---

Mr. Tom King (Bridgwater): Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, for those of us who have had to grapple with this most difficult and taxing of problems, there was nothing wrong with the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, and that it could have worked perfectly well had all those concerned been willing to behave reasonably and to co-operate? Is it not the case, therefore, that any new proposals will need to command the widest possible support? In that connection, I warmly endorse the position that he has adopted, which is, I think, contrary to that of the leader of the Liberal party, who suggested that this is an occasion to ram legislation on to the statute book immediately. My right hon. and learned Friend is profoundly wise to have a brief period of consultation to see whether he can get wide support for the proposals, which will at least give them a better hope of working.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I very much agree with my right hon. Friend. He has carried these responsibilities, and I am certain that he is right to point to the pre-eminent importance of getting the will to co-operate, or local agreement. Legislation can play a part, but it can be no substitute for the desire for a sensible and workable means to be achieved whereby the competing rights can be properly balanced. I very much welcome my right hon. Friend's approval for the period of consultation that we propose.

Mr. Alex Carlile (Montgomery): Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who has had very distinguished experience as a Law Officer over a number of years, agree that the introduction of a requirement to co-operate with a commission that has a conciliatory and adjudicatory role

30 Jan 1997 : Column 517

before undertaking a sectarian march is a very small price to pay for the privilege of being able to march in that way?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I do not wish to depart from what I said in the statement, but the Government do not express an opinion one way or the other on what I might call the adjudicatory recommendations of the commission. It is self-evident--every hon. Member will agree--that there is a duty on all who wish to undertake a march or who wish to protest against such a march to co-operate with the relevant authorities.

Mr. Andrew Hunter (Basingstoke): I warmly welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's statement. Will he agree that this is a time for very great caution? It would be unreasonable to impose unnecessary or excessive demands on the organisers of more than 3,100 nationalist and Unionist marches that habitually take place each year without disorder. May I draw his attention in particular to recommendation 20 of the summary of recommendations, which states that the police should retain the power to intervene on public order grounds

"in the extreme circumstances of the determination of the Parades Commission being defied".

Does not this subordinate the police to an appointed commission rather than the democratically elected and accountable Government? Is not this a fundamental departure--one that is highly questionable and which some hon. Members may find it hard to accept?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: After nearly five years in this job, I see considerable sense in being generally rather cautious. Equally, there are circumstances when it is important to take hold of an issue and drive it. That is why I have thought it right to embrace and endorse straight away the non-adjudicatory recommendations of the report. It is right that there should be a commission. Naturally, we will want to see how best we can implement some of the matters that fall within that limb of the report. Therefore, whereas the more cautious approach might be to say that we shall consult about the whole boiling, I believe it to be right to take the course that we are taking in that regard.

As for the second limb--the adjudicatory functions--it is right to be cautious. It is, however, right to limit our consultation to a short period--a couple of months. There is an important constitutional position that the Chief Constable has operational responsibility. I shall not express an opinion one way or another; I simply observe that the report recommends that the chief officer on the spot will have the right to override any determination if he considers that his obligation to preserve life makes that necessary.

Mr. Robert McCartney (North Down): Does the Secretary of State agree that since the commencement of the peace process, dating from the Downing street declaration in December 1993, there has been a marked increase in the deterioration of community relations in Northern Ireland? Does he agree that the parades issue, for which the report is said to provide a panacea, is only a symptom of a much deeper condition, attributable to the Government's policy, which has unrealistically excited the expectations of the minority community while fuelling the anxiety--some might even say paranoia--of the

30 Jan 1997 : Column 518

majority community that their rights in many aspects of civil life are being gradually eroded? The Government's policy is the cause of the problem.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: No. I am rather disappointed by that contribution from the hon. and learned Gentleman. I do not think that it is factually right that a deterioration in community relations can be observed from the time of the Downing street declaration at the end of 1993. I think that the reverse is the case. There has, unfortunately, been a sharp worsening of community relations since the events of last summer. There is no doubt about that. Everybody that I know of agrees that there has been an increased polarisation and an increase in fear and bad relations between the two sides of the community.

As for the second part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's question, I think that fear lies at the root of many people's attitudes in Northern Ireland to a great extent. I recognise a fear among Unionists that there is a preordained ratchet process by which they irrevocably come nearer and nearer to what they most fear--the ending of the Union. That fear is not justified, but it exists. There is fear on the other side as well. Again, that fear is not justified in many instances, I believe.

The body recommended setting up a commission to take account of those fears and to give focus to the mediating and conciliatory jobs currently done by people in an unfocused way when a difficult march is incipient. I think that that will be valuable, which is why we have thought it right to endorse it straight away.

Mr. Clive Soley (Hammersmith): Does the Secretary of State accept that one of the most powerful arguments for allowing the proposed Parades Commission to exercise the power to determine a legally binding order on a march is that it would not put the Chief Constable in the invidious position in which he found himself last year?

Mr. Ken Maginnis (Fermanagh and South Tyrone): That is not right.

Mr. Soley: That Chief Constable was retiring, but had he been newly in position, his position would have become untenable after Drumcree. Perhaps the Secretary of State will remind the Unionist party, from which I am receiving some comments at the moment, that enforcing the rule of law in Northern Ireland is vital and is a first priority for whichever party wins the next election. We shall not shirk that duty. It needs to be made abundantly clear that any challenge to the rule of law that took place last year has enormous implications for the people of Northern Ireland.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I have had some part in enforcing the rule of law in Northern Ireland since I first became Solicitor-General about 14 years ago, so I endorse the importance of that. I have always held it to be a prime responsibility of the Government. I am not going to get drawn into any evaluation of the merits of the proposal that the commission shall decide these matters. I think that it would be wrong to do so. I want to see what advice is offered. It is a matter of record that the last Chief Constable said that he was fed up with the police having to make decisions in such circumstances. It does not follow from that that it would be wrong or right to endorse the proposal that has been put forward. We want to hear people's views.

Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South): Will the Secretary of State clarify some doubt in my mind? Was there a degree

30 Jan 1997 : Column 519

of economy or of elasticity of the truth when he referred to the Chief Constable having to reverse a decision because of threats? The reality is that the first decision was taken because of threats of violence as well as a suspected input from the Maryfield secretariat. Has he paid particular attention to the review team's comments about the enforcement of the public order order, since it has not been enforced against those who have tried to impede by force legally organised processions? Does he recognise that the authorities in Northern Ireland know long before 21 days about a walk of the institution of which I have been a member for many years. The period of six days was proposed by the House and we have abided by it.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: The Chief Constable gave a very full account of the events of July and his part in them when he gave an extended interview on BBC radio to Mr. Barry Cowan. It is worth while looking at that. I am pretty sure that I ensured that a transcript was put in the Library, but if I did not, I shall see to it that one is put there.

In the interview, the Chief Constable made it absolutely clear that he took each decision in the light of his professional assessment of the likely disorder that would follow, and that, in particular, the second decision was taken because he could not guarantee that lives would not be lost in circumstances that he reasonably foresaw. I have said before and I repeat, although I do not want us to get into fighting the battles of the past, that I believe that the Chief Constable was right in each of those decisions. We must consider whether we can find a way by which such decisions can be taken in the absence of successful mediation that will be more widely acceptable. Time and again, the report comes back to the need for wide acceptability of mechanisms and procedures.

---