[Editor's Note: This letter is on headed paper marked Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and 'Confidential'. The salutation and the signature are by hand in Peter Brooke's own handwriting. There are two copies of the letter, one which addresses 'Jim' first; the other addresses 'Ian' first.]

Rt Hon J H Molyneaux JP MP

& Rev Dr I R K Paisley MP MEP

House of Commons

LONDON SWlA 0AA

16 May 1991

Dear Jim and Ian,

Thank you for your letter of 16 May in reply to mine of the same date.

You asked on Tuesday to see the Prime Minister to discuss the constitutional implications of an independent chairman: as you know, I advised the Prime Minister to see you, knowing the significance of the issue in Northern Ireland. There was no way he could see you before 10.00 am on Wednesday 15 May, and you said you would give him your answer.

During your meeting with the Prime Minister and myself yesterday afternoon I said that I should need to inform the other participants of the basis of your acceptance of the arrangements detailed in my paper of 14 May. You did not challenge this.

I spoke to you both, separately, in the House last night to say that today I would send you a draft of what we understood your position to be so that we could ensure that we passed on an accurate version to the other parties. Our concern was that we should not inadvertently misrepresent your position. Again, you did not challenge this intention.

Accordingly, I wrote to you this morning with a brief note setting out my understanding of your position. The nature of your reply this afternoon, and the terms in which it is

expressed, cause me great surprise since they do not reflect our agreement on the next steps.

As you know, we have made progress over the past fifteen months only on the basis that each of us understood clearly at each step in the process what were the areas of agreement which had been reached. This proces culminated in both Governments and all four political parties giving their assent to the statement I made on 26 March.

That statement made it clear that we are involved in discussing three sets of relationships in three Strands all of which are interrelated. Strand 1 is not divorced from Strands 2 and 3, as the Prime Minister made clear.

For all the reasons discussed with the Prime Minister we need to sustain this talks process if we possibly can. We can do that with credibility and confidence only if we have a common understanding of where we are at each step of the way.

The position you expressed in yesterday's discussions was qualified in a way that that of the other participants was not: you were not able to accept the way forward which I had proposed in the unreserved terms they did. Consequently I have to see if they are prepared to proceed on the basis you were able to accept. To do that we need to be agreed as to what the terms of that are.

I set out my understanding of those terms in my letter earlier today. I should be grateful if you would let me know, at your earliest convenience, whether you are content that I should seek to move the process forward on the basis of that summary. Given your views, no other basis currently exists. Without your endorsement of that summary, therefore, I cannot fairly ask others to go forward.

After all we have been through together, I should regret it if this were the end of these talks.

Yours sincerely,

Peter Brooke

PB

I am faxing a copy of this to the homes of each of you.

[Editor's Note: This final sentence is handwritten.]

CONFIDENTIAL

• Bilateral Exchange Of Letters: Secretary Of State Reply To Unionist Leaders 16 May 1991 (introduced on 1991-05-16 09:00:00 - CREATE - e950231) [This document]

• Bilateral Exchange Of Letters: Secretary Of State Reply To Unionist Leaders 16 May 1991 (introduced on 1991-05-16 09:00:00 - CREATE - e950231) [This document] [view current proposal at this moment]