Do you want to go straight to a particular resource? Use the Jump Tool and follow 2 steps:
This can usually be found in the top hero section of overview, delegations visualize, session visualize, event visualize, commentary collection, commentary item, resource collection, and resource item pages.
Enter the shortcut code for the page that you wish to search for.
These documents were scanned, collated and catalogued by Ruth Murray, Annabel Harris, Isha Pareek, Eleanor Williams, Antoine Yenk, Harriet Carter, Oliver Nicholls, Kieran Wetherwick, and Cerys Griffiths.
Collection associations (0)
None
Already have an account? Login here
Don't have an account? Register here
Forgot your password? Click here to reset it
None
None
Copyright
None
Physical Copy Information
None
Digital Copy Information
None
{I want to keep a full file of these for reference.}
CONFIDENTIAL
From: D A Lavery Central Secretariat 13 June 1996 cc PS/Secretary of State (B&L) -B PS/Sir John Wheeler (B&L) -B PS/Michael Ancram (B&L) -B PS/Baroness Denton (B&L) -B PS/Mr Moss (B&L) -B PS/PUS (B&L) -B PS/Sir David Fell -B Mr Legge -B Mr Thomas (B&L) -B Mr Bell -B Mr Leach -B Mr Steele -B Mr Watkins -B Mr Beeton -B Mr Hill (B&L) -B Mr Maccabe -B Mr Stephens -B Ms Checksfield -B Ms Harrison (B&L) -B Ms Mapstone -B Mr Whysall (B&L) -B Mrs McNally (B&L) -B HMA Dublin -B Mr Lamont, RID/FCO -B Mr Campbell Bannerman -B
{SofS / I don't intend to put all these records to you, but I thought you might like to see what happened on Wednesday, notably Mitchell's masterly handling of Paisley and McCartney.}
{480/57/96} NOTE FOR THE RECORD
NON-PLENARY MEETING, 11.45AM, 12 JUNE 1996: INT/4
I attach the internal record of Wednesday morning’s non-plenary session. [signed DAL]
D A LAVERY
Ref: INT/4
SUMMARY RECORD OF A NON-PLENARY SESSION HELD AT CASTLE BUILDINGS ON 11 JUNE 1996 _Chairmen_
Senator Mitchell Gen.de Chastelain Mr Holkeri
_Government Team_
Secretary of State Michael Ancram PUS Sir D Fell _Irish Government_
Mrs Owen Mr Teahon Mr O’Higgins _Alliance Party_ Mr Close Mr Neeson Mr McBride
_Labour_ Mr Casey Mr Curran
_Women’s Coalition_
Ms McWilliams Ms Sagar _PUP_ Mr Ervine
_SDLP_
Mr Hume Mr Mallon
_UDP_
Mr McMichael Mr White
_DUP_
Dr Paisley* Mr Robinson*
*In attendance for the second part of the session only.
_UKUP_
Mr McCartney# Mr Wilson#
# In attendance for the final part of the session only.
_UUP_
Mr Trimble Mr Taylor Mr Empey Mr Donaldson
The _first part_ of the session began at 11.45am and adjourned at 11.58am. The _second part_ of the session began at 12.29pm and adjourned at 12.54pm. The _final part_ of the session began at 1.03pm and ended at 1.10pm.
1. _Mr Mitchell_ (in the Chair) welcomed the delegates to the meeting which had been convened in order to determine how the work identified in paragraphs 2 and 5 of the paper ‘A possible approach to resolving procedural difficulties’ (tabled at 00.01am on 12 June 1996) might be taken forward.
2. _Mr McMichael_ sought guidance from the Chair regarding the presence of members of parties which had yet to place on record their total and absolute commitment to the six principles of democracy and non-violence specified in paragraph 20 of the report of the International Body. He pointed out that this could have a bearing on other parties who were not present that morning. He suggested that parties who had yet to subscribe to the six principles should do so before being able to attend or participate in the proceedings. _Mr Curran_ also drew attention to the importance of the issue of confidentiality within the Talks process.
3. _The Chairman_ invited views from the other delegates. _Mr Hume_ said that Mr McMichael had raised an important point the answer to which could set an important precedent so far as other parties were concerned. Similar points were made by _Ms McWilliams_ and _Mr McBride_. _Mr Trimble_ referred to the suggestion that there had been some attempts to contact Dr Paisley and Mr McCartney\, and he requested an up-date on these efforts. _The Chairman_ said he understood that there had been some contact between representatives of HMG and Dr Paisley in an effort to try to find a formula which would resolve matters. For his part\, _the Chairman_ said that he had had a brief conversation with a staff member of the UKUP delegation. Although he did not as yet have an answer regarding either party’s position\, he would hope that matters might become clearer reasonably soon.
4. At that point _Dr Paisley_ and _Mr Robinson_ entered the room and took their seats. _The Chairman_ welcomed Dr Paisley and Mr Robinson to the meeting and indicated that the other parties present had the previous evening confirmed their total and absolute commitment to the six principles of democracy and non-violence specified in paragraph 20 of the report of the International Body (which the Chairman then read out). He invited Dr Paisley’s party to join the proceedings by giving a similar commitment.
5. _Dr Paisley_ referred to the statement in the House of Commons by Mr Robinson on behalf of the DUP confirming that party’s support for the principles of democracy and non-violence specified in paragraph 20 of the report of the International Body. _Dr Paisley_ preceded this statement with a general criticism to the effect that some aspects of the current proceedings were a “charade” in view of the conduct of some of the parties who had purported to subscribe to the principles of democracy and non-violence. He concluded his remarks by expressing a wish to see the Government of the Republic of Ireland endorsing the constitutional position of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom. Interestingly\, although for the most part he referred to Senator Mitchell as “Sir”\, on at least one occasion Dr Paisley did address him as “Chairman”.
6. _The Chairman_ said that he took Dr Paisley’s remarks as amounting to a sufficient subscription to the principles of democracy and non-violence specified in paragraph 20 of the report of the International Body. He indicated that at the reconvened plenary session (on Wednesday 19 June) he would have a statement to that effect read into the record.
7. _The Chairman_ then announced a short adjournment (at 11.58am) in order to ascertain the position of the UKUP delegation.
8. The _second part_ of the session began at 12.29pm.
9. _The Chairman_ began the reconvened session by stating that the record should reflect that no representative of the UKUP was present. He said that he hoped that further discussions might help to resolve matters.
10. _The Chairman_ then proceeded to initiate a discussion of the manner of conducting the business identified in paragraphs 2 and 5 of the paper of 12 June 1996. He said that these paragraphs called upon the participants to proceed to consider the procedural guidelines and also the agenda for the opening Plenary session. He reminded the delegates that the opening Plenary session had been adjourned until 12 noon on Wednesday 19 June. This left relatively little time for this work to be transacted in view of the commitments others had at Parliament and at the Forum. He therefore suggested for discussion the following possible way of proceeding:
(a) each participating delegation to nominate up to 2 persons to represent their delegation in this work. The persons nominated should have sufficient authority to be able to take decisions on behalf of their delegation; (b) _although no single set of rules was currently before the session_, two papers had been referred to: _the procedural guidelines_ circulated by the two Governments on 6 June 1996, and also _the Strand 2 rules fr_om the 1992 Talks; (c) the parties should provide a written submission of their views on the matters to be considered. These submissions to be available by 5.00pm on Friday 14 June. The staff would prepare _a package of submission papers_ for distribution on Monday 17 June when the meeting would reconvene at _10.00_am, in smaller numbers as proposed, in order to prepare a report for consideration at the resumed Plenary session.
11. _The Chairman_ invited comments on this proposed way of proceeding.
12. _Mr Mallon_ sought clarification of the Chairman’s reference to “Strand 2” rules. He further sought clarification whether the relevant aspects of the 1992 rules had been incorporated in the procedural guidelines issued by the two Governments on 6 June 1996. _The Chairman_ confirmed that it was his understanding that there was a degree of overlap\, but said he had noted some differences between the version of the 1992 rules which had been in circulation the previous day and the procedural guidelines issued by the two Governments on 6 June 1996. _Mr Empey_ explained that the UUP had circulated draft rules which incorporated some features of the 1992 rules. _Michael Ancram_ said that for ease of reference copies of the 1992 rules could be circulated to the delegates. _The Chairman_ agreed with this suggestion.
13. _Mr Donaldson_ referred to the fact that paragraphs 2 and 5 of the paper of 12 June 1996 referred to the agenda for the opening Plenary session and sought clarification as to whether the parties would be expected to make submissions in relation to the agenda as well as the procedural guidelines. _The Chairman_ confirmed that this was the intention. _Mr Mallon_ sought clarification that the agenda referred to was the agenda for the opening Plenary session. _The Chairman_ confirmed this.
14. There followed a discussion regarding the mechanics of circulating the parties’ papers prior to the reconvened session on Monday 17 June. Several delegates\, including _Mr Close_ and _Mr Mallon_ suggested that it would be helpful if the package of papers could be available for consideration during the weekend. In response\, the Chairman suggested that the parties should have their written submissions available by 3.00pm on Friday in order to be available for collection at 5.00pm that day.
15. _Mrs Owen_ referred to the fact that the drafts jointly issued by the two Governments on 6 June 1996 had resulted from extensive joint work. It was the Irish Government’s intention that this would be the material which they would wish to submit for consideration.
16. _Mr Donaldson_ sought confirmation that the work beginning on Monday was not confined to making suggestions regarding the drafts issued by the two Governments. Each party would be free to make its own submissions both for procedural guidelines and the agenda. _The Chairman_ confirmed this approach and stated that the parties would be free both to make their own proposals and also to comment on the proposals made by other parties.
{testing for the clean sheet of paper yes!}
17. There followed a discussion regarding the practicability of confining the parties to 2 representatives for purposes of the discussions beginning on Monday. _Mr Ervine_ said that requiring the parties to submit the names of 2 representatives would effectively use up all of his party’s resources. He suggested that the parties might be allowed to nominate 3 persons of whom 2 might be present at any one time to participate in the discussions. This suggestion was supported by _Mr Mallon_ and by _Mr Donaldson_. _The Chairman_ indicated that this proposal was accepted.
18. As efforts were still being made to resolve the position of the UKUP\, _the Chairman_ called for a short adjournment at 12.54pm.
19. The _final part_ of the session began at 1.03pm with both _Mr McCartney_ and _Mr Wilson_ in their seats.
20. _The Chairman_ welcomed Mr McCartney and Mr Wilson and explained that each of the parties\, including the DUP\, had confirmed their total and absolute commitment to the principles of democracy and non-violence specified in paragraph 20 of the report of the International Body (which the Chairman proceeded to read out). He then asked whether the UKUP also wished to do so.
21. _Mr McCartney_ (at all times addressing Senator Mitchell as “Sir”) stated that he had no difficulty in personally subscribing to these principles. He said that he also asked the Chairman to accept that there was an even more fundamental right – that of a majority of a community to determine the constitutional status of their own state. It was his understanding that both Governments had accepted this principle. Mr McCartney continued by expressing surprise that some of the parties who had sought to raise as a technicality the ability of other parties to subscribe to the principles of democracy and non-violence were themselves fronting organisations which were a byword for graft and corruption.
22. _The Chairman_ said that his colleague\, General de Chastelain\, had noted Mr McCartney’s use of the word “personally” when confirming that he had no difficulty in subscribing to the principles of democracy and non-violence. The Chairman asked for confirmation that this commitment extended also to his party. _Mr McCartney_ confirmed that this was his intention.
23. _The Chairman_ thanked Mr McCartney for his contribution and stated that this represented the requisite commitment to the principles of democracy and non-violence. It was his intention that at the reconvened Plenary session on Wednesday 19 June a formal statement would be read into the record to the effect that the UKUP had made a total and absolute commitment to these principles. _Mr McCartney_ then sought permission to withdraw from the session in view of other commitments. _The Chairman_ indicated that he was content\, and Mr McCartney and Mr Wilson withdrew.
24. _The Chairman_ concluded the session by asking the parties to ensure that their written submissions on the procedural guidelines and the agenda for the opening Plenary session should be with his staff (in Room B5.07) by 3.000pm on Friday. The packages of papers submitted by the parties would be available for collection at 5.00pm on Friday. The Chairman also reminded the parties that they should now submit the names of up to 3 representatives any 2 of whom would be able to attend the discussions which would commence at 10.00am on Monday 17 June.
25. _The Chairman_ formally adjourned the session at 1.10pm.
[Signed DAL]
D A LAVERY 13 June 1996 SC Ext 28196 LM/DL/307 CONFIDENTIAL
27 1987 - 1990
38 1993
55 1990 - 1991
64 1993 - 1997
26 1993
57 1993
59 1993
51 1993
18 1993
24 1993 - 1994
41 1993 - 1994
32 1993 - 1994
72 1993 - 1994
8 1989 - 1990
76 1993 - 1994
1 1994
60 1993
65 1993
37 1993
54 1993
32 1993
77 1993
59 1993
49 1993
61 1991 - 1992
38 1991
48 1992 - 1993
134 1993 - ?-??
59 1993 - 1993
84 1993
64 1991
42
9
31 1996 - 1996
61 196 - 1996
49 1996 - 1996
20 1996 - 1997
32 1996 - 1996
14 1996 - 1996
74 1996 - None
4 1996 - 1996
8 1996 - 1996
30 1996 - 1996
7 1996 - 1996
24 1996 - 1996
9 1996 - 1996
59 1996 - 1996
60 1996 - 1996
14 1996 - 1997
41 1996 - 1996
45 1996 - 1996
67 1996 - 1996
16 1996 - 1996
1996-06-13
This is an internal record of three informal meetings to discuss procedural guidelines and the agenda on 12 June 1996. It is misdated 11 June 1996. The meeting convened to discuss the 'A possible approach to resolving procedural difficulties' paper. The DUP and UKUP were ultimately persuaded to attend the meeting and affirm their commitment to the Mitchell principles. The chairmen requested the parties to submit written views on the rules of procedure.
No Associations
N/A
Unless otherwise specified, this material falls under Crown Copyright and contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
The National Archives of the UK (TNA), digitzed by the Quill Project at https://quillproject.net/resource_collections/351/.