With permission, Madam Speaker, I will make a statement about the report of the independent review of parades and marches in Northern Ireland, which was published this morning in Belfast.

Last summer, public disorder occurred in Northern Ireland on a very grave scale, associated in particular, but not exclusively, with a parade at Drumcree. Immense disruption was caused, with massive damage to property, including churches and schools. The murder of a taxi driver may also have been related. Deep and lasting injury was inflicted on both sides of the community, and on the Royal Ulster Constabulary, who were placed in an intolerable position. Actual and threatened force obliged the Chief Constable to reverse a previous order, in the interest of avoiding loss of life, which is always his first duty. The improvement in Northern Ireland's image, which is so important economically in particular, was sharply reversed.

In the light of those shocking events, I announced on 15 July the establishment of the review, with the task of making recommendations about the future management of controversial parades.

The review was asked to consider the existing arrangements for handling public processions and open-air meetings in Northern Ireland, including the adequacy of the current legal provisions; the powers and responsibilities of the Secretary of State, the police and others; the possible need for new machinery; and the possible role for and composition of codes of practice relating to parades and meetings.

The review body comprised Dr. Peter North, vice-chancellor of Oxford university, the Very Rev. Dr. John Dunlop and Father Oliver Crilly. We are all indebted to Dr. North and his colleagues for the energy, determination and thoroughness with which they have tackled their very difficult task.

The report is a long and closely argued document, with more than 40 recommendations. It proposes, as the foundation of its other recommendations, that seven fundamental principles should form the basis for the development of processes and procedures governing parades. I should say immediately that the Government accept those principles, which include both the protection of the right to peaceful free assembly and the need to ensure—preferably through local accommodation—that the exercise of that right takes proper account of foreseeable effects on relationships within the community.

The report emphasises the predominant importance of reaching local agreement on every contentious parade. It goes on to recommend that an independent commission should be established as a focus for promoting and facilitating mediation and the search for such local accommodation in respect of contentious marches. It also proposes that, in default of successful mediation, the commission would have legal powers to issue a determination in respect of a contentious parade, but with a power for the Chief Constable—if he is concerned about it—to refer such a determination to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State would then decide the matter by endorsing, revising or reversing the determination, applying the same statutory criteria as the commission.

Furthermore, it is proposed that a senior police officer could override a determination on the day of a parade if the police found that, as a result of the likely impact on public order, they were unable to uphold it. The report recommends that a new offence be created of deliberately contravening, through force of numbers or threat of disorder, a decision of the commission—for example, by seeking to block an authorised parade.

The report also recommends that the statutory criteria for making decisions on parades set out in the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 should be enlarged to enable specific consideration to be given to the wider impact of contentious parades on relationships within the community. It also makes a wide range of further major recommendations, including, for example, the extension of the period of notice of a planned parade required to be given to the police from the current period of not fewer than seven days to not fewer than 21 days; and the preparation of a statutory code of conduct covering the behaviour of parade participants and protesters.

We recognise the report's description of the parades issue as a microcosm of the wider political problems of Northern Ireland, and as one that has the capacity to polarise the community and to engage levels of emotion and commitment that few other issues reach. Because of that, the Government have a responsibility to take the issues forward as far as possible on a basis of widespread agreement within the community so that whatever new arrangements are put in place may be recognised as fair and workable, and therefore acceptable. In that way, they stand the best chance of being effective and successful. As Dr. North and his colleagues say:

"our shared view"

is

"that the way to the complete resolution of the issue is through the community working together in search of mutual accommodation."

It is against this background that the Government have considered the proposals contained in the report.

The Government agree that an independent body could indeed play a constructive and valuable role in helping to resolve disputes concerning contentious parades. The Government believe that a new body of that kind could provide a valuable focus and a catalyst for mediation and conciliation efforts at local level. In respect of these non-adjudicatory functions, the Government endorse the report's recommendations, which they believe should be implemented without delay.

At the same time, the Government recognise that the proposal that an independent body should, as part of its duties, take over the RUC's decision-making power in respect of parades is a radical and far-reaching one. The report notes the wide range of views that it received on precisely that issue. Therefore, it would not, in our view, be right for Government—without further but time-limited consultation—to reach a decision on so fundamental a proposal.

It therefore expresses no opinion on it either way, but it will seek the views of interested groups on the report's proposal that the commission should have a decision-making role of this kind and, if so, on the way in which it might be exercised. That consultation will also encompass those of the North recommendations linked directly to the role of a commission, including those directed at the possible expansion of the statutory criteria, the publication of guidelines that the commission would take into account and the creation of a new criminal offence of setting out deliberately to contravene a legal determination.

This consultation will not duplicate the consultation already conducted by Dr. North and his colleagues, but will be a precisely focused and time-limited exercise to give public representatives and others who are directly concerned the opportunity to comment on an important matter of real concern to them and those whom they represent. The Government envisage that the period of consultation will last until the end of March. In any event, implementation of the recommendation, if that were to be the decision eventually reached, would require a statutory basis. While final decisions on the way forward on this issue may fall to the new Parliament, the Government, for their part, are clear that any such provision should be provided by primary legislation—by Bill rather than by Order in Council.

The Government therefore intend to establish, as soon as possible, an independent body of five people, to be known as the Parades Commission, with the mediation, conciliation and education roles recommended in the report. We intend that the new commission should be in place ahead of this year's marching season, precisely because we recognise that it has a valuable role to play, potentially, of that character, and could also have the capacity to act as a valuable and reassuring channel of communication with all interested parties, including the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Secretary of State. Further details of its operation will be promulgated when the membership of the commission is announced. Legislation will not be required for this purpose.

Turning to the report's recommendations that are not directly linked to the role of a commission and do not therefore fall to be considered as part of the consultation exercise, the Government accept them all, subject to further consideration of how these might best be implemented in practice.

In particular, we agree that a code of conduct, covering parades, protests and open-air public meetings, should be prepared and published for consultation as soon as practicable. We agree that a registration scheme for bands should be introduced as soon as the necessary practical arrangements can be put in place.

We agree that the period of notice for parades should be extended from seven to 21 days, that the amendments that the report proposes to article 3 of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 should be implemented, and that consideration should be given to the changes suggested to articles 4(1)(b) and 7; and that appropriate provisions for the control of alcohol in respect of those travelling to both processions and open-air meetings in Northern Ireland should be introduced. We shall implement these changes as soon as practicable.

We agree that parade organisers should not be required to post bonds or provide proof of insurance cover, and that steps should not be taken to seek a contribution to policing costs from parade organisers or protesters.

The House will, I think, join me in thanking Dr. North and his colleagues for producing this report, which represents an extremely important contribution to our consideration of these difficult and complex matters.

The events of last summer cast a pall of fear across Northern Ireland. As the report states, an abyss of anarchy opened up. All people of good will must surely demand that there be no repetition, but no mechanisms and no procedures can be enough on their own.

There needs to be within all who live in Northern Ireland the will and the personal determination that last year's terrible events shall never again occur. To that end, the Government pledge that they will play their own part to the full.

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.

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.

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 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.

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 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?

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's welcome for aspects of what I have said, and can move to his following points. He asks whether conciliation and adjudication are not very different concepts. Of course that is correct—they are. One of the objections to the present jurisdiction of the Chief Constable under the legislation is that he is both the decider of the issue, after attempts to conciliate and to find a local agreement, and thereafter the enforcer. That point was made by many people, apparently, to the commission. The hon. Gentleman's point as to whether the one can be done properly together with the other by the same body is a proper matter for consultation. It is one of the issues that will necessarily be discussed in the period that I have described.

The hon. Gentleman speaks of the Chief Constable's duties. Of course the parades give rise to difficult and delicate public order issues—we all know that—but the issues are not limited to public order. They give rise to wider aspects, which may be described as aspects of community relations or political aspects. As I have said, saving of life must always be the Chief Constable's first duty. Whether there is a satisfactory manner in which an independent body can take the decisions that will have major effects on public order and safety, determining them in the light of the principles that have been given is exactly the type of matter about which we need to hear advice.

Although many of these protests are genuinely made, there are some indications, as we all know, that they are used for strictly political purposes. I cannot point to a reference of the sort that the hon. Gentleman asks me about, but reality and realism suggest that that reference is there, and the report does say that there is a real question for consideration as to what will be the trigger mechanism by which the commission's jurisdiction will be engaged.

Does the Secretary of State think that, because of the seriousness of the matter, he should meet the leaders of all parties in the House and further discuss the matter because, as the hon. Member for Redcar said, if we do not get it right this time, in years to come, we will reap? I remind the House that we are reaping today. We are reaping the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987. I and other Unionist Members warned the House that that legislation would be a calamity.

I remind the House that every Unionist Member but three—the then hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), and the right hon. Members for Lagan Valley (Sir J. Molyneaux) and for Strangford (Mr. Taylor)—did short gaol sentences because we felt that it was our duty to breach that law to call the people's attention to its seriousness. The Secretary of State is well aware of one matter—that of traditional parades. When the right to them was breached by being removed from the legislation, there was all this trouble with such parades. Who made the statement that traditional parades would have to be removed from the legislation? It was none other than the Dublin authorities. They made it clear at the time and we protested in the House. We went to gaol so that people would be aware of the seriousness of the matter.

It is all very well for the hon. Member for Redcar to say that no civil rights are involved. Why cannot have the public order legislation that applies to the rest of the United Kingdom? Why is it unlawful for me to do something in Northern Ireland that it is perfectly lawful for me to do after I have crossed a stretch of water? Hon. Members need not tell me that there are differences, because there are differences over here, such as racial tensions. We do not have racial tensions: we have tensions of the other sort.

The leader of the Liberal Democrat party said that the measures should be enacted immediately, but to do that would make no difference whatever to the present situation The Belfast Telegraph thought that it could get support for them, so it ran a poll and thought that it would come out wonderfully. But the Secretary of State knows that the poll showed that, by a ratio of five to one, the parades would have to go on. To say that that can be remedied by a little education by a commission is nonsense.

This is a serious matter and it will have to be dealt with seriously. If people want to parade to a church building and are refused permission, as my constituents have been, they may have every window in the church broken and graves desecrated. Graffiti on the walls of the Orange hall stated, "The Orange Order will never walk". Such situations must be dealt with seriously. Will the Secretary of State ensure that whatever laws are put on the statute book everybody will be equally subject to them so that all are under the same law? Republican bands do not give seven days' notice: they walk and nothing is done about it.

Before the Secretary of State responds, I remind the House that we are asking questions on a serious report. I do not seek long comments and speeches but brisk questions and comments. Several hon. Members are on their feet, and I shall do my best to call as many as possible.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is a serious matter. We must get it right, and it must be approached in a serious way. It would not be approached seriously if we implemented the report without giving people the opportunity of the character that I have described to express their opinions about the report's recommendations. I gladly give an undertaking that I will meet all party leaders and all others in a representative capacity who have an interest in these matters and wish to see me during the consultation period. That is important.

The hon. Gentleman asked why Northern Ireland needs something different from the rest of the United Kingdom. I must tell him that it is for the same unhappy reason as we need other provisions to enable the security forces to deal with powerful factors. The situation in Northern Ireland is different, the history is different, the forces and the influences are different and that needs to be recognised in our legislation. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said. I do not think that there will be the same need for him to feel, as he said at the beginning of his intervention, that his views have not been considered.

I compliment the North committee on the thoroughness with which, in the time available, it did a very difficult job. It did that job very well. But I must express my deep concern that the Government have taken the decision that the so-called "period of consultation" will very substantially postpone the date on which they and the House will make a decision on the matter. A decision will have to be made. Does the Secretary of State agree that there are only three options: that the Secretary of State will make the decisions; that the Chief Constable will make the decisions; or that a body, as recommended by the North committee, will make the decisions?

We know the views of the previous Chief Constable. He said that they were sick to death of being caught in the middle and of having to make political decisions. Is the Secretary of State aware of the perception that will now be abroad in the north of Ireland—that a British Government are again long-fingering something to get themselves over their problems in the House of Commons, and that, in the summer months, the well-being of the people of the north of Ireland will be secondary to that consideration? That is a cynical view. I am not saying that it is my view, but it is a perception.

We have discussed this matter all my political life, and hon. Members from every party have discussed it with the Secretary of State and others. If Opposition Members were to assure the Secretary of State that legislation to put the proposals in place would not be opposed and that parliamentary time would be agreed to ensure that primary legislation is allowed to give the matter the serious consideration that it deserves, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman proceed to introduce legislation? If so, when we reach the awful summer months that we must face, the decisions will at least have been made, the uncertainty will have been removed and the legislative process will have been decided.

Will the Secretary of State respond to the offers that I believe will be made by the Labour party, by the Liberal Democrats and certainly by our party and many of the other smaller parties to facilitate legislation, for the sake of the people of the north of Ireland?

I am grateful for the compliment, which I am glad to endorse, paid by the hon. Gentleman to the quality of the report and to those who are responsible for it. On his last point, although I cannot commit business managers, I shall express a personal preference—which I believe the Government share—that the Government, once we have reached a conclusion on the matters covered by the consultation that we recommend and wish to conduct, implement the decision as soon as possible, especially if it requires legislation. That is the best practical answer I can give the hon. Gentleman.

The hon. Gentleman said that there was a perception that the Government are putting the matter on the long finger and binning it. I am glad that he did not say that he holds that view himself, because it would be quite wrong to do so. The answer to the charge can be found in the passage, which the Prime Minister has already read out today, at paragraph 1.49, page 9 of the report. The commission itself states:

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

It makes that statement in a manner that implies that it believes that doing so would be entirely reasonable. That is the answer to any cynical perception.

If I wanted to recommend means by which the matter could run away into the sand, I would recommend an open-ended period of consultation—not only on the second but on the first limb of the recommendations. I am not doing so at all, and I do not have the slightest difficulty in resisting and rebutting any perceptions of that character.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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 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.

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.

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?

That is not right.

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.

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.

Will the Secretary of State clarify some doubt in my mind? Was there a degree 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.

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.

Is it not remarkable that, on the report's principal recommendation, the Government offer no opinion to the House, but say, "We have not come to an opinion. We are going to consult further and then we will come to an opinion"? Is it not rather ridiculous that, on the principal recommendation, the Government are not in any way giving a voice or a lead to people within these islands on what they consider should be the best course of action to take? Are they not in fact dodging the issue and putting it on the back boiler? By virtue of the timetable as laid down by the Secretary of State, even with all the good will in the world from all the other parties to facilitate legislation, we will not have anything in place before, at the earliest, half-way through the marching season, when some of the most dangerous marches will have already taken place.

The hon. Gentleman's second proposition does not follow, and I am afraid that the first really shows that he is a subscriber to the Red Queen style of making decisions: verdict first, evidence afterwards.

You are the Duke of Plaza-Toro!

I thought that I had heard what the hon. Gentleman had to say. He carried some responsibilities for these affairs until he was relieved of them. I prefer to take the advantage of two months' consultation, which would, particularly with good will, leave time for any resulting legislation to be put in place during the coming summer, when the principally contentious marches are likely to occur.

The Secretary of State drew attention to the interview given by the former Chief Constable. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that some of us were surprised by the Chief Constable's attitude, but that we have listened with stunned amazement to statements today that the security forces should not be piggy in the middle? It was my impression that we maintained the army and police to be piggy in the middle to protect the law-abiding from the violent, armed conspiracy of the IRA. Is the Secretary of State not yet aware that, until he faces up to the fact that the IRA is committed to ensuring that there is no community agreement, and acts accordingly, he will be in constant trouble over marches? When will he live in the real world instead of the fantasy world that is detailed in the report?

I do not mind being criticised for what I have said, but I take mild exception to being criticised for what I have not said. I have not said that the security forces should not be piggy in the middle, as the hon. Gentleman put it. Of course it is their unpleasant and dangerous job, if hostilities break out, to keep the peace, and that means being in the middle. We have to discover the best means of ensuring that the security forces do not get engaged in occasions that can take place with enjoyment and peacefully, as the report points out.

Earlier today at Question Time, the Secretary of State, speaking of Bloody Sunday, said that we should not look back so much as look forward; but do not some of the most provocative and sectarian marches in Northern Ireland commemorate events of centuries ago? As for the IRA, did not Drumcree provide the propaganda that it so desperately requires, as did the terrible and tragic events of Bloody Sunday 25 years ago? Is not that also one of the lessons that we should learn?

When one looks back at the events of last summer, one can see examples of atrocious behaviour among both sides of the community. A member of the RUC on duty at that time would not have distinguished much difference in unpleasantness between what was thrown by one side or the other. It is in the light of that reflection that we need to look forward. Of course we have to take account of the events of last summer: were it not for those events, this body might not have been asked to do the job that it has been given. We have the report and we should do our best to assess the merits of what it recommends and then take appropriate action.

Is it not the case that the report tells us nothing new? It tells us that 80 per cent. of society in Northern Ireland is tolerant of marches and that 80 per cent. is tolerant of protest. International protocols allow for that, anyway. Is it not the case that the 0.03 per cent. aggravation that occurred last year during marches was orchestrated by IRA ex-convicts, Mr. Brendan McKenna and Mr. Gerard Rice? Is not this tome a result of the action of those IRA felons? Would we not get everything out of proportion if we catered for such people in the manner that is suggested?

How will it help the Chief Constable if he disagrees with a recommendation of the commission and he defies the commission and goes to the Secretary of State, who agrees with it? For operational reasons, the Chief Constable would also have to defy the Secretary of State. Where will the Chief Constable's friends be? Will he not be all the more piggy in the middle? Should not we simplify the process by having registration and a code of conduct and letting him get on with the job that he is qualified to do?

That solution is one that can perfectly properly be suggested in the consultation period that I am offering. It is at one end of the spectrum. The hon. Gentleman questions whether the report tells us anything new, but that depends on what one has believed in the past. The trouble with objective truths is that people tend to resist the suggestion that they are true by reference to whichever person happens to be uttering them. The report in any event provides an independent voice to set out matters that we may have known already; at least it is independent and cannot be charged with partisan desires to distort.

My father is buried in the Catholic graveyard at Drumcree, so I understand the situation there well. The Secretary of State will recall the meeting that I had with him on the evening of 12 July regarding the parade to be held the next day on the Ormeau road. I know that he will agree that the people of Northern Ireland, from both communities, and in some areas more than others, are deeply concerned about what might happen this summer.

I listened carefully to what the Secretary of State said, and I appreciate his point about two months' consultation Like others, I would have thought that most of the consultation was already done, but I accept his point that he will consult party leaders and others. Surely a few weeks—perhaps until the end of February—would be long enough for such consultations, and a Bill could then be introduced to enact the necessary legislation. I believe that that is what the people of both communities would want, so that the matter can be settled before the general election.

Of course I recall the meeting to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I also recall his genuine concern and the helpful way in which he always approaches such matters. It is a matter of judgment: I believe that less than two months would not be realistic if one wants seriously to test opinion and to use the results in a helpful way. It is essential that whatever we do should carry the best prospect of acceptability, and that will be the case if we have a tightly focused, time-limited two-month period of consultation on that aspect of the report.

As the Secretary of State is being criticised by those on both sides of the argument in Northern Ireland, does he feel that he has just about got it right? His response is not negative; it is to accept one limb of the argument—the seven principles in the conclusion—and to have time-limited discussions in connection with the second limb. Many might think that that was just about the right approach in the extremely difficult circumstances that exist in Northern Ireland.

Among the matters to be discussed in that eight-week period will be the triggering mechanism for specific marches to be examined. The report says that such examination is to be triggered by the police, the commission or the public. A great deal of attention needs to be paid to which groups of the public trigger the provisions and to whether they are genuinely representative, or bogus groups set up for the purpose.

Perhaps wider principles, such as a Bill of Rights guaranteeing human rights, should be thought about in the process, even if at a later stage.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. The ideal is not to be criticised from both sides of the spectrum, but to be applauded from both sides. However, if one is so criticised, one can take some comfort from the possibility that one has got it right, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for inferring that he thinks that we have. The trigger is a difficult one. Someone suggested to me that there is a danger that one is simply creating a factory for grievances. We do not want to do that. The report makes it clear that in the vast majority of parades it would not be appropriate for the commission to be involved. One of the functions of the consultation period is to consider the appropriate trigger.

I hope that the Secretary of State will forgive me if I refrain from applauding him on this occasion. May I remind him that Dr. North, who is not regarded as a radical legal thinker, lists in appendix 1 those persons and bodies providing submissions and contributions to the review team. The list runs to six pages. Is it the Secretary of State's intention to invite those persons and bodies to submit their considered opinions of the findings in the report? If that is not his intention and he intends to consult others, why will it take two months? Why not a month, as the hon. Member for Belfast. West (Dr. Hendron) suggested, so that legislation can pass through the House?

We can argue whether it should be one month, six weeks, two months, three months or whatever. It is left at large and one has to make a judgment. Of course I do not intend to consult everyone who appears in appendix 1. I have said that it is right for public representatives and those who lead bodies that are directly interested in the subject to express their views on that aspect of the commission's report. There was a time when most people, not least in the Liberal party, thought that it was rather a good thing to take soundings. That is what I wish to do. I do not wish to incur the additional charge that I am adopting, hook, line and sinker and without even a couple of months of consultation a radical departure that also has certain constitutional connotations. If I did not adopt this course, it would be a charge properly brought.

With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on arrangements for handling food safety.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and I are announcing today, together with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the Government's intention to create an independent food safety council, whose chairman will be our main adviser on food safety.

The council will advise Ministers on food safety and related matters. Its membership will be drawn from a wide range of fields with an interest in the safety of the food supply. It will include both scientific experts and lay members, including consumers. The council and the food safety adviser will report jointly to my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Health, for Scotland and for Wales, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and myself as Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

Our intention is that the council and the adviser should be free to advise on any matters related to the safety, quality, labelling and authenticity of food. They should also be available as an authoritative source of advice to the general public. The council will make an annual report to Ministers, which will be laid before Parliament. The conclusions of its meetings will be published, as will any other formal reports that it may make to Ministers.

Those arrangements will strengthen the existing network of advisory committees, but will not detract from the role of the individual expert committees. The food safety adviser will work closely with the chief medical officers. Although reporting to Ministers, he or she will not be a civil servant.

In addition, I have today formally appointed the chief medical officer, Sir Kenneth Calman, as adviser to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on public health matters. That formalises arrangements that, in practice, have applied for many years. That appointment took place today. We will be making all the other appointments to which I referred—the council and the chairman—after the general election.

These measures will provide an important strengthening of the arrangements for handling food safety matters in this country. Our proposals will introduce a valuable new element of independent oversight, while retaining the vital principle that food safety must be a matter on which Ministers are directly accountable to the House. The new arrangements will provide for independent advice, publicly given, from a source that the public can trust and will help to assure consumers that they can be confident in the safety and quality of their food. I commend those arrangements to the House.

Is the Minister aware that there will be widespread agreement with his quite explicit statement today that the general public have lost confidence in the Government on food safety issues? I remind him that, in the face of arguments from bodies such as the Consumers Association and the Labour party, he and his predecessors persistently argued that the present arrangements were right and that no change was required. Indeed, less than a year ago, the Prime Minister told my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that our calls for change were "public relations nonsense."

However, I put it to the Minister that the new arrangements he is proposing today are inadequate. As far as the official Opposition are concerned, they are no substitute for an open and independent food standards agency with real authority. A food safety adviser and a part-time council will command neither the resources nor the authority to effectively tackle these important issues.

May I put three short questions to the Minister? First, why have the Government changed their minds and decided that the machinery of government in this area now needs to be changed? Why have they accepted that argument? Secondly, what resources will the council and the food safety adviser control to support them in their tasks? Thirdly, can he confirm that the Government do not intend to implement any of these proposals this side of the general election?

Finally, I put it to the Minister that, while public relations and presentation matter in this area, what is really important is the need to effectively tackle the underlying issues—issues such as avoiding the huge BSE-CJD crisis and preventing the recent tragic loss of life from E. coli in central Scotland. Not only are these belated proposals inadequate, but every day it becomes clearer that neither the Minister nor the Government are up to the task of tackling effectively these desperately important food safety issues.

As I said in my statement, it is our intention to make the appointments, other than that of Sir Kenneth Calman, after the general election.

Let us understand the reasons why we are taking this action. It is perfectly true that the public have become cautious—indeed, sceptical—when Ministers and officials identified with the Departments talk about food safety. There are a variety of reasons for that feeling, and although, in my view, it is quite unfounded, it is a fact, and we have to address facts of that nature. My Department already has access to a range of independent professional advice, but what is important now is to try to set out a set of institutions that make those facts plain and are capable of reassuring the public.

The Labour party's position, as I understand the hon. Gentleman, is to propose an agency; but let us examine what he is talking about. It amounts to this: first, that the agency is to be accountable to Ministers—that is the desire of the House—but, secondly, that it is to be the implementing executive authority. In other words, it would be commenting on policies that it had implemented itself. It would have every reason, therefore, to defend that which it was implementing.

Our proposals are much more imaginative than that, because what we have done is to separate the functions. Ministers remain responsible for the formulation and implementation of policy; they have to explain policy and, when necessary, defend it. The council and the adviser have a different role: they are independent—they are not civil servants—they are free-standing, and they are not responsible for the implementation of policy. They can therefore stand back and, in a public and authoritative way, comment on the general issues and then, if they want to, criticise the implementation of policy as done by Ministers. That is done consciously and intentionally to create a rod for our own back. That is what we intend to do.

Has the Minister actually read the Pennington report on the E. coli outbreak in my constituency, which was the immediate trigger for this change of front on the part of the Government? Professor Pennington recommended that the outbreak control team should be independent of the health board and of the local authority, and that it should be headed by a person who can make decisions. If that is true of the agency delivering the service in the event of an outbreak, how much more true is it of the advice and recommendations to Ministers in the planning of the process?

In the first place, the E. coli outbreak is not the trigger for my announcement today. This policy has been in formulation for many months.

One needs to go to the essential reason why we are introducing the proposals; it is to recognise that there is a public scepticism about what Ministers and officials say about food safety. What we want to do is separate the functions so that Ministers remain responsible for policy, its formulation and implementation, and for that they are accountable to the House, which is the proper place for them to be accountable.

At the same time, and separate from that, we are setting up an authoritative, independent and prestigious body which will express views in a public way on the general questions of food safety, and will also, if it so chooses, express views on narrower questions relating to the implementation of policy. By dividing the functions, we have brought about a very high degree of reassurance.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the majority of hon. Members who look at this matter sensibly will accept that it is right and proper that steps should be taken to ensure that public confidence can, at all times, be restored in the way in which the bodies he announced will set out to do? It does little credit to the Opposition when they attempt to turn this into a political slanging match. Will he give an assurance, however, that it is not the intention that the measures announced should be a criticism of the agriculture industry, whose members have striven so hard to try to rectify the problems in the past?

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the generous way in which he has received the proposals. The agriculture industry, along with many other interest groups, will be represented on the council, but in the end it will be for the council to determine into which matters it wishes to inquire and what its views are. To that extent, I cannot fetter in any way the council's discretion; nor would I wish to do so. Public reassurance and confidence depends on the independence of the council and the adviser and the regard in which they are held by the public as a whole.

The Minister has on several occasions today admitted honestly that the public perceive him his Government colleagues and his scientific advisers to be basically untrustworthy and incredible on matters of food safety; I acknowledge that he recognises that fact. However, given that he is making this announcement in the form of an election promise and not for immediate action, why does he believe that that perception will now be transformed?

We are all in the business of facing facts, and, after the experience of the past 12 months regarding BSE, it would be idle and foolish for me not to accept that the public do not have the degree of confidence that I would like them to have and which I believe would be justified, when Ministers and officials associated with Departments talk about food safety. They do not, and that is a fact; and we must address that issue.

We have tried to create a separation of powers, a separation of functions, which is reassuring in itself, and we are determined to ensure that the people appointed to the council generally and to the post of adviser are people of great distinction—not civil servants, not beholden to the Government of the day, not beholden to Departments, but distinguished people who carry the authority of their own knowledge and standing among their peers. I believe that that will have a profound effect, for the good, on public confidence.

Can my right hon. and learned friend think of anything that might have been done over the last 10 years, had the special adviser already been in post? Is it not a fact that the Government have always sought the very best scientific advice and that that will continue under the new arrangement, but that, if it helps to give the public and the consumer greater reassurance about the safety of British food—which is the best in the world—that is all to the good?

My hon. Friend makes an important point, because a range of very important independent advisory committees already exists. The best known is the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee, whose chairman. Professor Pattison, is a man of the greatest distinction. We have relied heavily on the advice of those advisory committees, and on SEAC in particular, regarding BSE. However, what we have in mind goes beyond the area covered by the specialist committees, will be more general in its scope and will be a great deal more public, and that is our intention.

I have listened carefully to the Minister. Who will have the final say as to who is appointed to the council? Will it be the fiefdom of Sir Kenneth Calman, a highly regarded individual, or will there be a ministerial input as to who will serve on the council? Who will pay for the council, and what is the estimated budget?

As I said in my statement, the council will be appointed by my right hon. Friends. A number of my right hon. Friends are appointing Secretaries of State or Ministers for these purposes. Ultimately, the Ministers—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health for example, and myself—will make the appointment, but it is in our interests to appoint people of standing and authority who will command respect.

Few people in the House who know anything about it would criticise the membership of our various advisory sub-committees, such as the Advisory Committee on Microbiological Safety of Food, the Advisory Committee on Novel Food and Processes, the Advisory Committee on Pesticides, and so on. I believe that everyone would accept that the membership of those specialist committees is a good one. SEAC is well known to the House, and Professor Pattison is a man of great distinction.

We intend to ensure that the membership of the council is as distinguished as we can make it, because it is in our interests that that should be the case.

Does my right hon. and learned friend agree that, if he were to appoint someone with the independence, professionalism and appropriate expertise of successive chief medical officers of health, it would go a long way to reassure consumers and increase confidence? Has not that confidence been eroded in recent years by so-called food experts, who make outrageous statements, which are worked up by the media and are very difficult for him and his colleagues to disprove?

My hon. Friend makes an important point in the latter part of his question. As to the former part, the status of the chief medical officer is a good analogy. It is not quite the same, but it is very similar to the concept that we have in mind. I believe that most hon. Members would accept that, when the chief medical officer speaks, he speaks with real independence and authority. We are seeking to create someone very similar in connection with food safety.

We are likely to appoint as food safety adviser a scientist or someone from that type of background, rather than a generalist such as a lawyer, an official or even, dare I say it, a former Member of the House.

Does the Minister accept that, in the view of Sir David Carter, the chief medical officer of Scotland, and Professor Pennington, some of the most useful and constructive elements on E. coli came from West Lothian council, represented by Crawford Morgan and Alec Campbell, because they had knowledge of the first major outbreak—the Red House Dairy outbreak? Will the Minister ask whoever is appointed, at a very early stage, to ask West Lothian council to present its detailed and constructive views on E. coli?

That goes outwith the scope of the statement, but I am sure that the food safety adviser, the chairman of the council, will in due time have his attention drawn to all relevant matters, which might include the point made by the hon. Gentleman; in any event, it might be possible for the hon. Gentleman, if he wins his seat, to put those points to the chairman of the council.

I welcome the appointment of the council. Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander), I too am anxious that the scaremongers who have caused huge damage to our food industry over recent years do not talk themselves on to the council. Will my right hon. and learned Friend say precisely how the people serving on the council will be recruited? Will it be by public advertisement and after due consultation?

I draw a slight distinction for these purposes, if I might, between the chairman and the council members. It is likely that, in the case of the chairman of the council, the food safety adviser, we shall advertise publicly, but we may also employ headhunters. For council members, it is very likely that we shall advertise publicly; we may also go through the appropriate channels for suggestions.

We are very anxious that the council, with its chairman, should be seen to be a prestigious, independent body, so we shall seek candidates who command respect.

Is this the Government's response to the call made earlier this month by the president of the National Farmers Union of Scotland for a food safety body that commands the support and confidence of consumers? Cannot the Minister grasp the fact that we do not need just another advisory council? What consumers and every part of the industry require, and what Parliament should demand, is an effective food safety agency with executive power to control the whole issue.

A moment's reflection will make it plain to the hon. Gentleman that what we are proposing is infinitely better than what he just suggested. I suspect that he is suggesting three things, although he only said two. He wants an agency with executive responsibility. He wants that agency to explain and justify the safety of food, explaining and justifying the actions that have been taken by the agency. It would be fair to say that he would like the agency to be accountable to Ministers.

The problem—or one of the problems—with what the hon. Gentleman suggests is that the agency, on his model, would be responsible, not only for implementing policy, but for justifying and defending it. That does not seem to me to be a very sensible way to proceed, because the agency would have every incentive to justify that which it had done.

We are proposing a separation of functions: the Minister is responsible for the formulation, defence and explanation of policy, but others who are not responsible for the formulation of policy and have no inherent reason to defend it will tell the public their opinion, first as to the generality of the question and, secondly, as to any specific points relating to policy that the council and the adviser might choose.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, whichever party is in power, a strong Ministry of Food and Agriculture is necessary? If it were replaced, as the Labour party suggests, by one Minister of State in the Department of the Environment and one in the Department of Health, our standing in Europe would be further diminished. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the general public, apart from the food fascists, need much reassurance, and that the appointment will reassure the public that much of what we do is the best in Europe, and will identify the necessary adjustments?

Both parts of my hon. Friend's question are very sound. Let me focus on the first part, regarding the status of the Minister of Agriculture. From time to time, the Labour party has suggested downgrading the status of the Minister of Agriculture to that of a Minister of State. That would be a grave error, because the pressures in Europe for the reform of the common agricultural policy are great and will gather speed.

It is vital that the interests of British agriculture are properly represented at the Agriculture Council. All the Ministers at the Agriculture Council are of Cabinet level. If the Opposition argue for the status of the British Minister of Agriculture to be diminished, the interests of British agriculture will be gravely damaged

Can the Minister tell the House why it has taken the Government so long to announce the setting up of such a puny and inadequate body in response to concerns that go beyond BSE, E. coli and baby milk, and encompass issues such as Alar in apple juice, salmonella in eggs, organophosphates in root vegetables, listeria in cheese—the list goes on? Does he not understand that a part-time food safety adviser is no substitute for an independent food standards agency to reassure the public, particularly people who are bringing up children and want to do the best for them, and to enforce the rights of consumers to enjoy the best standards of food hygiene and safety?

The hon. Lady has not thought through the policy that she or those on her Front Bench are trying to put across. Their concept of an agency involves at least two elements: first, that the agency is responsible for implementing food safety policy, and secondly, that the agency is responsible for reassuring the public as to the success of the policy that it itself has introduced and implemented.

That system would not reassure the public. Such an agency would have every incentive, personal and political, to justify the action that it has previously taken. What we are doing is much more dramatic. We are separating the functions, so that the food safety council or the adviser can say publicly to the House or to the public at large that Ministers have got it wrong, if that is the council's considered view.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that all Conservative Members wish him well with his latest development of policy? It is important that we reassure consumers of food safety and of the value of the product. Can he assure the House that, in arriving at today's announcement, he and his ministerial colleagues and officials carefully considered the example of the Food and Drug Administration in the United States, to see whether any appropriate lessons could be learnt from that structure and approach? Many of my constituents would favour that model.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. Yes, indeed, we did look at a number of models, and at the Food and Drug Administration in particular. The FDA is not quite as some people think it is. For example, meat and poultry safety in the United States is the responsibility not of the FDA. but of the Department of Agriculture.

Will the Minister reflect on my experience in dealing with his Ministry on a relevant matter? Following unsatisfactory correspondence in 1995, I raised during the March BSE debate the unsatisfactory situation in regard to contaminated and condemned meat. The Ministry seemed to be negligently complacent about the matter, although it may now have begun to realise that a serious problem exists.

My local authority has taken the lead on behalf of several others, and has incurred enormous costs in pursuing the matter in the interests of public health. When the council approached the Department of the Environment the other day for support because of the enormous costs that it has incurred, it received short shrift.

Does the Minister understand that those of us who are aware of the problem will wonder how he can find the resources for yet another quango, and deny them to those who do not need imagination because they are—

Order. That is a very long question.

The hon. Gentleman's comments sound like a criticism of the much more expensive policies for an agency advanced by those on his Front Bench, or a request for additional public spending. On the first part of his question, the fact that he was able to raise the matter with Ministers, and the fact that, under our system, they are accountable demonstrate the good sense of our approach.

Is the Minister aware that the public will take the view that, every time there is a crisis, the Government make up their approach to food safety as they go along? With BSE, E. coli, and even dioxins about eight years ago, some of us called for a separation of duties. The problem with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is that it is linked to the rich farming lobby. Until there is a separation of duties, the public will understand that the Tory party running the Ministry cares only about the rich farmers who line its pockets and vote for it.

In rather a convoluted way, I think the hon. Gentleman is giving me his support. As I have explained to the House, we are separating the functions in a dramatic way. We are making a division between the function of formulating and carrying through policy, which will be the responsibility of Ministers accountable to the House, and the function of the council, which will be to form views on food safety and related matters, and to communicate them publicly to the country, to Parliament and elsewhere. That division of functions is at the heart of our proposals—and incidentally, is denied by Members on the hon. Gentleman's own Front Bench.

May I urge a little humility on the Minister when he replies to questions? After all, he has an awful lot to be humble about, in terms of his recent track record. Does he not grasp the fact that no one will believe that any food safety organisation or committee will be genuinely impartial if it must report to a Minister in a producing Department such as his?

Unless the consumer and the producer are kept separate, no one will believe that a Minister such as himself is not primarily concerned with the interests of the producer. Although I do not expect him to be the Minister reporting to the House on appointments, can he tell us what sector of the economy he expects the new chairman to come from? Will the animal welfare organisations be involved? It is the way in which we have been treating animals that has led to so many diseases creeping into the human food chain.

There is a pleasing irony in the hon. Gentleman urging me to be humble. Nevertheless, I shall take advice whence it comes.

On the broad question, we have every interest in choosing as members of the council independent-minded, prestigious people who speak with real authority. We have every interest, too, in ensuring that the chairman of the council is such a person, so that he or she speaks with real authority when expressing opinions. The chairman and the council will be under a duty to go public with their views. For example, they will make an annual report to Ministers, which will be laid before Parliament, and the conclusions of their meetings and of any formal reports that they may make during the year will be published. Those people will have authority because of their background and experience. They will also wish to be judged well by their peers, and I think that that will greatly enhance the authority of their pronouncements.

rose—

Order. I am prepared to take questions from those hon. Members who are already standing, but perhaps the questions could be shorter and snappier.

Is this not an entirely fraudulent proposal, given the Government's neglect of food safety enforcement? Is it not a fact that, in 1992, environmental health officers served 22,000 improvement notices, but that in 1995 that figure plummeted to 2,000—barely one tenth of its former level? Next Monday, the House will consider the revenue support grant settlement. Why do the Government propose to cut the other services block that directly affects the resourcing of environmental health departments up and down the country? Let the Minister answer this point—

Order. I asked for short and snappy questions. I call Mr. Hogg.

To be short and snappy: the hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense.

Has the Minister studied the incident that occurred in the United States in 1989, when 37 people died and 1,500 were disabled after eating a food supplement that had been genetically modified and which contained a toxin previously unknown to science? Why has genetically modified food been mixed with other food in this country so that it cannot be identified?

Although Asda and Iceland have said that they will ban genetically modified food, they cannot deliver on that promise because of the mix-up. Genetically modified food in confectionary form is on sale within the Palace. This experiment with human health is being carried out not for the benefit of consumers, but for the benefit of foreign companies' profits. Will the Minister give an assurance that, in future, consumers may choose between foods that are genetically modified and those that are not, as they cannot do so at present?

Order. Questions are getting long again.

I know that there is concern about genetically modified foodstuffs. However, it is a general issue, and I shall not elaborate in the context of this question. The fact that there is much public anxiety about genetically modified foodstuffs underlines the importance of our proposal. The Food Safety Council would be in a position to address precisely that question—together with related questions of labelling and so forth—and to make its views known to the House and to the public at large. That is a very powerful argument as to why we should adopt that policy.

I should like to make a statement about the business for next week:

MONDAY 3 FEBRUARY—Motions on the English Revenue Support Grant Reports. Details will be given in the Official Report.

TUESDAY 4 FEBRUARY—Remaining stages of the Social Security Administration (Fraud) Bill.

Motions on the Welsh Revenue Support Grant Reports. Details will be given in the Official Report.

WEDNESDAY 5 FEBRUARY—Until 2 pm, debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Opposition Day [4th allotted day].

Until about 7 pm, a debate on health. Followed by a debate on investing in early years, primary and secondary education. Both debates will arise on motions in the name of the Liberal Democrats.

THURSDAY 6 FEBRUARY—Debate on the Royal Air Force on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

FRIDAY 7 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.

MONDAY 10 FEBRUARY—Until about 7 pm, Second Reading of the Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Bill [Lords].

Second Reading of the Welsh Development Agency Bill.

[Monday 3 February—Relevant Reports: Local Government Finance Report (England) 1997–98; Special Grant Report (No. 23); Limitation of Council Tax and Precepts (Relevant Notional Amounts) Report (England) 1997–98.

Wednesday 5 February—Relevant Reports: Local Government Finance Report (Wales) 1997–98; Special Grant Report (Wales) 1997; Limitation of Council Tax (Relevant Notional Amounts) Report (Wales) 1997–98.

Wednesday 12 February: European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Community Document: 5217/97, Commission Report on Raw Tobacco Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC 36-xi (1996–97).

European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community Document: 5147/96. Takeover Bids. Relevant European Legislation Committee Reports: HC 51-xxix (1995–96) and HC 51-xiv (1995–96).] Madam Deputy Speaker, I regret that, once again, I am unable to go much beyond the business for the first week—but at least it makes the business statement shorter and snappier.

In view of Madam Speaker's statement on Tuesday—which was widely welcomed on both sides of the House—about Parliament being brought into disrepute by sleaze allegations involving a small number of hon. Members, will the Lord President, in his capacity as Chairman of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, confirm to the House that that Committee and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards are working flat out to try to conclude all outstanding matters as soon as possible? I am sure that such confirmation would not constitute a breach of the confidentiality of the Committee.

The House will have noted that there is to be a debate next week on the Royal Air Force. While I am sure that no one objects to it, will the Leader of the House ensure that Ministers who speak in the debate are able to explain in detail the possible consequences for the RAF and other parts of the defence budget of the Government's decision to spend £60 million of taxpayers' money on the new royal yacht?

Will the Leader of the House comment on the point of order that was raised yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) regarding the answering of written parliamentary questions? The Leader of the House may know that that parliamentary question has now been answered, but hon. Members should not have to make points of order in the House to elicit answers from Ministers. In view of my experience, can he say whether the normal convention of Ministers always meeting hon. Members to discuss local matters remains operational, following two refusals by Education Ministers to meet a delegation from Mirfield in my constituency?

Can time be found in the near future for a debate on an issue that the Leader of the House did not cover in his statement: the consequences of bus deregulation? I draw his attention to a report entitled "Making Connections" which was published yesterday and which the Yorkshire Evening Post summarised as saying:

"bus services will never improve while profits are put ahead of customers"

As the Secretary of State for the Environment co-chaired the body that wrote the report, surely the House should debate the matter.

Finally, in view of his answers in recent weeks, has the Leader of the House considered making space in our Question Time rota for questions to the member of the Government who is usually known as the chairman of the Conservative party? If the Leader of the House cannot provide precise information today about the Wirral, South by-election, can the chairman of the Conservative party come to the Dispatch Box?

The hon. Lady will not be surprised to learn that I, like other hon. Members, welcomed the measured and balanced way in which Madam Speaker commented on Monday on behalf of the House on an issue about which we all feel strongly. Understandably, the hon. Lady asked me, as Chairman of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges—she is a distinguished member of that body—to confirm that the Committee is making every effort to conclude consideration of the various matters before us. I certainly confirm that—with the wholehearted support of all Committee members. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards is also playing an active role. Many of the matters are complex and extremely important and they must be considered properly, but we shall proceed with all possible speed.

I cannot predict the contents of the speech of the Minister who will speak in the Royal Air Force debate, as I have not discussed it with him. However, I shall draw to his attention the hon. Lady's point about what she would like to be in it.

The hon. Lady referred to the point of order raised yesterday by the hon. Member for Perry Bar, who I see sitting, diligently, beside her. The hon. Gentleman knows that I took action as soon as he raised his point of order to ensure that, by the end of the day, his question had been answered. Indeed, he has received a letter of apology from my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary. The implication of that is clear. I accept, of course, that such errors should not occur and that we should make every effort to avoid them. I think that it is clear from my right hon. Friend's letter to the hon. Gentleman that he, too, accepts that. To put it simply and straightforwardly, it was an error. Every effort will be made to prevent such an error occurring again.

In the end, individual Ministers must make judgments in particular circumstances on whether to meet delegations. I understand why the hon. Lady has raised the matter. I am not in a position to comment in detail, because I was hitherto unaware of the facts that she stated. I shall ensure that her concern is brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment.

I have not yet had a chance to study the report on bus deregulation. I have, however, seen some of the press reports. The Government's position is that we welcome the independent report. We shall be studying the recommendations carefully.

I thought that the hon. Lady gave a rather unbalanced account of the bus industry, but I shall not go on about that at length. There is no doubt, however—it is certainly observable in the areas with which I am concerned—that deregulation and privatisation have brought a great deal of innovation, including new types of bus, which in many instances have provided greater flexibility. Perhaps the hon. Lady should have mentioned that investment by the industry in new buses has increased in each of the past four years.

Finally, I shall take up the hon. Lady's rather ingenious point about the Wirral, South by-election. I am not in a position to add to what I said last week, which I accept was not very much. I have no plans for making changes in the questions rota for the remainder of the Parliament.

During next week, will my right hon. Friend recall the statement made by our right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, supported by those on the Opposition Front Bench, about the need to work for simplification of tax law? Will he consider that the Procedure Committee has now reported on a procedure that should, perhaps, be used to bring about simplification? Will my right hon. Friend consult the Opposition spokesman to ascertain whether a debate can be held—and perhaps action taken—fairly soon to ensure that that procedure is in place so that the work on simplification can proceed immediately in a new Parliament?

I think that I might reveal that my right hon. Friend had already marked my card on that matter. He did so less formally last night. In my usual way, I offered a cautious but sympathetic reply. I shall offer again this afternoon, more formally, a cautious but sympathetic reply.

First, may I acknowledge the Opposition day on Wednesday, which the Leader of the House has arranged, to which we look forward?

Before we get into the general election campaign, will it be possible to have a debate on the independence of the Office for National Statistics, which is regularly accused of being led by the Government and doing the Government's bidding, but probably no more so than in the article today that suggests that, yesterday, it had prepared for the Department of Health, at the Department's request, statistics about health service spending which showed that official spending on the health service had decreased by £1 billion in the past three years? As the office was required to produce the information for "Social Trends", to be published today, and it was spotted yesterday, a new document was produced which showed that NHS spending had increased in the past three years.

There is decreasing credibility in an office of government that is open to manipulation by the governing party of the day. Whichever party is in power, it is important that offices of information and statistics are independent of any political party and able to provide independent facts, both for politicians and for the public.

I do not accept that there has been any manipulation. Independent or otherwise, the office is as capable of making mistakes as any other. This morning, the author of "Social Trends" said:

"The original chart was incorrect … we found we had been using the wrong figures".

Is my right hon. Friend yet in a position to say anything about a debate on the integrity of the United Kingdom? May I draw his attention to early-day motion 464, and express the hope that the Government will give a speedy passage to the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill, which would protect the rights of ethnic minorities in Hong Kong, and which has completed all its stages in another place?

[That this House welcomes the passage of the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill through the House of Lords; and urges Her Majesty's Government to ensure the speedy completion of its remaining stages so that approximately 5000 ethnic minority non-Chinese living in Hong Kong can apply for British citizenship and the right of abode in the United Kingdom as a recognition of their contribution to the life of Hong Kong and their loyalty to the Crown, and in order to give them the same degree of security as those who have either full British citizenship or Chinese nationality.]

I am not in a position to add to the generally sympathetic reply that I gave my hon. Friend last week. As I have already said, at present I am not able to go beyond Monday 10 February in giving an indication of business. I continue, however, to bear the wish to have such a debate very much in mind.

I shall consider what my hon. Friend has said about the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill. I should make it clear that the position of ethnic minorities is already adequately safeguarded, in our view, by the guarantee that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave in March 1996.

To take up the first issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), we do not doubt that "every effort" is being made, "at all possible speed" to draw the matter to a conclusion. We know, however, that battalions of lawyers are involved. It is a Jarndyce v. Jarndyce situation.

I am one of the few who was in this place at the time of Profumo, when Iain Macleod was the Leader of the House. Iain Macleod, in his position, summoned colleagues to ask them some very direct questions. Once present colleagues have answered the very direct questions posed by the programme and the book "Sleaze"—it was written by David Leigh and Ed Vulliamy—two things can happen. Either they admit that what is said is true, in which case certain consequences follow, or they do not. If they do not, they must be asked to go to lawyers.

The question then arises about payment for lawyers. That is something that the House had better consider. There is no hope under the present system of getting—

Order. I invite the hon. Member and all others to put their points in question form.

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's strength of feeling. I must make the point, however, that it is not much more than a year since the House, after the work of a Select Committee, which I chaired, had an extensive debate and put in place the revised machinery for investigating complaints about hon. Members. The important independent ingredient—as many people thought—was injected by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. In the first instance, it is for the commissioner to investigate complaints and then to report to the Select Committee, which can take evidence if it wishes to do so. It would be wrong to seek to interfere with those processes in the middle of an investigation. If we sought to revise those processes substantially, that would lead only to further delay.

May I ask my right hon. Friend to arrange an early debate on education? Has he read the report in tonight's Evening Standard, in which it is stated that 43 per cent. of parents in Islington have followed the lead of the pied piper of Islington and opted to have their children educated outside the local comprehensive schools? Does not that demonstrate the poor standards in Islington, the merits of choice as introduced by the Government and the hypocrisy of those who voted against the expansion of grant-maintained schools earlier this week?

Happily, those on the Liberal Benches have arranged for just such a debate next week. I look forward, subject to his catching your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, to my hon. Friend's vigorous contribution.

May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 457, which is headed "Wrexham Central Station and Railtrack"?

[That this House deplores the attempt by Railtrack to close Wrexham Central Station in a bid to increase profits from the development of surrounding land; notes the findings of the RUCC for Wales following a recent public inquiry that the closure of the station and its replacementby one some 400 yards further away from Wrexham town centre would cause hardship to the town and to rail users and should not be allowed to go ahead; further notes that Railtrack has ignored these recommendations and is seeking to persuade the Rail Regulator not to accept the RUCC findings; and calls on Railtrack to abandon its closure proposals, produce plans for development keeping Wrexham Central Station roughly in its present central position and to start behaving in a manner suitable to that of a rail company and not a property company.]

The motion was tabled today and has already succeeded in attracting 113 signatures. If the right hon. Gentleman reads the motion, he will find that Railtrack is seeking to make development profits for its shareholders at the expense of the travelling public. The matter is serious, because we need to preserve our railway system. Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to find some time before the Session ends for a debate on the important matter to which the motion refers?

I rather doubt that I shall be able to find time for such a debate, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is due to answer questions on Monday 10 February. Meanwhile, the hon. Gentleman will know that procedures are laid down in the Railways Act 1993 that cover matters such as the one that he has raised. Anyone who is aggrieved by a decision made by the Rail Regulator has a right to refer that decision to the Secretary of State for Transport, who is thus in a quasi-judicial position and would be unable now to comment on the merits or otherwise of such a case.

Will my right hon. Friend find time to have a debate next week on extradition? Is he aware of a tragic case earlier this week? The Devon and Cornwall police had arranged for a murder suspect to be under surveillance in Australia, but the suspect committed suicide. Is he also aware of the numerous examples of the failure of other European countries to extradite terrorist suspects when there is considerable evidence against them? Is it not high time that we exposed the lack of co-operation between European Union countries on this key issue, which is of enormous importance to all our citizens?

I am unable to comment on the particular case to which my hon. Friend referred. I shall be happy to draw his concerns and the points that he made to the attention of my right hon. Friends.

May we have a debate on the use made by Government Departments of postcode areas to collect information and to decide on the distribution of awards and grants? Post-code areas are for the administrative convenience of the Post Office, but their extensive use by Government Departments creates anomalies. For instance, the S12 and S18 areas in my constituency have not been triggered for cold weather payments, but the neighbouring S31, and the S42 and S44, which are further away, were triggered before Christmas because of the weather conditions. Different areas are linked to different stations. Some hold the peculiar belief that areas with a low number, such as S12 and S18, are part of South Yorkshire and are not in Derbyshire. That confusion is in the minds of Government Departments and not in the Post Office's mind.

It is five years since I was responsible for the detailed administration of the cold weather payments scheme and, given the hon. Gentleman's question, I am relieved about that. I shall ensure that those of my right hon. Friends who are currently responsible for the scheme have their attention draw to the hon. Gentleman's point.

Can my right hon. Friend find time for perhaps a small debate in the near future on the need for objective, continuous and reliable data on economic and social issues in order to develop sound policy? That would give the House an opportunity to make the case for the continuation rather than the scrapping of the general household survey.

That question came up last week. I shall not seek to add to the comments that I made at that time. I note my hon. Friend's question as, I am sure, will my right hon. Friend who is responsible for these matters.

Notwithstanding the debate on education that is due to take place next week, will the Leader of the House arrange for the Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment—the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth)—to make a statement in the House to explain the extraordinary events that took place earlier today? He was unceremoniously ordered off the premises of one of the country's leading grammar schools, Wirral grammar school for girls, when his by-election stunt went disastrously wrong. Given that that Minister is responsible for security and discipline in our schools, he has shown himself to be manifestly unfit to represent the Government.

I see no reason to accept the hon. Lady's somewhat tendentious account. Although I am aware that there seems to have been some confusion on the site this morning, I have not seen a detailed report of what occurred, and I do not propose to comment further without more information.

Would it be appropriate to have a debate on whether the United Kingdom should adopt American practice and require party political leaders to disclose their medical records? We saw today the Leader of the Opposition collapse in a fit at the end of his question. It was worrying to hear him shouting into the air the words, "Weak, weak, weak, weak," as he collapsed. That is surely an indication that the Leader of the Opposition's mental state should be examined at the earliest opportunity.

At least he has more hair than the hon. Gentleman.

I think that it is by now observable that I do my best to maintain a relatively non-partisan approach as Leader of the House. My wisest course, therefore, is to acknowledge my hon. Friend's question.