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.
[{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"DRAFT RECORD OF OPENING PLENARY SESSION - MONDAY 29 JULY 1996 (10.07)"},{"insert":"\n\nThose present:\n\n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"Independent Chairmen"},{"insert":"\nSenator Mitchell\nGeneral de Chastelain\nMr Holkeri\n\n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"Government Teams"},{"insert":"\nBritish Government\nIrish Government\n\n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"Parties"},{"insert":"\nAlliance Party\nLabour Party\nNorthern Ireland Women's Coalition\nProgressive Unionist Party\nSocial Democratic and Labour Party\nUlster Democratic Party\nUlster Democratic Unionist Party\nUnited Kingdom Unionist Party\nUlster Unionist Party\n\n1. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Chairman"},{"insert":" said that the initial agenda items for the meeting had been established by the unanimous agreement of the participants in previous informal discussions. He therefore proposed to deal with the adoption of paragraphs 30-36 of the rules of procedure concerning the powers of decision making. Hearing no objections to this proposal the "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Chairman"},{"insert":" stated that those paragraphs would now be adopted to govern the decision making process in the negotiations and would be used henceforth.\n\n2. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Chairman"},{"insert":" said he now proposed to deal with those amendments submitted on the rules of procedure. There were nine from the DUP and two from the UKUP and each would be time limited as already agreed; five minutes for each of the DUP amendments and five minutes for the first UKUP amendment. Thirty minutes would be allowed for the second UKUP amendment. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Chairman"},{"insert":" reminded participants that it had already been agreed that there would be three minutes for the proposer of each amendment and two minutes for those who wished to speak in opposition. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Chairman"},{"insert":" indicated that there would be twenty minutes allocated to the proposer of the second UKUP amendment with ten minutes for anyone speaking in opposition. This was agreed without objection.\n\n3. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"DUP"},{"insert":" asked the Chairman whether he proposed to call the votes on the amendment and then put the actual rule up for adoption by the meeting. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Chairman"},{"insert":" said that at the end of each amendment he would call a vote to be signalled by a show of hands in support. He would then name each party who supported a particular proposition. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Chairman"},{"insert":" said that he proposed to take all amendments in order and then vote on the complete rules as amended or otherwise.\n\n3. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"DUP"},{"insert":" and "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"UKUP"},{"insert":" stated that the best way of proceeding might be to adopt a rule automatically once a particular amendment was completed for if an amendment was voted down it was not the position that the rule stood automatically. The rule would have to be specifically approved by the participants. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"SDLP"},{"insert":" stated that after all of the amendments were dealt with individually there should be a collective affirmation of the particular rules. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Chairman"},{"insert":" stated that an overall affirmation of the rules was required and he asked the UKUP to which rule did their second amendment relate. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"UKUP"},{"insert":" said that they wished to come back to this particular point as more time was needed to consider the question. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Chairman"},{"insert":" then noted that particular amendments by both the UKUP and the DUP affected the same rules so the adoption of such rules could only be considered after both sets of amendments were considered. This point related to rules 3 and 29 in particular.\n\n4. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Chairman"},{"insert":" then proceeded to deal with the DUP amendment No 1 dealing with rule 1. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"DUP"},{"insert":" spoke in support of the amendment. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"British Government"},{"insert":" spoke against it. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Chairman"},{"insert":" then asked the parties for a declaration of support for the DUP amendment. Support was indicated by the DUP, the UKUP, the UUP and the UDP. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Chiarman"},{"insert":" stated that there wasn't sufficient consensus for this amendment and the amendment was declared lost. Rule 1 was then voted upon and supported by the British Government, the Irish Government, the Alliance Party, Labour, NI Women's Coalition, the PUP, the SDLP, the UDP and the UUP. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Chairman"},{"insert":" declared the rule adopted.\n\n5. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"DUP"},{"insert":" spoke in support of amendment No 2 on rule 2. No-one spoke in opposition to the amendment. Support for the amendment came from the DUP, the UKUP and the UUP. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Chairman"},{"insert":" said that there was not sufficient consensus for adoption of the amendment. Rule 2 was then voted upon and supported by the British Government, the Irish Government, the Alliance party, Labour, NI Women's Coalition, the PUP, the SDLP, the UDP and the UUP. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Chairman"},{"insert":" accordingly declared that rule 2 was adopted.\n\n6. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"DUP"},{"insert":" said that they proposed to take amendments dealing with rules 3, 12 and 28 together. These related to DUP amendments Nos 3, 5 and 8. No-one spoke in opposition to these amendments. Support for these amendments came from the DUP and the UKUP. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Chairman"},{"insert":" declared that their wasn't sufficient consensus for adoption of the rule. He also said that paragraph 3 was covered by the UKUP amendment so rule 3 could not be put to the meeting for adoption now. A vote was however taken on rules 12 and 28. Those supporting the adoption of these rules were the British Government, Irish Government, the Alliance Party, Labour, NI Women's Coalition, the PUP, the SDLP, the UDP and the UUP. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Chairman"},{"insert":" accordingly declared that rules 12 and 28 were adopted.\n\n7. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"DUP"},{"insert":" spoke in support of amendment No 4 on rule 4. No-one spoke in opposition to the amendment. Support for the amendment came from the DUP and the UKUP. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Chairman"},{"insert":" said that there wasn't sufficient consensus to adopt the amendment. He then put the adoption of rule 4 to the meeting and this was supported by the British Government, the Irish Government, the Alliance party, Labour, the NI Women's Coalition, the PUP, the SDLP, the UDP and the UUP. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Chairman"},{"insert":" accordingly declared rule 4 adopted.\n\n8. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"DUP"},{"insert":" again spoke in support of amendment No 6 in relation to rule 16. No-one spoke in opposition to the amendment. Support for the amendment came from the DUP, the UKUP and the UUP. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Chiarman"},{"insert":" said that there wasn't sufficient consensus to adopt this amendment. He then put the question of the adoption of rule 16 to the meeting and it was supported by the British Government, the Irish Government, the Alliance Party, Labour, NI Women's Coalition, the PUP, the SDLP, the UDP and the UUP. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Chairman"},{"insert":" accordingly declared rule 16 adopted.\n\n9. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"DUP"},{"insert":" spoke in support of amendment No 7 in relation to rule 18. No-one spoke in opposition to the amendment. Support for the amendment came from the DUP, the UKUP and the UUP. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Chairman"},{"insert":" declared that there wasn't sufficient consensus to adopt this amendment. He then put rule 18 to the meeting and it was supported by the British Government, the Irish Government, the Alliance Party, Labour, the NI Women's Coalition, the PUP, the SDLP, the UDP and the UUP. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Chairman"},{"insert":" accordingly declared rule 18 adopted.\n\n10. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"DUP"},{"insert":" spoke in support of amendment No 9 in relation to rule 19. No-one spoke in opposition to the amendment. Support for the amendment came from the PUP, the DUP, the UKUP and the UUP. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Chairman"},{"insert":" declared that there wasn't su:ficient consensus for adoption of the rule. He also stated that he would not present the question of the adoption of the rule itself because there was a UKUP amendment to the same rule. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Chairman"},{"insert":" then proceeded to deal with the UKUP amendments. He said the first amendment dealt with six different rules. At this point the "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"UKUP"},{"insert":" stated that this amendment would be withdrawn. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Chairman"},{"insert":" then said that he would proceed to deal with the adoption of rule 3 which had already been touched on. Support for rule 3 came from the British Government, Irish Government, the Alliance Party, Labour, the NI Women's Coalition, the PUP, the SDLP, the UDP and the UUP. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Chairman"},{"insert":" then said that there was sufficient consensus for rule 3 and declared it adopted.\n\n11. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"UKUP"},{"insert":" spoke in support of the second amendment. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"British Government"},{"insert":" spoke against the amendment. Support for the amendment came from the DUP, the UKUP and the UUP. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Chairman"},{"insert":" said that there wsn't sufficient consensus for its adoption. Rule 29 was then put to the meeting. It was supported by the British Government, the Irish Government, the Alliance party, Labour, the NI Women's Coalition, the PUP, the SDLP, the UDP and the UUP. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Chairman"},{"insert":" accordingly declared rule 29 adopted.\n\n11. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Chairman"},{"insert":" then proceeded to the adoption of the remaining rules of procedure. These were adopted unanimously at 10.40. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Chairman"},{"insert":" said that his staff would prepare a final version of the rules dated that day for distribution to the parties as soon as possible.\n\n12. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"DUP"},{"insert":" intervened to say that its ongoing participation in the negotiating process was based on the understanding that the provisions of the Ground Rules document published on 16 April 1996:\n\n1.\t\tdid not govern the process;\n\n2.\tdid not have any continuing application beyond the three paragraphs referred to in the 1996 Entry to Negotiations Act, viz paragraphs 8, 9 and 17, and\n\n3.\tdid not have any binding effect on the delegations as participants.\n\nThe "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"DUP"},{"insert":" also stated that while a hearing would be given to each participant who wished to raise a relevant issue, there was no requirement on them to negotiate on topics other than those subjects on the agreed comprehensive agenda. For example, while the DUP would negotiate on the subject heading of \"Constitutional Issues\", they would not negotiate \"Northern Ireland's constitutional position as part of the United Kingdom\" if such an issue was raised under a general subject heading. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"UKUP"},{"insert":" said they endorsed, in broad terms, what the DUP had said. The UKUP had fought the election on the basis that they would not negotiate the Union. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"UUP"},{"insert":" stated that they supported the rules on the basis that they were a single set of rules - as was indicated in rule 2. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"UUP"},{"insert":" also endorsed the other two unionist parties' comments\n\n14. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Chairman"},{"insert":" said that the next item was to take the agenda for the remaining Plenary session. However that had not yet been agreed. The first two items on that agenda were, in his view, non-contentious, ie the ratification of the UKUP resolution and the establishment of the Business Committee and he asked the meeting to approve both these items. There was no disagreement on this point. The resolution by the UKUP had been unanimously agreed to by the informal group the previous week. There was no opposition voiced from the participants when the Chairmen put it to the meeting and the UKUP resolution was unanimously agreed. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"UUP"},{"insert":" wondered whether the meeting would have to decide on the relevant voting strengths of the delegations who were to take part in the Business Committee. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Chairman"},{"insert":" said that it was desirable that maximum flexibility should apply re membership to enable people to be absent for other discussions. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"DUP"},{"insert":" wondered whether the participants in the Business Committee had to be delegates. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Chairman"},{"insert":" said the rule was silent on that issue. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"DUP"},{"insert":" stated that the Business Committee was not involved in any negotiations and therefore it appeared there was no problem, but in earlier discussions the "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"British Government"},{"insert":" thought that there might be a difficulty.\n\n15. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Chairman"},{"insert":" said that the term \"representatives\" had been used deliberately in the rules to allow maximum flexibility to the delegations. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"British Government"},{"insert":" stated that it was happy with the Chairman's interpretation. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"UKUP"},{"insert":" also supported the Chairman's view. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Chairman"},{"insert":" said that accordingly his view would act as a ruling if any questions arose on the issue in future. The Business Committee would not be dealing with the substance of negotiations but with procedural matters only; that was why people other than elected delegates, could take part in its deliberations. The numbers would, however, be limited to two persons from each delegation. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"DUP"},{"insert":" sought confirmation that no decisions of substance would be involved in the Business Committee. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Chairman"},{"insert":" was emphatic on this point. He then proposed the establishment of the Business Committee with General de Chastelain in the Chair. There was unanimous support for this proposal.\n\n16. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"UUP"},{"insert":" wondered about how notifications of meetings and procedures etc of the Business Committee would be issued. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Chairman"},{"insert":" said he would discuss this matter with General de Chastelain. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"DUP"},{"insert":" wondered whether, on the resumption of the Plenary meeting later that day, it would be possible to proceed to a discussion of the decommissioning issue. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Chairman"},{"insert":" said the next item to be considered was the agenda for the Opening Plenary session and that had not yet been agreed to. He proposed to recess the meeting subject to the participants being recalled by him, and added that bilaterals should now take place to see what progress could be achieved on the agenda issue. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"DUP"},{"insert":" asked whether there would be another meeting of the Plenary that day. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Chairman"},{"insert":" said there would be. The meeting then broke up at 10.54.\n\n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"Independent Chairmen Notetakers"},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"30 July 1996"},{"insert":"\n\n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"OIC/PS4"},{"insert":"\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
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 is the draft summary record of an opening plenary session on Monday 29 July 1996 at 10.07. Paragraphs 30-36 of the rules of procedure were under discussion, along with the amendments to them from the DUP and UKUP. The amendments were all voted down or withdrawn, and rules 1, 2, 12, 28, 4, 16, 18, 3 and 29 were adopted individually. The remaining rules were then adopted. The DUP and UKUP specified they would not negotiate on the union. The UKUP resolution which had been adopted in the informal discussions was ratified by plenary. The Business Committee was then established under General de Chastelain.
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.
