Trimble claims compromise on UUP objections

THE Ulster Unionist Party leader, Mr David Trimble, claimed at Stormont Castle Buildings that there had been "considerable movement…

THE Ulster Unionist Party leader, Mr David Trimble, claimed at Stormont Castle Buildings that there had been "considerable movement" towards changing the rules and procedures for the multi party talks to meet his party's objections.

There had been speculation that the UUP might withdraw from the talks if sufficient concessions were not made to the party on the powers of the chairman, Mr George Mitchell. But there was every indication last night that a compromise had been reached.

The Tanaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Spring, is due to attend today's plenary session. The Northern Ireland Secretary, Sir Patrick Mayhew, flew in by helicopter to attend the closing stages of last night's meeting. Over the past week, the parties have been discussing the chairman's powers and procedural issues generally.

A composite paper, produced yesterday by Mr Mitchell and his staff, was based on proposals from the different parties about rules and procedures.

READ MORE

The UUP leader said Mr Mitchell's paper had gone "a considerable way towards meeting the concerns that we had expressed", and many of the proposed rules they had put forward had been accepted.

The UUP has been seeking to transfer many of Mr Mitchell's powers to the business committee which has a co ordinating role in the talks and is chaired by Gen John de Chastelain.

Asked if the changes constituted mere "tokenism" Mr Trimble said there was a "tremendous difference in content, atone and range" between the latest set of rules and the paper produced by the two governments on June 6th. "They are two different documents."

Mr Trimble said: "The process belongs to the participants as a whole, and I think we've gone a considerable way towards underlining that."

Asked if the chairman would be in a position to arbitrate on contentious issues, the UUP leader said: "One of the things that I was concerned about in the original drafts is that it gave to the chairman the power to decide when there was a sufficient consensus."

There had been "significant movement on that point".