliver Crilly and the Very Rev. John Dunlop, and their staff. It is a thorough and useful report that addresses issues of significance that in the end require politicians to make political judgments.

At heart, the issue is about the rule of law. We believe that the rule of law is paramount, and we hope that all parties in the House will join us in fully supporting the rule of law.

The review conducted by Dr. Peter North and his colleagues was demanded, as the Secretary of State said, by the events of Drumcree last year, when, as the Royal Ulster Constabulary former Chief Constable said,

"the consent to comply with the rule of law did not exist."

The police were put in an impossible position. The House has a duty to do all that it can to prevent such a situation from arising again. The security forces in Northern Ireland enforce the will of the House with day-to-day courage and determination. We should not ask them to play piggy in the middle again.

In August, we saw a glimmer of hope when, as a result of a clear Government decision, and alongside local efforts by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and Mr. Alistair Simpson of the Apprentice Boys, the tensions were effectively contained.

We must keep this problem in proportion. Of the many hundreds of parades that occurred last year, only a handful created problems. Every effort must be made to ensure that, whenever possible, local agreement is reached through discussion and mediation, as the report acknowledges. Only when those efforts are exhausted should other, more formal, mechanisms be employed.

To those who say that the recommendations of the report could breach their fundamental rights, I say this: the right to march is a fundamental human right. We support that right and it is fully supported in the report, which says:

"The right to peaceful free assembly should be protected".

But, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition would say, all rights carry responsibilities. The responsibility in this case is to take account of the likely effect exercising one's right to march may have on relationships with other parts of the community.

The report is no panacea, and further examination, either by the Government or by a commission, is clearly required in certain areas, such as the content of a code of conduct, or the length of period of notice for parades. Will the Secretary of State enter into immediate discussion with us and others? By the end of February there could be consensus and continued bipartisanship on measures that could be put in place immediately in March, either legislatively or administratively, so that any Government will be better prepared for the 1997 marching season.

30 Jan 1997 : Column 511

I agree with the Secretary of State that it is important to get this right: we will store up trouble for the years ahead if we do not. Unless the right hon. and learned Gentleman acts on the guts of the report, the staged approach that he recommends will be undermined.

After thoroughly examining the views of all interested parties, members of the review team recommended that, on balance, what is central is that an independent commission should be created, that it should not be an advisory body but that its conclusions should have the force of law, subject of course to appeal and review. We support the recommendation, and would like the Secretary of State to explain to the House why further consultations are necessary on that point. What views will he seek that have not already been sought by the reviewers? Furthermore, why does he think that in just eight weeks he will be able to improve on the conclusions that those who conducted the review reached over five months?

Will the Secretary of State clarify--I am not sure whether I have understood the report correctly--why he believes that a commission would take over the RUC's powers? My understanding is that the RUC would retain the power to ask for any decision to be reviewed by the Secretary of State, and would maintain operational flexibility.

We have been constructively critical: we have tried to make positive suggestions on this issue for more than 18 months, and we have urged the Secretary of State to take further action. We are in the business not of casting blame but of accepting responsibility. We have co-operated successfully with the Government throughout the past 18 months--most recently, over the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Bill--and we shall continue to give bipartisan support in the search for peace in Northern Ireland. We offer the Secretary of State our full support again today for the legislation that we urge him to introduce based on this report.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her concluding remarks. I gladly pay tribute to her party for the co-operation that it has given the Government in carrying out responsibilities that transcend party political tactics and matters of party political significance.

I am also grateful for her opening remarks, especially for her acknowledgement that every effort must at all times be made to reach local agreement. These are contentious marches because they arouse contention in the localities that they affect. The thrust of the report is that only after mediation and conciliation efforts have failed will there be a place for adjudication. That will always be second best to agreement. I think that the hon. Lady and I are at one of that.

I also acknowledge what the hon. Lady said about the qualified nature of all rights of this character. The report is correct in saying that if a right to march or protest is to be exercised, it must always be exercised with regard to how such action will impinge on opposite rights that are engaged at the same time and in the same locality. It is a question of balance, or, as the report puts it, of proportionality.

The hon. Lady asked whether the Government would consult the Opposition about what might be able to be put in place by the end of February. I have no difficulty in

30 Jan 1997 : Column 512

saying, "Yes, we will"--and, indeed, that we will consult all others who have a proper interest. We want to establish, as quickly as is practicable, a commission with what, rather uncomfortably, I have called the non-adjudicatory responsibilities that the report specifies, and we will do that.

I am grateful for what the hon. Lady said about the importance of getting this right. Lest anyone complain about the fact that we are consulting, I reiterate what the Prime Minister has already reminded the House. The report itself says:

"No doubt there will be a period of consultation."

It also says:

"We are well aware that it is for the Government to take a view on how far it wishes to adopt our recommendations."

It is to get it right on the second limb of the recommendations that the Government are proposing a tightly focused and short-term period of consultation. In the meantime, we express no opinion one way or the other on that part of the recommendations. That is why we make that point.

The consultation exercise is not a re-run of the review. That was another of the hon. Lady's questions. Interested parties have already had an opportunity to present their views, but they will not have seen the report's far-reaching and important recommendations until today. We recognise that we have a heavy responsibility to take the report and the issues forward, on the basis of the widest possible agreement within the community. That is why we are proposing a consultation period that is precisely focused and time-limited. We are committed--once we have made decisions in the light of that consultation--to implement them as soon as possible.

The hon. Lady asked why I had said that this would be taking powers from the RUC. She is right in saying that the report says that, in the absence of mediation, the commission would have the determining power itself, but that would be subject--if the Chief Constable were concerned about it--to the Chief Constable's power to refer the matter to the Secretary of State, who thereafter would be the determining authority. That is, of course, a radical departure from the present position, in which the Chief Constable both makes the decision and enforces it, in the light only of considerations relating to public order.

Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann): I welcome the Secretary of State's undertaking that any implementation of the report will be by proper legislation, rather than by means of the thoroughly unsatisfactory Order in Council procedure. I also welcome his decision to consult further on the more radical proposals in the report--proposals that do indeed have constitutional implications. In doing that, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is drawing a distinction between the conciliation functions suggested for the commission, and the adjudication functions. He has put his finger on an important point: that conciliation and adjudication are, by their very nature, two different functions, and that to give them to the same body will result in the adjudication function distorting and undermining the question of conciliation.

Does the Secretary of State agree that, in the present circumstances, the overriding need is to maintain the Queen's peace and to leave the highways free for all who wish to proceed along them peacefully? Does he agree that that responsibility must rest with the police and the

30 Jan 1997 : Column 513

Government? As the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) said, at the end of the day these are matters requiring political judgment.

I understand the desire to promote conciliation, but let me put two points to the Secretary of State. One has to bear it in mind that, if one creates too elaborate a machinery, it gives rise to more rather than fewer problems, and some elements in society in Northern Ireland are determined to use the problems to create serious public disorder.

That brings me to a point that amazed me when reading the report. I have had only a few hours to read it, and perhaps the Secretary of State can correct me, but I think that the report contains no reference to the IRA, to Sinn Fein and to those elements that are associated with them, which have used these occasions to foment serious public disorder. Is it not a serious failing that the report has failed to consider the basic underlying problem, and does that not to some extent undermine the approach?

---