- 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.
Office of the Strand 1 Chairman (British Government Delegation)
In order to adequately reflect the role of the Chairman and his staff in re-drafting documents and controlling the flow of information during bilateral negotiations, we are representing them as a separate committee. In contrast to other Quill negotiations, in these Talks much of the actual work of negotiation and making proposals took place in bilateral meetings between the Chairman and the party delegations. The minutes of these sessions have been preserved in the same format as the minutes of the plenary sessions, and the sessions are modelled from the minutes as separate Committees (British Government/Alliance Bilaterals, etc.). The Chairman would move between these meetings, reporting on the positions of the other delegations and trying to reach accommodation. It is beyond the scope of the current project to model all the internal government meetings which took place during the Talks (although documentation for at least some of them exists in the National Archives), but we can draw on evidence within the sources we are using to show that proposals and agendas for the bilaterals were agreed within the Government team. For example, in a particular round of meetings, the Chairman will open the meeting with a near-identical agenda and summary of the current position of the other parties. To adequately model the fact that the flow of ideas between the delegations was filtered by the Chairman in this way, we have set up a committee called the 'Office of the Chairman' to show the conclusions of each bilateral discussion passing through the Chairman's Office and being redrafted before being passed on to the next delegation.
To see the full record of a committee, click on the corresponding committee on the map below.
Session 14258: 1992-06-15 09:00:00
The Secretary of State exchanges letters with Dr Paisley prior to the Strand 2 agenda-setting meeting.
Document View:
Letter from Dr Paisley (15 June 1992)
Ulster Democratic Unionist Party
15 May 1992
[Editor's Note: 'Dear Sec of State' written by hand.]
I have had the opportunity to reflect upon the events of Thursday and Friday and feel it necessary to protest about the way my delegation and I have been treated. Neither you nor anyone at the table can challenge the commitment of my party to the Talks process nor question in any way the measure of my leadership in bringing them to their present stage.
It seems to me that when the SDLP expresses reservations HMG offers understanding and seeks to accommodate them; when the SDLP reaches agreements and undertakings (as they have done several times in sub-Committee) and later retreats from them there has been no open admonition of them or pressure from HMG for them to cease from their obstructionist course. It angers me that having continually gone the second mile to keep the process alive, when I enter my first reservation and request some little time to consider and consult about the content and implications of the Friday evening statement, I am reproved, reproached and rail-roaded.
At first I could not understand why, when logistically other parties to the process were not at the starting blocks (and could not be for at least a week), it was necessary to take decisions at 10pm on Friday, particularly as you had said, in front of my delegation, that we should quietly consider these matters and return on Monday. It only became clear to me later that the great rush to secure agreement on the text of the document was to maintain the future involvement of the SDLP. Dr Alderdice informed us on Friday that the SDLP had considered not attending on that day "and if they left the building they would not be back". I can only presume the change in programme from that which you put to me and my colleagues was occasioned by the same consideration. Whatever caused your change of direction I must state, as emphatically and clearly as I can, that I am advising my delegates, at further meetings they are not to allow themselves or commit me, to decision-taking which is time-limited. This will be my guiding principle from now on. This may cause inconvenience, but I will not take decisions under duress and without due consideration. At the end of this process I will be expected to secure the support of my community for any agreement that has been reached I can only do that if I am content that decisions taken have been properly considered and are in the best interests of my people.
I am not unmindful of the role you have to perform but I will not hide from you the hurt I feel by the way I was bulldozed last Friday and the way others sought to exploit my difficulties. This is made worse by my experience at the talks that Mr Hume or the SDLP have never been treated in such a way. I protest in the strongest possible manner that because the SDLP threaten to leave and Mr Hume wants to leave on Monday for Europe that the timetable must be rushed through accordingly.
While I am not withdrawing the endorsement I gave to the mechanism outlined in the statement (which I hope your Officials will have fully incorporated in the Minutes of the Plenary Meeting) I do repeat my reservations about the procedure that has been mapped out. In my letter to you of Friday last I laid out once again the condition that must be met before my Party will enter Strand 2. This condition has not yet been met and my endorsement of the Friday Statement is by way of my going the second mile once again, to allow the SDLP to catch up with the rest of the parties on the Strand 1 sub-Committee Report.
I must put on the record that the only reason for the proposal to have an informal meeting to seek to suggest the agenda for talks in Strand 2 was on the request of Mr Hume. He stated that if on the Agenda of Strand 2 there was to be an opportunity for him to ascertain whether he would be able to deal with his problems of identity then he would be able to withdraw his reservations on the document that the other parties agreed for institutions of government within Northern Ireland. In the discussions with him the unionists said that they would tell him honestly if agenda items he wanted could be negotiated in a way to meet his objections or not. Then he would be in a position to withdraw his reservations or continue to oppose the general agreement of the other three parties. On the other hand the unionists were keen to have Strand 3 commenced so that for their part they could see clearly demonstrated the attitude of HMG to Articles 2 & 3 of the Republic's constitution and the South's intention to try and destroy the Union as set out in the Government of Ireland Act 1920. These matters were clearly stated before you and agreed by all the Party Leaders.
My recommendation to my delegates was limited to the meetings referred to in your statement in the context set out above and in no way should be interpreted as a signal that the DUP is either stepping or sliding into Strand 2. It will therefore be absolutely necessary for the SDLP to withdraw its reservations or HMG to express commitment to the worked-up structures of the sub-Committee Report before my Party will move to Strand 2. If through the meetings outlined in the Statement, the SDLP or HMG do not indicate commitment to the sub-Committee Report (including those elements that are presently not universally agreed) and there is no progress made on Articles 2 & 3 then the process will be dead-locked.
I hope the SDLP can join the other three Northern Ireland parties and apply itself to reaching agreements rather than tossing-in reservations, otherwise the process will break down. I must confess that I find it difficult to comprehend how the nature and purpose of the three meetings referred to in the statement will lead to the SDLP being able to conclude that its reservations should be lifted. Yet I will not deny the opportunity for it to occur should that be possible.
In Friday's statement there is reference to three meetings, two of which (a) a meeting to discuss a possible agenda for Strand 2, and (b) a meeting in Strand 3 formulation. What are the terms of reference going to be for the meetings? How many delegates from each party will be able to attend and how long will the meetings be scheduled to last? What about the matter of Sir Ninian's briefing and the undertaking that all parties to the talks would have in their possession the briefings of the two governments to him? The two governments are already in a privileged position regarding Sir Ninian and if he is going to be a neutral chairman the promise about his briefings from the government must be kept. It is urgent that we have answers immediately to these questions before we can respond to the invitations to attend the proposed meetings. I shall inform you of the outcome of my consultations with my colleagues shortly.
[Editor's Note: 'Sincerely Ian R. K. Paisley' written by hand.]
Dr Ian R K Paisley MP MEP
[Leader Democratic Unionist Party]
Decisions yet to be taken
- Letter from Dr Paisley (15 June 1992) (introduced on 1992-06-15 09:00:00 - CREATE - e899204) [This document]
Document Timeline
- Letter from Dr Paisley (15 June 1992) (introduced on 1992-06-15 09:00:00 - CREATE - e899204) [This document] [view current proposal at this moment]