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.
[{"insert":"22 April 1996\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"Northern Ireland Bill"},{"insert":"\n\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"[Mr. Wilshire]"},{"insert":"\n\n\tBecause of that assurance, I assume that the Government will now have no objections to writing it into the bill. New paragraph 25 says exactly what I heard said during the Second Reading debate — that only if a majority of those entitled to vote in Northern Ireland support the outcome of the negotiations in a referendum shall those proposals be put to the United Kingdom Parliament. That is what I believe I heard from the Government and that is what I believe the legislation should say.\n\tI accept that the amendment and the new schedule join together two separate issues: putting the details of the negotiation into the Bill and changing the terms of the Command Paper. It may be that the principle of putting the negotiations in is acceptable and that the details of my changes are not. We will have the Report stage and the consideration before the other place to put the details right, if necessary. It may be that putting the whole of the Command Paper into law will make for rigidity — I can predict some of the things that will be said — and that rigidity is clearly not an ideal way to conduct negotiations.\n\tHowever, if my chosen way of achieving these things is held to be not the best way, my four concerns that are spelt out in the changes in the new schedule will remain. If the four changes are to be addressed — and then are other ways — I hope that we hear them. We can then decide whether an alternative way of dealing with the four [unreadable] can be found over the next two days. If we do not find alternative ways, the next two days could get seriously bogged down because these are fundamental issues and we could face lots more divisions, such as the one we have just had.\n\tIn conclusion, I believe that the best way for harmony to break out in the next two days is for there to be a helpful start. If the Government could agree with these concerns and deal with them in whichever way they feel to be best, I am sure that that will make for shorter speeches, fewer divisions and a more agreeable two days.\n\n\t"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Ancram):"},{"insert":" My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) moved his amendment with characteristic robustness and I listened carefully to what he said. He was right in saying that I might suggest that what he is proposing is somewhat inflexible — indeed, I would go further than that and suggest that there could be serious disadvantages if we were to proceed in the way that he suggests.\n\tI do not recognise in what I see before me in terms of the groundwork paper, the Command Paper, the concessions to Dublin to which he referred. This paper is; the judgement of the two Governments as to the basis on which negotiations can be taken forward, but it is important to realise — I shall come back to this point — that the conduct of the negotiations is for those involved in them. I believe that that is an important point. and I am glad to see that the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Trimble) !and the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) appear to agree with that suggestion.\n\n\t"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"Mr. Trimble:"},{"insert":" As the Minister says, the paper represents the present judgement of the two Governments. I am sure that he will acknowledge that if and when the process moves forward and comes into the purview of the parties of Northern Ireland, whatever might have been the judgement of the two Governments up until then will to have some extent have been replaced by the contribution of the parties from Northern Ireland. As we found in 1992, in many cases the contribution of the Northern Ireland parties will be more positive and a better way of doing things than that prescribed by the two Governments.\n\n\t"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"Mr. Ancram:"},{"insert":" I hear what the hon. Member for Upper Bann has to say — indeed, he outlined his views during the Second Reading debate and it was on that basis that I was confident that he, at least, would not wish to see the rules by which negotiations would be conducted written into statute. At the same time, it is right to say that the negotiations are not part of this legislation — I accept that. The legislation is there to provide for entry into the negotiations, but once the negotiations take place they will be for the participants to conduct.\n\tExperience suggests — particularly experience of the 1991-1992 talks — that if the negotiations that we are setting in train need to be flexible and capable of responding to the wishes of the negotiators. The hon. Member for Upper Bann has said that he has wishes that he wants to make known. In addition, the negotiations should not be constrained or confined by the statute.\n\tAll participants will want to start the negotiations on the basis of a clear understanding of the way which they are to be conducted. That is why — after consultation with the political parties — we have published the Command Paper that is our best judgement as to the most suitable and broadly acceptable ground rules. {_}They do not have statutory force because the negotiations, rightly, are not established by statute. I hope that the paper represents a basis on which the parties can agree to participate in the negotiations.{_}*\n\tThe key message, however — I mentioned this on Second Reading and I repeat it today — is to be found in paragraph 7 of the command paper, which states:\n\"The conduct of the negotiations will be exclusively a matter for those involved in the negotiations.\"\nI was interested to note that my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne left that passage in the ground rules that he has sought to bring into statute. There is a contradiction in trying to make statutory something which, in its own terms, allows for the conduct to be a matter for those involved in the negotiations.\n\tIt is important to understand that we are trying to seek a new consensus on how Northern Ireland is to be governed and how it fits into the other relationships within these islands. We are seeking an agreed outcome to which the parties representing all parts of the community can give their and which is then put to the people of Northern Ireland in a referendum for their approval. Consensus and consent are essential if this process is to succeed.\n\n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"Mr. William Ross:"},{"insert":" The Minister has used rather peculiar language: he said that Northern Ireland fits into other relationships within these islands. Will he and the Front Bench get it through their heads once and for all that the Unionist parties are interested only in Northern Ireland's place in this kingdom?\n\n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"Mr. Ancram:"},{"insert":" One of the relationships that has been referred to at times when we have spoken about these negotiations that would exist between\n\n*This paragraph is highlighted by a hand drawn curly bracket. The last two sentences are also underlined by hand.\n"}]
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
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 an excerpt of the HANSARD transcript from 22 April 1996 of the debate on the Northern Ireland Bill. Part of the text of Michael Ancram's response to a question by David Trimble is highlighted and underlined.
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.
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.
