Record of a meeting between Patrick Mayhew and the NIWC delegation on 10 June 1996

cc PS/Secretary of State (L+B) PS/Sir John Wheeler (L, B+DFP) PS/Michael Ancram (L, B+DENI) PS/Malcolm Moss (L, DOE+DHSS) PS/Baroness Denton (L, DED+DANI) PS/PUS (L+B) PS/Sir David Fell Mr Thomas (L+B) Mr Bell Mr Legge Mr Leach Mr Steele Mr Watkins Mr Beeton Mr Maccabe Mr Currie Mr Lavery {- Meetings with parties -} Mr Perry Mr Stephens Miss Harrison Ms Checksfield Ms Mapstone Mr Whysall Mr Lamont, RID HMA Dublin Mrs Mc~~Nally~~

File Note

TALKS: DISCUSSION WITH NORTHERN IRELAND WOMEN’S COALITION ON THE EVENING OF 10 JUNE

Once the first pre-plenary had finally broken up, the Secretary of State had the first of his further bilateral consultations, with the NI Women’s Coalition, at 6.50 pm on 10 June.

2. Monica Williams [sic] and Bronagh Hinds did most of the talking. They had a hard headed and realistic assessment of the nature of the impasse: the Ulster Unionists could live with the identity of the Independent Chairman if satisfied about his powers; we should therefore aim to reach agreement on the identity of the Chairmen and agree to look at their powers. (This was of course the deal eventually struck some 30 hours later.) Their basic message was that although they (like the Unionists) wanted to see the process deliver decommissioning\, they felt this was more likely to be achieved with a powerful Chairman in place.

3. They then presented the attached paper. They wanted to foster inclusiveness and\, to that end\, to develop the concept of ‘sufficient consensus’ to give greater weight to the smaller parties\, eg by defining sufficient consensus as requiring the support of a majority of delegations as well as the support of delegations representing majorities in both parts of the community. They urged:

- acceptance of non-elected _alternates_ on committees\, if not plenary;

- that non-elected delegates be allowed to speak at meetings\, even if they did not have ‘voting rights’;

- that committee meetings should be scheduled to facilitate smaller parties. (They made clear that they would expect to be members of _all_ committees which might be established.) Signed

D J R HILL Political Development Team

NORTHERN IRELAND WOMEN’S COALITION SUFFICIENCY OF CONSENSUS INTERPRETATION OF REPRESENTATION

The Northern Ireland Women’s Coalition

Welcomes the search for unanimity indicated in Para 24 of the Ground Rules.
Welcomes that under Para 24 of the Ground Rules any departure from the rule of unanimity is within minimal limits.
Understands from Para 21 of the Procedural Guidelines the application of sufficient consensus will be applied in such a way as to ensure that there is majority acceptance by both of the two main traditions.
Understands from Para 21 of the Procedural Guidelines that the operation of this sufficient consensus will have regard to the political parties voting strengths according to the percentage valid poll.
Welcomes the fact that the relatively equal size of party representation at the Talks not only establishes some equity among interests (rather than sizes of constituency) but creates the possibility of a new dynamic, a different flow and ebb to unblock barriers and achieve progress.
Sees a contradiction between establishing conditions of equity in representation in the negotiations if it can be undermined continually by recourse to voting strength.
Believed that the size of voting strength cannot be ignored, but that a balance needs to be attained between this and accommodation of different interests.
Is concerned that non accommodation will be lasting unless all parties are bound into it and by it.
Refers to Para 20 where sufficient consensus as defined under Para 21 “may” be applied to the Plenary and the Business Committee and “may” be applied in committees and sub-committees, and thus that it also may not be applied.
Calls for the enlargement of the concept of sufficient consensus by the addition of a second definition – ie that sufficient consensus should also mean the necessity to secure the agreement of a set number of parties.
Calls for sufficient consensus to be defined and applied differently at different levels of decision-making (Option 1); or for both of sufficient consensus to be applied in combination at all levels (Option 2).
Option 1. In every meeting and forum except in Plenary Session, sufficient consensus should mean sufficient consensus among the parties, with the operation of a high threshold of 7 or 8 parties. At Plenary level the voting strengths of the parties should be applied as per Para 21 of the Procedural Guidelines.
Option 2. The application of sufficient consensus should mean the achievement of a combination, or double, sufficient consensus. To achieve sufficient consensus at every level and in every forum including Plenary Session a threshold of voting strength and a threshold of parties should be attained; for example 66% of the valid poll and the agreement of 7 or 8 parties.
Believed the benefit of this approach means that the involvement of minority parties is more meaningful, that every party must work to win consensus, that practical lessons about respecting minorities are applied and that as far as is humanly possible all parties are bound into the agreement.
Believed every effort should be made to ensure that parties are able to be represented in Sub-groups and Committees to build a common consensus of all interests throughout the process.
Requests that in the spirit of Para 7 of the Scenario of the Opening Plenary when it refers to “representatives of the two governments and of the political parties,” a flexible interpretation of the word representative should be applied. On occasion it should mean elected representative in the case of final decision-making fora such as the Plenary Sessions. On occasion at lower level discussions it should mean representative of the party to allow the participation of party alternates with appropriate skill and expertise.
Believes this to be necessary to ensure full use of all parties’ expertise and to secure the full involvement and binding in to consensus along the way of minor parties with less elected representatives.

9 JUNE 1996

View Full Transcription

This is a development site

Jump To

Search Results

CJ 4/8792

CJ 4/10648

CJ 4/9296

CJ 4/10484

CJ 4/10647

CJ 4/10560

CJ 4/10562

CJ 4/10572

CJ 4/10894

CJ 4/10946

CJ 4/10947

CJ 4/10972

CJ 4/11016

CJ 4/9243

CJ 4/10957

CJ 4/11312

CJ 4/10482

CJ 4/10649

CJ 4/10650

CJ 4/10487

CJ 4/10651

CJ 4/10483

PREM 19/4255

CJ 4/10486

PREM 19/3823

PREM 19/3405

PREM 19/4254

PREM 19/4264

PREM 19/4263/1

PREM 19/4263/2

CJ 4/9297

CJ 4: Home Office and Northern Ireland Office: Registered Files (NI Series)

PREM 19: Records of the Prime Minister's Office: Correspondence and Papers, 1979-1997

CJ 4/12313

CJ 4/12427/1

PREM 19/5711

CJ 4/12308

CJ 4/12309

PREM 19/5712

CJ 4/12261

CJ 4/12225 [Extract]

CJ 4/12230

CJ 4/12231

CJ 4/12232

CJ 4/12242

Record of a meeting between Patrick Mayhew and the NIWC delegation on 10 June 1996

Writing Peace: The National Archives of the UK (TNA)

CJ 4/12313