POSSIBLE INTRODUCTION TO A FORMAL PROPOSAL TO LAUNCH THE LATER STRANDS OF THE TALKS

1. Glad to see colleagues round the table. [As you know, there have been exchanges between the parties during the course of the day and I have benefited from the opportunity to consult the party leaders.]

2. It is now necessary to determine how best to proceed, conscious of the very great desire in the community that the path of political dialogue should be kept open and pursued with the greatest possible commitment. We must also be conscious that this talks process retains great potential which has yet to be fully exploited. As my predecessor indicated on 26 March 1991, the talks could produce "a new beginning for relationships within Northern Ireland, within the island of Ireland and between the peoples of these islands". The structure of the talks provides a basis on which all concerned can participate in and influence discussion of all the relevant issues without loss of principle and without prejudice to their essential political interests. It provides a framework within which all the participants in the talks could gain. The prizes we are striving to reach include greater political stability within Northern Ireland based on the establishment of a wide consensus in support of new political institutions; greater local democratic accountability for the day-to-day business of government in Northern Ireland; a new, productive and mutually beneficial relationship between the two parts of Ireland; a new and more broadly based agreement or structure in place of the existing Anglo-Irish Agreement; and an agreement on the constitutional issues which could remove a major source of suspicion and mistrust and confront the terrorists with the absurdity of their pretensions to have some philosophical justification for their actions.

3. These are prizes which we should not lightly forego. I am conscious, as I know are others around the table, of the need to make a correct judgment as to the best way to proceed.

4. When we last met around this table, on 12 June, I was able to make a statement which described the widespread agreement which existed on what the next steps in the talks process should be. There were three elements;

- first, that the Strand 1 Sub-Committee should be invited to continue its work, concentrating in particular on the points listed in paragraph 8 of the Sub-Committee report of 10 June. A supplementary report was duly produced by the evening of 16 June for which I believe the Sub-Committee deserves our thanks. I trust we can now formally take note of it.

- Second, that Sir Ninian Stephen should be invited to convene a meeting the following week to which he would invite representatives of the two Government and of the four Northern Ireland political parties participating in the talks to discuss a possible agenda for Strand 2 of the talks. That meeting was duly held on 19 June and completed consideration of a possible agenda for Strand 2. We all owe a debt of gratitude to Sir Ninian for the way in which he chaired that meeting, and the possible agenda it produced – while it has yet to be ratified – has helped to illustrate the pattern of discussion which might be expected in Strand 2.

- Third, that the two Governments should hold a meeting in Strand 3 formation which observers from each of the parties would be invited to attend for at least part of the time, to give preliminary consideration to the issues likely to arise in that strand. That meeting took place yesterday. The two Governments give preliminary consideration to the issues, took careful note of the views of each of the parties and agreed a framework for substantive discussion in Strand 3, including an agenda.

5. What, then, are the next steps in the talks process?

6. It is argued that there is an insufficient level of agreement on the issues for discussion in Strand 1 to justify any formal proposal to launch the later strands of discussion. I must recall, however, that it is for me to judge when the appropriate moment to make such a proposal has arrived. The 26 March 1991 statement requires me to consult[, which I have done,]. It is silent on what test I should apply; though of course I have been conscious of the background to the development of the 26 March text and of the differing expectations which lay behind it.

7. That said, I should note that the level of agreement which has been reached is not inconsiderable. We have agreed a number of Common Themes and a set of Common Principles which all agree should be the criteria against which any proposed arrangements should be judged. We also agreed a number of statements relevant to the need to protect, respect and express the identities of those from each of the main traditions within the community in Northern Ireland. A certain measure of agreement on new political institutions was recorded in the Sub-Committee report of 13 May. A number of other important principles were acknowledged in the further Sub-Committee reported noted by plenary on 1 June. The Possible Outline Framework for new political institutions in Northern Ireland which was first considered by plenary on 3 June indicated a wider and higher level of provisional and conditional agreement. The Sub-Committee report of 10 June further expanded the amount of common ground, clearly identified the areas of disagreement and reached a measure of agreement on a range of other matters, especially the future relationship between any new political institutions in Northern Ireland and the Westminster Parliament. That was supplemented, as I have mentioned, by the further Sub-Committee report of 16 June.

8. It is clear we are not collectively able to move towards a greater degree of consensus on new political institutions for Northern Ireland at this stage. It is, however, my judgment that developments in the other strands of the talks would enable one party or another to shift its position and enable further progress towards full agreement on arrangements for the government of Northern Ireland.

9. Against that background, it may be helpful if I say something about the attitude of Her Majesty's Government to the Strand I sub-Committee report, largely repeating what the Permanent Secretary, Mr Chilcot, said during the meeting to discuss a possible agenda for Strand II, on 19 June.

10. HMG, for its part, would be willing to facilitate the implementation of the institutional arrangements outlined in the sub-Committee report of 10 June, including those aspects not at present universally agreed, if, but only if, they came in the light of further exchanges in the Talks, whether in Strand I or in other strands, to attract the support of all four parties. Equally, if as a result of further exchanges during the Talks a different, modified or alternative set of proposed institutional arrangements were to gain the support of all the parties, the Government would give those arrangements very serious examination, and would be ready in principle to consider implementing them. I cannot say that HMG would implement any such alternative proposals because it is not clear what any such alternative proposals would look like. In short, were there to be any convergence on the proposals outlined in the sub-Committee report, the Government would see no difficulty in implementing them; but its mind is not closed to alternatives.

11. As to the basis for entering Strand II, I can say on behalf of the Government that unless and until the four parties agree on a different approach, we take the view that discussions in Strand II are likely to take place on the premise that any new political institutions in Northern Ireland would be based on the structures outlined in the sub-Committee report. The Government is ready to enter discussions in Strand II on that basis, not having at this stage a basis in any of the proposals in the form originally submitted by any of the parties in Strand I because none of those can be regarded as having sufficient general support.

12. [It might be helpful for me to comment on one particular point mentioned in the sub-Committee report of 10 June, which has been raised with me today, namely the establishment of a Northern Ireland Select Committee. In principle, I welcome Select Committee scrutiny of the work of the NIO and the Northern Ireland Departments and we facilitate the preparation of reports on Northern Ireland matters by the existing Departmental Select Committees. I believe it is a good thing that all the parties' proposals for new political institutions in Northern Ireland envisage close scrutiny by Departmentally-related Assembly Committees of the work of the Northern Ireland Departments. The proposal has been made that there could be more effective scrutiny by the Westminster Parliament of the discharge of the continuing responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if there were a single territorial Select Committee on Northern Ireland. The Government has formally reserved its position on that but I can confirm to you now that in the context of a comprehensive political accommodation, the Government would certainly be willing to consider the proposal positively and to give it support in the House of Commons.]

13. Another point which has been raised with me is that the provisional agendas for Strands II and III might not be sufficiently clear or comprehensive; and that the Government's own views on the issues which might be raised have not been fully revealed. As to the first point, I have studied both draft agendas and the texts of the various statements made while they were being drawn up, and I do not think that criticism stands up. Both agendas are wide enough to enable a full discussion of all the relevant issues within the general remit for each strand of discussion set by the 26 March statement. In any event neither agenda is likely to act in a restrictive way.

14. As to the second point, concerning HMG's own views, it has often been proved sensible in negotiations not to reveal one's full negotiating position too early. On the particular point of concern to some around this table, I do not wish to go further than saying that I believe it is in everyone's interest that the Talks process as a whole should achieve an unambiguous consensus on the constitutional issues and produce a framework for relationships which will be genuinely acceptable to all the Talks participants and to the people. That there are now different views on whether such a consensus is to be found is both undeniable and unsurprising; it is why we need to talk. But I do not believe such a consensus to be beyond our grasp.

15. I have reflected deeply on the position which has been reached in the Talks and on the points made to me by the party leaders [and other delegates]. My conclusion is that there is no more work to be done in Strand I at present, though in due course there certainly will be, and that the most constructive route forward is to build on the work done in the preparatory meetings for Strands II and III and to move forward into those strands of discussion. I therefore now formally propose that the later strands of discussion should be launched.

16. I will communicate the fact that I have made this proposal to the Irish Government and to Sir Ninian Stephen whose responsibility it now is to convene the opening meeting in Strand II. I should be happy to discuss my reasoning, my position on the various points I have mentioned and how I see matters developing, either around the table or with the party leaders or party delegations, individually or collectively, but I also intend to announce by the end of the afternoon that I have formally proposed the launch of the later strands of the Talks.

• Possible Introduction to a Formal Proposal to Launch the Later Strands of the Talks (introduced on 1992-07-01 09:00:00 - CREATE - e932909) [This document]

• Possible Introduction to a Formal Proposal to Launch the Later Strands of the Talks (introduced on 1992-07-01 09:00:00 - CREATE - e932909) [This document] [view current proposal at this moment]