Quill
  1. Overview: Northern Ireland Brooke/Mayhew Talks 1991-1992
  2. Full Record: Northern Ireland Brooke/Mayhew Talks 1991-1992
  3. Committee:Political Structures Sub-Committee
  4. Session: 1992-05-13 10:35:00
  5. Event type: CREATE

Northern Ireland Brooke/Mayhew Talks 1991-1992

WORK IN PROGRESS - IN THE FINAL STAGES OF EDITING A series of talks launched by Peter Brooke, Secretary of State for Northern in Ireland, which began in April 1991, and were carried on intermittently by Brooke and his successor, Patrick Mayhew, until November 1992.

Political Structures Sub-Committee

Editor's Note: This sub-Committee was initially commissioned by the Plenary to discuss proposals for new political structures in Northern Ireland. By 26 May, the Talks have run into difficulty and the Business Committee sets a fresh agenda and terms of reference for the sub-Committee. It is asked to focus on the impasse in the Talks, and it is agreed that minutes will not be taken or papers circulated beyond the membership of the sub-Committee and the Party Leaders. As there appears to be continuity within the Committee rather than a complete reconstitution, we model the sessions from 27 May as being part of the same sub-Committee. Records for this later period are, however, more scarce since formal minutes were no longer produced.

The Committee Secretary's View The Committee Secretary's View

To see the full record of a committee, click on the corresponding committee on the map below.

Document introduced in:

Session 11463: 1992-05-13 10:35:00

Document View:

Structures Sub-Committee Minutes SC2

There are 0 proposed amendments related to this document on which decisions have not been taken.

Ref: SC/2

STRUCTURES SUB-COMMITTEE MEETING: 12 MAY 1992

Government Team

Mr Hanley

Mr Fell

Mr Bell

Mr Hill

Talks Secretariat

Mr Priestly

Also present

Mr Smyth

Alliance

Mr Morrow

Mr Close

Mr McBride

SDLP

Mr Haughey

Mr Farren

Mr Durkan

UDUP

Mr Robinson

Mr Vitty

Mr Wilson

UUP

Mr Cunningham

Mr Empey

Mr Donaldson

The meeting began at 10.30am and concluded at 11.40am.

1. The Government Team opened by welcoming the party delegations and expressing gratitude for the work that had been undertaken by the parties on their proposals. The Government Team expressed concern that the media had obtained accurate information on the Talks proceedings, and reminded the parties of the confidentiality rule that had been agreed by all concerned.

2. The Government Team outlined the business before the Committee. It was proposed that the Committee should commence its consideration of each set of proposals in order to clarify them and explore their implications. In doing so, the Committee should seek to identify the common areas and also the areas of disagreement. It was also proposed that the Committee should take stock at the end of the day on progress made and the way forward.

3. The SDLP delegation agreed that the session should be devoted to exploring the proposals and their implications, and reaffirmed that the Sub-Committee's role should be to report back to the Plenary Session on common areas and areas of disagreement. They felt betrayed and let down by the SDLP proposals which they did not believe conformed to the Common Themes and Common Principles documents agreed previously. They also believed it offended against the spirit of the 26 March statement although they accepted the Secretary of State's ruling on the matter. They were prepared to engage in meaningful discussions in order to narrow and, if possible, bridge the political divide but were concerned that the SDLP did not seem prepared to negotiate. This made the DUP's position difficult: they would not be able to show flexibility in discussions.

4. The Government Team believed that clarification was necessary at this stage, not detailed negotiation. It would, however, be helpful for each delegation to put forward its views on the unacceptability of any proposals. It was important that each party delegation should be aware of the strength of opinion against any of its proposals. By discussion and clarification the areas of agreement and disagreement could be exposed. The Committee agreed to proceed on this basis.

Alliance Party Proposals

5. The Alliance delegation presented its proposals, and was questioned by the other parties. The UUP and DUP delegations noted that Alliance proposed to exclude parties which support the use of violence from participation in the Executive, and asked whether that would also apply to the proposed Committee Structure. The Alliance delegation replied that it would be difficult in current circumstances to exclude supporters of violence from the Committee Structure because of the proportionality rule; however, if legislation were brought forward to that end it would find support from the Alliance Party.

6. The DUP delegation accepted that the Alliance proposals broadly met the agreed Common Principles, but expressed doubts that the proposals would meet the principles of acceptability, durability and stability. They believed that any new structures should be capable of accommodating differences, be widely acceptable, stable and durable, but did not believe the Alliance proposals would achieve this.

7. The SDLP delegation agreed that the Alliance proposals were likely in practice to be unstable and that the proposed system was capable of being paralysed by the unwillingness of parties to work it. The Alliance Party responded that the problem would face any system that was proposed. The SDLP did not believe a traditional cabinet style executive would work in present circumstances. In terms of the practical realities of Northern Ireland today, they could not accept that these arrangements would work. The party had taken part in this type of system in the past and it had not worked.

8. The SDLP delegation asked what would happen if the 70% acceptability test was not met in the Assembly. The Alliance delegation said that in such circumstances it would be necessary to have another attempt at agreement by selecting a new executive. If it did not pass the acceptability test in the Assembly then fresh elections should be called. The SDLP and UUP delegations said that such a system would fail the durability test. There was a need to develop enduring systems and structures which would not be capable of being triggered into crisis by events.

TALKS SECRETARIAT

Decisions yet to be taken

None

Document Timeline

Other Actions

View text build components