Quill
  1. Overview: Northern Ireland Brooke/Mayhew Talks 1991-1992
  2. Full Record: Northern Ireland Brooke/Mayhew Talks 1991-1992
  3. Committee:British-SDLP Talks
  4. Session: 1992-10-28 15:00:00
  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.

British-SDLP Talks

Dates of meetings created from source material, but records of discussions not currently available to us.

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 13115: 1992-10-28 15:00:00

Meeting between Government Team and an SDLP delegation.

Document View:

Conclusions of the Bilateral SDLP 28 October 1992 PM

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

Conclusions of the Bilateral SDLP 28 October 1992 PM

The position of the SDLP can be thus summarised:

- There would be a hierarchy of decision making levels which at the lower level might allow Heads of Department (or members of a Commission) to act autonomously in agreement with their Irish counterparts without referral back to either legislature. There would be a notion of collectivity which would bind Heads of Department both in relation to their colleagues and their Irish counterparts with whom they would form a Council of Ministers.

- Heads of Department would not act in isolation from their respective legislative basis. The SDLP envisaged discussion before, and consultation after, any meeting with Ministers from the Republic. There would also be a permanent Secretariat which would have initiation powers similar to the European Commission, and could promote policies for approval by the Council of Ministers. The SDLP were not adverse, after discussion, to the possible need for liaison arrangement and also acknowledged the different interpretations phrases like "institutions with a life of their own" were capable of, and the danger that Unionists would be scared off by them.

- The Council of Ministers envisaged by the SDLP would meet on a regular basis to address the whole horizon of North/South issues. It could, where appropriate, issue directives on the EC model with full legislative force, though would only be able to act on the basis of unanimity. Directives would also not be able to cover areas which involved resource allocation. They would deal with issues of co-operation, possibly of harmonisation of practices (as long they did not require a legislative base), and could have powers to introduce subordinate legislation whether in the form of regulations or codes of practice.

The SDLP was encouraged to explain the full basis of their proposals so as to avoid possible misunderstandings with the Unionists.

Further questioning and discussion took place:

- The SDLP's attention was drawn to the intrinsic relationship of Strands I and II. Whether referral to the legislature was to a Commission or to an Assembly would make an enormous difference to the way the UUP saw their proposals. Strand I therefore needed to be re-addressed as a matter of priority, though the SDLP were reluctant to engage.

- The SDLP recognised that their proposals on powers for North/South institutions might involve a constitutional amendment for the Irish Government, but argued this could be wrapped up with the change to Articles 2 and 3 where an agreement needs to be reached. The SDLP also envisaged a North/South inter-Parliamentary body which would have the power to meet with the Council of Ministers, ask them questions, hear reports that they might themselves have instituted or which might come from Heads of Department.

- On the issue of collective responsibility, the SDLP had already come to the view that this would be necessary in both Strands I and II. They were concerned that the UUP had not addressed the issue, and seemed unwilling to sign up to such a proposal on the grounds that it approximated to power-sharing. They believed the UUP wanted to have it both ways, both denying the SDLP any autonomous executive authority either in Strand I or II and yet refusing to be bound in to collective Government.

Decisions yet to be taken

None

Document Timeline

Other Actions

View text build components