This version of Quill is used for testing new features and developmentClick here to view this page on the live site
Jump To
Do you want to go straight to a particular resource? Use the Jump Tool and follow 2 steps:
Look for the pages that have the shortcut code symbol Quill - Jump To Icon (e4242)
Jump To
e4242
You can click this icon to copy the jump to url to that page to your clipboard, ready to paste into emails, notes, documents or research papers as needed.
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.
Retrieving full text, please wait
These papers were digitized by Dr Shelley Deane, Annabel Harris, Isha Pareek, Antoine Yenk, Ruth Murray and Eleanor Williams. We are very grateful to the library and archives staff at Bowdoin College for all their kindness and help in assembling this material, particularly Kat Stefko and Anne Sauer.
SUMMARY RECORD OF INFORMAL DISCUSSIONS ON PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES AND AGENDA FOR PLENARY SESSION - WEDNESDAY 19 JUNE 1996 (21.00)
Those present:
Independent Chairmen
Senator Mitchell
General de Chastelain
Mr Holkeri
Government Teams
British Government
Irish Government
Parties
Alliance Party
Labour Party
Northern Ireland Women's Coalition
Progressive Unionist Party
Social Democratic and Labour Party
Ulster Democratic Party Ulster Democratic Unionist Party
United Kingdom Unionist Party
Ulster Unionist Party
1. The Chairman said that he would resume the meeting with the two speakers which had offered to contribute just before the adjournment, Mr McCartney and Mr McBride. He wanted to make a brief report himself on how best to proceed and he invited comments on his suggestions. He was advised that a series of bilaterals had taken place during the adjournment. The Chairmen did not participate in them. Further bilaterals will occur tomorrow. All parties involved are encouraged to participate. He did not propose to continue with the meeting this evening. Also some of the parties can't be present tomorrow; therefore we won't have a full meeting tomorrow. He will conclude the meeting now and adjourn until Monday at 10.00 when the meeting will resume discussions on the draft rules of procedure on the basis of the compilation document already circulated.
2. The Chairman said that we had got as far as page 3 when the discussion went off on another track. He hoped to complete the review of this document and when it was completed then go on to deal with the agenda. He will not be present on Monday due to other commitments, but he will return on Tuesday afternoon. Mr Holkeri will be in the Chair in the meantime. The Chairman said he had tried to figure out a better way to keep parties informed during the adjournments. There is uncertainty during these periods but people should be informed of what is going on. They will try to work out something so that parties won't be greatly inconvenienced.
3. Mr McCartney said that the thrust of the discussions at the break was how the Ground Rules paper of 16 April and the powers conferred on the Chairman by paras 9-13 of the Scenario paper could be married to the rules of procedure being drafted by the group. It was necessary that these two separate sources of power should not exist in the ether without being tied into rules that applied consistency to the deliberations of the group. He had some further observations on his earlier views of Command paper 3232 containing the Ground Rules. It does not have the authority of an Act of Parliament. It is merely a mode of setting out Government policy and the Government has done that in the Ground Rules. But it is not, he suggested, as Attorney General Gleeson had inferred, that these deliberations are based on a blank sheet of paper and cannot ignore the Ground Rules. The Statute is silent on other procedures in the Ground Rules. It refers to other regulations but that is merely to identify the subject matter of the Statute. It doesn't allow the Government to set powers in stone.
4. Attorney General Gleeson has a curious concept of Parliamentary sovereignty under the British constitution. Parliament is sovereign, but if it exercises its sovereignty in a foolish way, it is not. Mr McCartney referred to Sir Thomas More, Lord Chancellor, challenging Parliament in the absolute sense when he said to his interlocutor Richard Rich “can Parliament make a man a woman” (pace Robert Bolt). Mr Major had said that these would be all-party negotiations and that you can't have talks without all the parties. If that was applied here it would make these not all- party talks because some people are absent. If despotic powers are used to force agreement, that would be a fraud and no citizen would tolerate it. He said that Mr Robinson will deal with the debate on the Bill which will be illuminating. In referring to an attempt by D Wilshire, MP to have the Ground Rules put in an appendix to the Act, Mr McCartney said it showed that the ideas and notions advocated by Attorney General Gleeson are not those which he submitted to be the case.
5. Mr McBride expressed appreciation for the Chairman's comments to try to keep people informed. It was regrettable that we didn't have a Plenary session today as proposed. On the main issue itself, it is correct to say that the Ground Rules do not have the force of law but the Act does and it uses the Ground Rules paper to define the negotiations. Persons could go to court on this issue as the history in Northern Ireland shows frequent recourse to law. A judge would look at the Ground Rules procedures and he felt that we would set them at nought at our peril. It is unfortunate to say that we went off the intended course. He felt it was best to return to deal with the matter in hand.
6. Mr Robinson said it was unfortunate because progress was being made but it was on a false assumption that nothing else would impede the proceedings. However, as regards his consultations, there were none. But he will be present tomorrow and they have been feeling neglected. As to how to make progress, Mr Robinson felt we would need to have a composite document as proposed by Mr Trimble and Mr Empey on the subject. They already proposed those elements of the Ground Rules which they considered to be worth saving. He also thought that the group should have a look at the parked sections of the composite document and the powers of the Chairman.
7. We should also proceed to examine the basis on which we arrived at the present stage. This was on foot of an Act of Parliament which allowed entry through the elective process. Minister Ancram was precise in the House of Commons during the course of debate on the Bill. There was an attempt made by D Wilshire, MP to insert the whole of the Ground Rules as a schedule to the Bill to be helpful to Unionists to amend it. He had argued when moving a new clause to allow Parliament to debate and change and this was also to ensure that it would get Parliamentary approval for the arrangements with the Irish Government. It is of interest what Minister Ancram said at that time and it will raise a question about where the 6 June document came from. Mr Robinson then quoted from Hansard of 22 April 1996 (copy relevant extract attached). The substance of the debate was that in response to a question by Mr Trimble, Minister Ancram said that the Ground Rules were not part of the legislation. Once negotiations take place the parties will conduct their own negotiations and they should not be construed by Statute. All will wish to start on a clear understanding. The Command paper was the British Government's own best judgement and the rules contained therein do not have statutory force because they were not established by Statute. The key message is to be found in para 7 of the paper which referred to the conduct of negotiations being exclusively a matter for those involved in the negotiations.
8. Mr Robinson said that Minister Ancram had also stated that we must be clear before 10 June about procedures. We shouldn't lay hard and fast rules and there was a commitment to proceed on the basis of consultations with the parties before the negotiations take place. Mr Trimble said there were no consultations with the DUP in breach of that promise. The problems that are arising now could have been avoided if they had. The Minister made it clear that there is no legal force in the Ground Rules and it shows that the conduct of the negotiations is exclusively for those around the table. The Command paper exists but it does not have the force of law as to how proceedings are conducted. Elements of it may be included within the rules of procedure and a single composite document is required.
5. There were no other speakers so the Chairman adjourned the meeting until 10.00 on Monday. There will be a series of bilaterals tomorrow. He will take up the question of the rules of procedure at the point where the discussion stopped today. It's up to the participants to set the time for their own bilateral discussions. The Chair is not involved in these negotiations or in organising the meetings. Minister Ancram indicated that he will be available tomorrow for discussions as also did Mr McCartney.
[Signed]
Independent Chairmen Notetakers
24 June 1996
OIC/16
Explore Groupings
Grouping Name
910
48
10
911
48
5
912
48
6
Folder 02: Final Report, 22 January 1996
1605
11996
Folder 34: [Meetings, 16 December 1995–19 January 1996]
1606
471995 - 1996
Mitchell Principles
^
Folders 01-03: Record of Informal Discussions on Rules of Procedure and Opening Agenda, 12 June 1996 to 2 July 1996
43
3
04
114
141996 - 1996
08
119
81997 - 1997
11
123
131996 - 1996
01
113
211996 - 1996
Folders 01-02: Minutes from Strand Two Meetings, 10 July 1997 to 24 March 1998 [Parts 2 and 3 of 3]
44
2
01
355
91997 - 1998
Tab A
358
161997 - 1997
06
367
121997 - 1998
08
370
351997 - 1998
Folder 01: Press Statements by the Independent Chairmen, 6 June 1996 to 30 October 1997
45
221996 - 1997
14
377
311996 - 1996
17
381
201997 - 1997
19
384
351997 - 1998
23
389
711996 - 1997
Multi-Party Talks, 1996–1998
^
Folders 04-06: Minutes from Opening Plenary Sessions, 12 June 1996 to 30 October 1996
43
3
05
114
141996 - 1996
09
119
12
123
121996 - 1997
02
113
161996 - 1996
02
355
51998 - 1998
Folders 03-05: Strand Two Documents
44
8
Tab B
358
101997 - 1997
07
367
101997 - 1998
09
370
181998 - 1998
Folder 13: Relation of the Forum to the Talks, 1996
45
51996 - 1996
15
377
131985 - 1996
18
381
81997 - 1998
20
384
281997 - 1998
24
389
491996 - 1996
Folder 03: [Draft Versions of the Final Report]
1605
221996
06
114
121996 - 1996
Folder 07: Record of Informal Discussions on Rules of Procedure and Opening Agenda, 3 July 1996 to 25 July 1996
43
131996 - 1996
10
119
111997 - 1998
13
123
71997 - 1997
03
113
71996 - 1996
Tab C
358
81997 - 1997
Folders 06-07: Minutes of Plenary Meetings, Review Plenary Meetings, and Cross-Strand Meetings
44
2
10
370
231998 - 1998
Folders 14-16: Pre-Multi Party Talks Background Documents
45
3
16
377
91996
21
384
91997 - 1998
Folders 08-10: Minutes from Opening Plenary Sessions, 3 June 1997 to 24 September 1997
43
3
Tab D
358
91997 - 1997
Folders 08-10: Final Agreement Documents, 30 March to 10 April (Volume 1)
44
3
Folders 17-18: Liaison Subcommittee on Decommissioning – Documents and Minutes
45
2
22
384
71998 - 1998
Folders 11-13: Minutes from Opening Plenary Sessions, 30 October 1996 to 5 March 1997
43
3
Tab E
358
61997 - 1997
Folder 11: Final Agreement Documents, 30 March to 10 April (Volume 2)
44
41998 - 1998
Folders 19-22: Liaison Subcommittee for Confidence Building Measures – Submissions and Minutes
45
4
Folder 14: Decommissioning Proposals and Miscellaneous Documents, May 1997 to July 1997
43
191996 - 1997
Tab F
358
71997 - 1997
Folders 23-24: Documents and Associated Items from Fall 1996 to Winter 1997 Opening Plenary Debates
This document contains the summary record of the informal discussion on procedural guidelines and the agenda for the plenary session that took place on 19 June 1996. The Chairman started by outlining the plan for this meeting and noting that some bilaterals had taken place during the previous adjournment. Robert McCartney contested Dermot Gleeson's claim from the previous meeting regarding the statutory authority held by the Ground Rules paper. Steven McBride argued that while the document itself was not backed by the law, the Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc.) Act 1996 used the Ground Rules to define the negotiations. Peter Robinson stated that UUP's idea of preparing a document on useful provisions from the Ground Rules paper was a good one. He also highlighted comments made by Michael Ancram in Parliament, including quotes from HANSARD of 22 April 1996 (enclosed within this document), where Ancram replied to a question by David Trimble and confirmed that the Ground Rules had no legal basis and that the conduct of the negotiations depended on the participants who had joined the talks. The meeting ended with the Chairman reminding the parties that the next day would be reserved for bilaterals.
The Quill Project has received one-time, non-exclusive use of the papers in this collection from Bowdoin College Library to make them available online as part of Writing Peace.
This document was created by Irish and British Government civil servants in the course of their duties and therefore falls under Crown Copyright and Irish Government Copyright. Both Governments are committed to the European Communities (Re-Use of Public Sector Information) Regulations.
Subseries 2 (M202.7.2) Commission Documents (1995-1998), Series 7 (M202.7) Northern Ireland Records (1995-2008), George J. Mitchell Papers, George J. Mitchell Department of Special Collections & Archives, Bowdoin College Library, Brunswick, Maine, digitized by the Quill Project at https://quillproject.net/resource_collections/125.
