CONFIDENTIAL
Â
From: Independent Chairmen Notetakers
28 June 1996
SUMMARY RECORD OF INFORMAL DISCUSSIONS ON PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES AND AGENDA FOR PLENARY SESSION - WEDNESDAY 26 JUNE 1996 (10.05)
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. At 10.05 the _Chairman_ welcomed all to the meeting and stated that in accordance with the previous evening's discussion he proposed to continue to review the draft rules of procedure document. By way of background\, the _Chairman_ stated that he now had two documents in front of him and he then set out to describe each. Copies of both documents are attached at Annex A and B.
2. The _Chairman_ proposed that participants go through each numbered paragraph quickly\, simply noting whether there were any objections to the text. He indicated that there was no need for participants to make lengthy statements on their objections at this stage as he would set aside those paragraphs to which objections had been raised. The _Chairman_ indicated that this process would then provide a list of those paragraphs which had no objections against them and a list of objections which would then be taken in further discussion. He hoped that this process could be completed by 12.00 noon but concluded that it might not be possible to reach final agreement on all matters. He wished\, however\, to reach the stage of at least gaining agreement on the decision making paragraphs. Having put this to the participants and hearing no objections\, the _Chairman_ proceeded to para 1 of the first document\, ie\, the draft rules of procedure.
_Para 1_
_Mr Robinson_ said that he had objections to this paragraph but suggested that a way round them might be to remove the word "all" and replace it with the word "multi". The _Chairman_ proposed that the words "all party" could be removed without altering the meaning of the paragraph. He asked whether the participants in general had any objections to this. There were no objections raised. _Mr Mallon_ raised the question as to whether the meeting was considering the "proposed additions" paper separately. The _Chairman_ indicated that this would be considered after the draft rules of procedure document had been completed including certain proposed additions contained in it. The separate "proposed additions" paper would then be worked through matching each paragraph against the original one in the draft rules document.
Â
_Para 2_
Â
_Mr Robinson_ raised objections to this paragraph in relation to the word "Plenary" as opposed to his proposal of "Opening Plenary".
_Para 3_
_Mr Robinson_ raised objections on this paragraph regarding the issue of consistency in the appointment of chairmanship, ie, the attendance of some parties who had not accepted the appointment of Senator Mitchell as Chairman of the Plenary.
_Para 4_
No objections raised.
_Para 5_
No objections raised.
_Para 6_
No objections raised.
_Para 7_
_Mr McCartney_ stated that he objected to the general tenor and language of this paragraph.
Â
_Para 8_
Â
_Mr McCartney_ again stated that he objected to the general tenor and language of this paragraph.
_Para 9_
_Mr McCartney_ again objected to the general tenor and language of this paragraph.
Â
_Para 10_
_Mr Robinson_ raised two objections to this paragraph; the first focused on the words in square brackets ["co-ordination with"], the second issue concerned the words "having due regard to" which he already raised in earlier discussions.
_Para 11_
_Mr Dodds_ raised objections to the word/description of Plenary in this paragraph.
Â
_Para 12_
_Mr Robinson_ raised objections as to whether it should be one or two representatives at the Business Committee as occurred in the Forum.
_Para 13_
_Mr Trimble_ raised objections to this paragraph.
_Para 14_
No objections raised.
Â
_Para 15_
_Mr Robinson_ raised two objections to this paragraph; one related to the word "formats", the second concerned the word "comprehensive".
_Para 16-22_
No objections raised.
Â
_Para 23_
_Mr Robinson_ raised two points/objections on this. The first focused on the "agreed group of experts". The second focused on the means of reference to the group.
_Para 24_
No objections raised.
Â
_Para 25_
Â
No objections raised.
_Para 26_
_Mr Robinson_ raised objections as to the on-going issue of the word "Plenary" or "Opening Plenary".
_Para 27_
_Mr Robinson_ raised objections as to the issue of the majority of participating parties.
Â
_Para 28_
No objections raised.
_Para 29_
No objections raised.
_Para 30_
Â
_Mr Robinson_ drew attention to a minor typographical error in the paragraph. He also had a substantive objection regarding the liaison arrangements and the need for these to be open and above board so that the participants could see what both Governments were
up to.
_Para 31-34_
The UUP had raised objections to these paragraphs. Proposed amendments would be looked at in due course.
_Para 35_
Â
No objections raised.
_Para 36_
Â
No objections raised.
_Para 37_
_Mr Robinson_ raised objections to this paragraph on the basis that he didn't understand the context. He continued saying that he believed para 36 covered the point being made at para 37 and if this was the case he was therefore concerned that this reference in para 37 could be construed as notes being taken at bilaterals. The _Chairman_ commented that he had never contemplated notetaking at bilaterals.
3. The discussion then moved on to those proposed additions contained in page 8 of the draft rules of procedure document. The _Chairman_ indicated that he would put these additions to one side for the time being. _Mr Trimble_ indicated that he would withdraw paras 8 and 9 of the UUP's proposed additions on page 8. He continued saying that paras 10 and 11 could be covered by para 20A put forward by the Government but this would need further discussion. This left only para 17 remaining from those listed on page 8 of the draft rules document.
4. The _Chairman_ then asked participants to move to page 9 of the draft rules document containing the additional DUP proposals (numbered paras 21 and 22).
5. _Mr Mallon_ raised objections to para 21. _Mr McBride_ raised "technical" objections to para 22.
6. The _Chairman_ then asked participants to move on to the separate "proposed additions" document also circulated. He asked the meeting to begin by looking at the British and Irish Governments' proposals as they corresponded to the paragraphs in the draft rules document.
_Para 2_
_Mr Trimble_ raised objections to the definition of the arrangements for Strand 3. This referred to them as being purely inter governmental.
_Mr Robinson_ raised objections as to his earlier point regarding the inconsistency in the appointment of the Chairman of the Plenary and he was also unclear as to what "other formats" referred to.
_Para 10_
_Mr Trimble_ objected to the words "proceeds in parallel" and sought clarification of this.
Â
_Para 11A_
_Mr Empey_ raised a query on whether this paragraph had been numbered correctly. He believed that it should be numbered 12A. The _Chairman_ indicated that his assumption was correct. _Mr Trimble_ raised objections as to the possible inconsistency between para 12A and the first sentence of para 13. He was also unhappy with the reference to the indicative calendar in para 13 and "co-ordinate the progress" in 12A.
_Para 15_
_Mr Robinson_ raised objections to (a) the requirement to negotiate rather than to discuss; and (b) the conflicting situation in relation to the agreement required to adopt an agenda as opposed to the position that people had a right to put anything on the agenda.
_Para 15A_
_Mr Robinson_ raised objections to the word "comprehensive". He asked for further clarification of the meaning of this word.
_Para 15B_
No objections raised.
_Para 17A_
_Mr Trimble_ raised objections insofar as this paragraph should have included all the UUP proposals. _Mr Robinson_ raised objections to it because it did not include all the DUP proposals.
_Para 20A_
_Mr McMichael_ raised objections to the word "participation". He believed the meaning of this word needed to be explored more fully in discussion. _Mr Robinson_ also raised objections on the basis of the Plenary/Opening Plenary issue raised earlier.
_Para 25_
No objections raised.
_Para 28A_
_Mr Robinson_ raised objections on this but suggested that the word "format" could be changed to "strand". He also raised the question of the word "consensus" and wondered whether this was a reference to "sufficient consensus".
<img alt="" src="" />_Para 30_
_Mr Robinson_ raised objections on the same basis as earlier in terms of the liaison arrangements being open and above board so that participants could see what both Governments were up to.
_Para 32_
_Mr Trimble_ raised objections regarding the Strand 3 arrangements.
_Para 33_
_Mr Trimble_ raised objections as per earlier UUP comments.
7. The _Chairman_ then moved on to the DUP and UKUP proposals contained on page 4 of the "proposed additions" document and asked for comments on these.
_DU 1_
Â
_Mr Robinson_ raised the point that the word "clause" should be replaced by the word "section". This was accepted by all participants.
Â
_DU 2 & 3_
_Mr Mallon_ raised objections which he stated were central to the core issues surrounding the negotiations.
_DU 4_
_Mr Mallon_ raised objections to this paragraph.
8. Moving on\, the _Chairman_ turned to page 5 of the "proposed additions" document and asked for comments on the following.
_SDLP 1_
_Mr Trimble_ raised objections to this paragraph.
_UU 1_
Â
The _Minister of State_ raised objections to this paragraph on the grounds that it provided an inconsistent basis.
_UU 2_
The _Irish Government_ stated that they needed to reflect more on the wording of this paragraph.
9. Having completed a quick run through both documents\, the _Chairman_ proposed that the participants begin to go through the text of the draft rules of procedure paragraph by paragraph. He continued saying that he hoped that the decision making elements within the draft rules could be resolved during this session.
10. _Ms Hinds_ asked whether it might be possible to time limit the inputs from the various participants. She believed the previous 30 minutes had been extremely good in clarifying the issues and allowing everyone to focus on exactly the heart of their objections on a number of paragraphs. This augured well for the process in the future.
11. _Mr McCartney_ said he would not regard any attempt to pressure the participants or time limit their input as being a helpful one. He continued saying that when participants were dealing around the table with some "fundamental principles" a situation should not arise whereby guillotine measures are brought into the proceedings and he objected in principle to what Ms Hinds had said.
12. _Mr Empey_ made reference to the point Mr Mallon had alluded to the previous evening about agreeing the rules on an overall basis. He hoped that participants would look at the totality of the paper\, acknowledging the fact that everyone would eventually be in the position of getting some rather than all their points into it. He believed that looking at the document in this context might ease individual objections on the paragraph by paragraph procedure now being commenced. The _Chairman_ said that he was mindful of the first sentence of the decision making paragraphs in this context where it referred to the process operating on the basis of consensus. However he thought that for the sake of completeness rather than preciseness it would be useful to go through the document on a paragraph by paragraph basis and listen to the objections raised\, thereby allowing the decision making issues to be dealt with. He then asked participants to look again at the draft rules document to go through it on a paragraph by paragraph basis starting with para 1.
_Para 1_
The _Chairman_ indicated that this paragraph should be bypassed because it had a direct connection with the issue of the status of the Ground Rules which would be dealt with in a later discussion. _Mr Mallon_ accepted the Chairman's ruling on this because he didn't want to hold up the discussion on the remaining paragraphs. He did however draw the Chairman's attention to the SDLP amendment in page 5 of the draft rules document and hoped that any bypassing of this issue now would not result in any prejudice against that amendment.
_Para 2_
(a) _Mr Robinson_ commenced his remarks by saying that the view of the two Governments was to have the overall process working in three parallel strands. However there were also a number of issues they had wanted to deal with at the start in an Opening Plenary session before moving on into the strands. He also recognised the need for co-ordination across the strands and made reference to para 22 of the original Ground Rules which indicated the necessity for a Business Committee. However, he stated that since the Governments had now changed the rules and produced an over-arching Plenary his party wondered by this task could not be passed to the Busi_ness Committee. The _Chairman_ commented that original DUP proposals had referred to Plenaries and he wondered whether this did not mean that other Plenaries had been envisaged by the party. _Mr Robinson_ at this point clarified the DUP position, referring to the fact that the party had envisaged plenaries in each or any of the strands as per the 28 February Communique (para 6).
(b) The _Minister of State_ acknowledged that Mr Robinson was correct about his concept of the Plenary in the context of the 28 February communique. There was however no doubt that an Opening Plenary was required. It was equally clear that "negotiations" would develop and that there was a need for them to come together at some future point to provide a comprehensive agreement and perhaps also to report back on issues such as decommissioning. The _Minister of State_ also said that other Plenary meetings might be helpful to the Governments in periodically reporting back on progress across all strands of the negotiations. This was why the British Government supported the concept of further Plenary meetings rather than just one Opening Plenary. _Mr Mallon_ stated that he fully supported the Minister of State's reasons. He suggested that another reason for further Plenary meetings might be the way in which the various formats were taken forward. He believed it dangerous for the process that semi-detached views could be encouraged without further Plenary meetings occurring because that concept allowed the same people to be involved all the way through.
(c) _Mr McCartney_ said that he hesitated to go back to the original role of the Chairman on this issue. However, in explaining this remark he said that one view of further Plenary meetings was that there was perceived pressure from the USA/UK/Irish/SDLP on the specific aspect of getting Sinn Fein into the talks process. He firmly believed that the Plenary was the Government's format to achieve this. The _Minister of State_ had referred in his remarks to the possibility of the decommissioning subcommittee reporting back. However, _Mr McCartney_ stated that he believed the subcommittee looked more like the Strand 4 which the Irish Government had been looking for as a means of getting Sinn Fein into the talks. _Mr McCartney_ continued by saying that one had to tease out the political significance of minor procedural issues and it was on this basis he also objected, along with Mr Robinson, to the concept of an over-arching Plenary. He went on to say that it was only very late in the day when this concept had been brought in and that when it was firmly in place it could be used as a solution to get rid of the Sinn Fein impasse on their decommissioning policy.
(d) The _Irish Government_ confirmed their position as being in total agreement with that of the British Government as set out by the Minister of State.
(e) _Mr Close_ commented that he and his party believed it was necessary for a Plenary facility to be made available. Looking at it from another way he thought it wrong for the various strands to be hermetically sealed, one from another. The concept of the Plenary was there, in his view, to aid the overall process and to provide an element of inclusiveness for the participants. The Alliance Party did not want the process sectionalised. It was therefore in the interests of the overall talks that the Plenary facility was continuously available.
(f) _Ms Hinds_ commented that she noted the number of times Sinn Fein had been used to derail the debate on procedural issues. She believed it most logical to have both strands and Plenary sessions because this addressed the process from both a practical and logistical position. She continued saying that she agreed fully with the Minister of State on his reasoning plus there was also the totality of the process and the ownership factors to be borne in mind. She questioned whether at the end of the day the participants would really want to find themselves not welcoming the decommissioning subcommittee tackling issues and reporting back to a Plenary format.
(g) _Mr Robinson_ commented that a week previous to this he had suggested that this issue be parked. However, he stated, that if other rules were going to be agreed then his party wouldn't press the button on this particular issue. There were other more substantive issues to deal with and he made reference to Mr Empey's earlier point about the totality of the rules, etc and viewing them from that perspective.
<img alt="" src="" />(h)  _Mr Empey_ reaffirmed his point that the whole draft rules picture should be looked at as well as the Agenda items. He referred back to 1992 when that talks process had used a Plenary from time to time and he therefore saw the sense in having this format available again. He also agreed however with the views of Mr McCartney regarding the reasons why the Plenary session was being made available as proposed by both Governments. He continued saying that the UUP hadn't made a particular objection on this but that Mr Robinson had suggested a way forward. Perhaps, said _Mr Empey_ the objection could be dealt with in the totality of the rules rather than by line by line progress. He thought this might be the best way of proceeding at this time.
(i) _Mr Mallon_ referred back to Mr Robinson's remarks about dealing with issues of substance and leaving some others to come back to. _Mr Mallon_ questioned whether this issue was not substantive and wondered what the definition of parking items either on a short term or long term basis was. He believed that this whole policy of parking items would become difficult for the
participants because the procedural matters would then not become procedural matters. They would develop into political issues which would only come back to haunt everyone. He pleaded with the participants that these issues shouldn't be camouflaged in this manner.
(j) The _Chairman_ referred back to Mr Empey's proposal seeking clarification on it to the effect that what he was saying was that there should not be an attempt to force a decision on each paragraph but rather to have a discussion and then try to move towards a wider resolution of the rules. He said he also took Mr Mallons's point into view and thought it was well made.
_Para 3_
(a) _Mr Robinson_ commented that this was inconsistent with the stated position of some parties around the table. He continued saying that if some parties accepted this paragraph then this would be in direct contradiction with their views regarding the appointment of the Chairman on the first day of the proceedings on 12 June. _Mr Robinson_ pointed out that in his view one either had to accept this or leave the issue parked. _Mr Mallon_ asked whether this could be described as kerb-side parking!
_Paras 7, 8 and 9_
(a) _Mr McCartney_ indicated that he had nothing further to say on these paragraphs and that his original objections might not now be pressed. _Mr Robinson_ asked about the DUP/UKUP proposals in the "proposed additions" document which referred to paras 5-9 and wondered whether these now undermined the sentiments expressed in para 7.
(b) The _Chairman_ reiterated his earlier point that he wanted to make sure that the participants' views/objections were stated on a minimum basis, in other words for completeness rather than preciseness. He hoped that genuine exchanges between the participants could be kept to a minimum and only when the circumstances really permitted it.
_Para 10_
Â
(a) _Mr Robinson_ suggested that instead of the words in square brackets "co-ordination with" he would propose "subject to the opinion of the Business Committee". _Mr Mallon_ objected to these words. _Mr Robinson_ suggested the use of the word "veto"!
_Para 11_
(a) _Mr Robinson_ returned to his earlier objection regarding the word Plenary/Opening Plenary issue.
_Para 12_
(b) _Mr Robinson_ again raised his objection from earlier as to whether one or two representatives should be sitting on the Business Committee and whether these should be interchangeable. He referred also to the fact that in another place the Business Committee of that body was operating on the basis of two representatives from the larger parties and one representative from the smaller parties. _Ms Hinds_ said that she wanted to lodge an objection to this proposal. _Mr McBride_ commented that his party had suggested two representatives from a logical basis and believed that it was much better if all the parties had a right to have two representatives on the Business Committee. _Mr McCartney_ commented that if the process was going to pay any attention to party strength at all then Mr Robinson's point was a reasonable one even though this meant that he was arguing against his own interests. _Mr Trimble_ recognised that Mr Robinson's proposal meant having to deal with the issue of the size f the parties and although he didn't object to this he acknowledged the position of others and wondered whether one representative on the Business Committee was appropriate with one other representative in support. _Mr McMichael_ confirmed the UDP position that it was beneficial to have two representatives on the Business Committee. He also believed that this was a sustainable position given the fact that the definitions and tests of "sufficient consensus" still had to be finalised.
(b) _Mr Mallon_ said that he supported the NIWC objection because the Business Committee would be a busy committee given the ever increasing amount of responsibilities being attached to it. He was therefore concerned about the smaller parties and believed that representation should not reflect a weighting of electoral strength. He believed that equality was the way to move forward on this issue. _Mr Empey_ said that he didn't believe the Business Committee and the parties could operate with less than two representatives. However, he posed the question as to whether these representatives should be both elected or a mixture of elected and non-elected. He indicated that the UUP's experience of a previous talks process suggested that having less than two representatives was problematical. There was however still the separate issue of the elected number of representatives sitting on the Business Committee to be determined. He said that his party were not particularly exercised about this issue but the main decision had to be whether the representatives on the Business Committee were elected or non-elected.
(c) The _Irish Government_ suggested that the way forward might be to have the option of both elected and non-elected representatives and officials being available without any being named as formal attendees on the Business Committee. _Mr Robinson_ said that as far as the legislation was concerned it was only elected representatives involved in the negotiations. However, as had already been indicated there was a clear distinction between negotiations and the role of the Business Committee dealing with procedural matters. In this way he had no objections to the parties being represented by non-elected people and was also content to have unnamed delegates being available for the Business Committee. As regards the issue of electoral weight in determining actual numbers, he believed that equality did not make sense and that there had to be some cognisance of the size and range of the parties involved in the process.
(d) _Mr Adams_ concurred with Mr Robinson's comments on elected and non-elected representatives. _Mr McCartney_ agreed with Mr Robinson and Mr Adams on this point as well. _Mr Trimble_ indicated his view that the Business Committee was part of the negotiations as a whole and therefore was part of a single process. However, he stated, that the Business Committee would deal with procedural matters, not negotiable issues. _Mr Robinson_ believed there needed to be a further exposition of this point as to whether only elected representatives could take pare in the activities of the Business Committee. _Mr Trimble_ returned to the point indicating that a decision might well depend on how one viewed the "back up" concept and whether these staff were there to participate in negotiations but not in the negotiating _process_. The _Chairman_ asked Mr Trimble to confirm whether he regarded the Business Committee as part of the negotiations, but not part of the substantive negotiations, as this seemed to be what Mr Robinson was saying a few moments earlier. The _Chairman_ went on to add that if he had heard Mr Trimble's comments correctly then he could not concur with his (Mr Trimble's) view as it seemed to run contrary to the Act if nonÂ-elected people became involved in the negotiations. _Mr Trimble_ explained that he believed the reasoning from various parties around the table was different, but the point was essentially the same.
(e) _Mr McCartney_ commented that he believed the word "negotiations" appeared to have a different interpretation from Mr Trimble as opposed to Mr Robinson and he had some difficulty with Mr Trimble's approach on this. _Mr McBride_ said that aspects of the Business Committee had already been discussed in relation to para 2 without any disagreement other than Mr Robinson's point about the Plenary/Opening Plenary. He therefore wondered whether it might be useful to think about defining the role of the Business Committee in this paragraph together with the rules of attendance to it. The _Chairman_ indicated that the discussion should move on to para 13.
_Para 13_
(a) _Mr Trimble_ said it was preferable to consider this paragraph with the renumbered para 12A as some alignment of the texts might be required. He said he had discussed the word "indicative" with an official from the British side, but he still wasn't entirely convinced as to its precise meaning.
(b) The _Chairman_ asked whether Mr Trimble's concern would be met if the meeting adopted para 12A and deleted the first sentence of para 13 and the phrase "in accordance with this calendar" in the second sentence. _The Minister of State_ intervened to say that this would be acceptable to the British Government. The five words in the phrase already mentioned would have to be deleted as they referred to the drawing up of the calendar which was now redundant.
(c) _Ms Hinds_ said she could agree to this suggestion on the basis that the Business Committee would be dealing with procedural rather than substantive matters. She queried the continued inclusion of the words highlighted in italics in the paragraph. At this point it emerged that there was some confusion over the two versions of para 13 contained in the draft rules of procedure text (page 3) and the composite additions text (page 2).
Â
(d)Â Â _Mr McCartney_ clarified the matter by reading out the text of the agreed version of para 13 which then read as follows:
Â
"The timing and duration of meetings in the various formats shall be determined by the relevant Chairman, having due regard to the views of the participants. However, unless otherwise agreed by the Business Committee, negotiating sessions in different formats, or within different formats, will not be held simultaneously to allow participants, if they so wish, the option of fielding the same negotiating team throughout the negotiations."
Â
(e)Â Â _Mr Robinson_ said that he had no objections to the text provided the rules (to be agreed) on decision making applied to the proceedings in the Business Committee. The _Chairman_ noted the point.
Â
_Para 15_
Â
(a)Â Â The _Chairman_ referred to the two texts, namely on page 3 of the rules document and page 2 of the additions document and noted that Mr Robinson had earlier expressed objections in relation to the issue of various formats and a reference to a comprehensive agenda.
(b)Â _ Mr Robinson_ said that the requirement to negotiate rather than state views on issues was the point with which he was mainly concerned and specifically any requirement to negotiate the union. His view was that there are issues which were not open for negotiation. They were to be determined by the people alone.
Â
(c) _Mr Mallon_ said that this was not acceptable to his party. The two Governments in the communique of 28 February 1996 indicated that a process of meaningful negotiations was under way. That was translated in para 3 of the Ground Rules document and again in para 17A of the procedural rules. He wanted to make it clear that they wished to raise and negotiate constitutional issues such as the union. It was not open to a party to contravene the provisions of these documents and the provisions of para 17A. He did not want his party's position to be misunderstood because this matter went to the heart of the discussions over the past three weeks. _Mr McCartney_ agreed with Mr Mallon that this matter went to the heart of the issue. It also related to the answers to the questions posed by him the previous day. He entered these negotiations on the basis that the union was not negotiable, fortified in his view by the lack of consent for such an approach on the evidence of the elections. He objected to the mandatory tone through the use of the word "will" in the paragraph. The two Governments could not decide that the parties must or will negotiate any particular issues. This had the effect of putting parties in a straitjacket. He objected to being told that he was being constrained to negotiate something which he had no mandate to do.
Â
(d) The _Minister of State_ suggested that it might be helpful to look at paras 15 and 15A in the additions paper which referred to comprehensive agreement and agenda. It was understood that it would not be possible to reach agreement on every single item, that he said was impossible. The requirement was to reach a comprehensive agreement in para 15A and this met Mr McCartney's concerns. His earlier point was covered by the reference in the paragraph to an agreed agenda. The _Minister of State_ also said that para 15A did not suggest that it was mandatory to negotiate.
Â
(e)Â _Mr McCartney_ said that it might very well be that the question of the union would be put on the table as part of a comprehensive agenda by the SDLP and others. He would discuss it, but he would not negotiate it.
Â
( f)Â The _Minister of State_ said that all the parties would put down proposals which would draw a negative response from others. The requirement was to reach a comprehensive agreement.
_Mr McCartney_ was misreading the provision if he thought that every item put down has to be separately discussed and negotiated.
Â
(g)Â Â _Mr McMichael_ agreed with Mr McCartney. The key phrase was "agreed agenda" in para 15A; but he was concerned about the sentence in italics in para 15. _Mr Trimble_ agreed with Mr McMichael. The agenda must be agreed but the reference to "all significant items" in para 15 could be problematic. The matter could be approached in the way that people could raise all issues, including constitutional issues but the status of Northern Ireland as part of the UK was quite a separate issue. That was not a constitutional issue. He also felt that care was needed in relation to the interpretation of the word "negotiate". It did not necessarily mean that change must follow on from it. With regard to having an agreed agenda it would be possible to raise matters for the agenda, but a decision would have to be made as to what actually went on the agenda.
(h)  _Ms Hinds_ said that you could not force participants to negotiate and she favoured an amendment to para 15 to underscore this. Para 15A should stay as it was. _Mr Robinson_ said that he
thought we were making progress. He supported Ms Hinds contribution and said that he favoured the idea that participants may propose items for inclusion on the agenda.
Â
(i)Â Â _Mr Mallon_ said that ad hoc amendments such as the ones proposed were not relevant. He remarked that insofar as the document of 19 June was concerned, there was no indication of disagreement on this paragraph so one could assume that the troops were not marshalled at that time. He had listened carefully to the Minister of State's contribution and he wanted to remind him that the Governments' had summoned them to negotiate, not to discuss the issues involved. We were making a distinction between negotiators and discussors. Some delegations had said that certain matters could be discussed but those were quite separate from the negotiations themselves. He found these remarks politically offensive. There seemed to be two categories of persons in the room, those who could negotiate and those who could merely discuss. If we moved away from the negotiations, their very nature changed and this went to the heart of the matter as set out in the Ground Rules. The essence of this was that when an issue of policy arose for the SDLP such as the constitutional position of Northern Ireland, they could discuss it, but they would not be in a position to ensure that it was negotiated. Could they really be expected to agree to let that situation develop and be part of it? Mr Mallon felt that no palliative form of drafting would change that position.
(j)Â Â _Mr Wilson_ said that Mr Mallon had identified the basis behind the statement in para 5 of Minister Taylor's contribution the previous day in relation to the existence of an important fundamental rule which was so important to a delegation that no negotiating process could be envisaged without it. _Mr Mallon_ wanted to force the Ground Rules on the negotiators in an attempt to coerce unionists to do something that they could not do. His party took out a specific newspaper advertisement on this very point the day before the elections (29 May 1996) stressing that there would be no question of negotiating the union.
Â
(k)Â _Mr Curran_ suggested they should take one step back at this point. It was clear that the Ground Rules were not acceptable to everyone and all were returning to the substantive arguments on that issue now. He felt that the crunch would come on the discussions on the comprehensive agenda and the question was whether it could provide for meaningful negotiations. He said it was better to address the rules issue now, otherwise everyone would continue to go round in circles. _Mr Close_ asked whether the unionists were moving back from the position they had adopted in the 1992 talks.
Â
(l)Â _Mr McCartney_ said he was not a party to those talks and he was not bound by discussions in which he had no part and with which he did not agree. _Mr Trimble_ said that the status of Northern Ireland as part of the UK was not an issue in 1992. _Mr Robinson_ said that when attempts were made to raise the issue, the Chairman, Sir Ninian Stephen ruled it out.
Â
(m)Â _Mr McMichael_ said that the point at issue was whether the agenda would be fixed with the approval of the participants or was it the case that the issues would be tabled without such agreement. _Mr Robinson_ said he favoured an earlier suggestion made by Ms Hinds about the possibility of parties proposing items for the agenda. _Mr Ervine_ suggested that in placing items on the agenda, the parties should look seriously at the requirement for cross community acceptance of it.
Â
(n)Â _Mr Adams_ said that they were concerned with the text of para 15 as contained in the additions paper, because it had a mandatory tone. The Minister of State said that this was not the case, so perhaps the language could be changed to include the words "by agreement" after "that agenda will". _Ms Hinds_ intervened to say that the UDP's comments were helpful, but that a generosity of spirit and magnanimity was needed.
Â
(o)Â _Mr Mallon_ referred to the electoral legislation which referred to negotiations in sections 1 and 2. This was mandatory language he felt; it was not discretionary. This was also the case with the Joint Declaration by the two Governments. _Mr Mallon_ asked rhetorically whether the two Governments wanted to withdraw their amended para 15 against this background.
Â
(p) _Mr McCartney_ said that part of the overwhelming atmosphere of these discussions was that the pro-unionists were regarded by some as non-people. _Mr Mallon_ constantly suggested that the two Governments could dispose of the issue between themselves. Appeals by Dublin or the SDLP for deals to be done with the two Governments were resented. The Ground Rules were drawn up to bring recalcitrant people into line. The constant appeals to "Caesar" over the heads of pro-union people would not produce anything of substance. _Ms Hinds_ said that it was important to have a corporate agenda. With reference to her proposed amendment there were interlocking issues between the agenda and the negotiations.
Â
13. The _Chairman_ at this point suggested an adjournment. The papers on the three questions posed by him the previous evening were to be delivered to him by 14.30\, instead of 14.00. He would address the situation on the Ground Rules and review the possibility of preparing a document. In the meantime\, if any party had proposals on how to resolve the present problem over para 15\, they could be submitted to him in writing. As soon as possible\, he would put forward proposals for the proceedings for the rest of the day. He hoped to proceed with three issues\, viz the rules of procedure\, the Ground Rules and the agenda for the Opening Plenary. The meeting then adjourned at 12.28.
Â
Â
[Signed]
Â
Independent Chairmen Notetakers
28 June 1996
OIC/26
