THERE could have been no more appropriate swan song for the 1992 parliament: a circular one hour debate about parades and the "right to march" in Northern Ireland.

Mr Seamus Mallon said it all.

"Madam Speaker," he intoned, "We have discussed this matter all my political life." As it was, so it seems set to remain.

Drumcree Mark Three beckons of that there is now no serious doubt. In private some key players make no secret of their belief that things this year might, if anything be worse. But in the Commons yesterday, there was hint of neither urgency nor battle.

Not even Dr Paisley could manage to inject the spirit or the volume of a Lambeg drum. The deal was", done the main recommendation of the independent review kicked into" the long grass the whole wearisome business to be dumped on the desk of the new Secretary of State of whichever party forms the new government.

The surprising thing was that as many as 37 MPs could be found adorning the famous green benches, as Sir Patrick Mayhew defended a position one suspected he didn't entirely believe in. He, after all, had invited Dr Peter North and his two colleagues to conduct their review after the horrifying events of last summer at Drumcree.

Defined in a formal report - stripped of their emotional, social and physical destructiveness - those events made grim reading indeed. "Two deaths and significant numbers of injuries. . . Polarisation between the two parts of the community . . . Damage to the relationship between the police and the community... Public expenditure costs of at least £30 million... Losses to trade, tourism and inward investment."

But Sir Patrick was altogether more eloquent. There had been public disorder "associated in particular, but not exclusively" with the Drumcree parade "on a very grave scale". 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 upon both sides of the community, and upon the Royal Ulster Constabulary, who were placed in an intolerable position."

These "shocking events", Sir Patrick said, "cast a pall of fear across Northern" Ireland." As yesterday's report had observed, "an abyss of anarchy" had opened up.

They could all agree with that. But there would be only qualified endorsement of Sir Patrick's next assertion, that "no mechanisms and no procedures can be enough on their own." The Northern Ireland Secretary was applying the necessary gloss on his central decision - to kick to touch, through a period of intensive and focused consultation, the report's central recommendation.

AS expected, the North report recommended that th9 proposed parades commission replace the Royal Ulster Constabulary as the statutory body empowered to make decisions about disputed parades.

But Sir Patrick said this was "a radical and far reaching proposal." And it would be wrong for the government to reach a view, one way or the other, without "further but time limited consultation". The effect of this is to postpone legislation until the new parliament, by which time the marching season will be well under way.

For Labour, Dr Mo Mowlam couldn't quite grasp the radical nature of this departure, given that the Chief Constable would have a right to appeal decisions of the commission to the Secretary of State, and retain operational flexibility. And Mr Mallon didn't hesitate to tell Sir Patrick of the widespread nationalist perception that the government's decision was once again influenced by the parliamentary arithmetic.

Sir Patrick dismissed the familiar charge, saying that if it were so he could have opted for an open ended consultation. But the SDLP's deputy leader was totally unconvinced. And it is an open secret that the result announced yesterday fell into line with the advice privately tendered to the government by Unionist MPs who say the proposed commission would become "a factory of new grievances".

Mr Mallon would hardly dispute the central truth of Sir Patrick's assertion. The proverbial dogs in the street know it.

The members of the independent review panel, too, understood that more than mere mechanisms are required. "The parades issue," they acknowledged, "is a microcosm of the political problems of Northern Ireland. It is a complex issue which has great capacity to polarise local communities and the whole of Northern Ireland society.

And they hardly concealed the scale of their ambition in their opening appeal for a change to hearts and minds. It's there on page three of the executive summary: "There is a choice to be made in the months ahead and in the longer term. Many people have told us of their alarm at the abyss of anarchy which opened up last summer.

"We believe that our way forward will commend itself to the vast majority of reasonable people in Northern Ireland. We see the future in terms of a consensus society, one . . . built on mutual understanding... which celebrates cultural diversity. . . in which citizens have a more secure sense of belonging... in which conflicting, interests are accommodated."

Asked to define his core objection to the proposal, one MP privately replied: "Because it's crap." He probably intended to be funny. But in reality, he was probably providing a serious and accurate commentary on the mood and disposition of many people in Northern Ireland. Certainly that is the evidence of the telephone polls conducted by the Belfast press.

IN the Commons, the people's representatives were more refined. Mr David Trimble, the UUP leader, said to give the commission decision making powers would undermine its conciliation role. He feared elaborate machinery would encourage dissident elements determined to cause trouble.

And he found "a serious failing" the absence in the report of any reference to the IRA or its intention to foment disorder over the parades issue. Mr Trimble's central complaint is that Sinn Fein has hijacked the issue, and that conciliation is a great concept but impossible to achieve with people determined not to have agreement.

The Rev Martin Smyth said the original decision to ban last year's Drumcree march was taken in response to threats of republican violence, and followed interference by the Anglo Irish Secretariat at Maryfield. And Mr Robert, McCartney, the UK Unionist Party leader, said government policy was to blame, for feeding republican expectations and loyalist fears.

Those are precisely the terms in which unionist leaders explained last year's confrontation, and rationalised the damage which ensued. Drumcree, the line in the sand drawn by a community fearful of the ratchet effect of concessions they believe will lead them ultimately out of the Union. If their leaders are any guide, then those fears have in no way lessened, and confrontation looms once more.

Dr Mowlam welcomed the report and its recommendations. But she was left with the dread knowledge that the hard decisions wilt have to await a new government... and the "consensus society" a dreadful time longer.