Document lays the basis to achieve an acceptable agreement

In the peace process, it is inevitable that there are swings of mood from excessive optimism to excessive pessimism and back again. But at the moment, as we enter the crucial phase of the negotiations, it is more important than ever that we bear steadily in mind fundamental objectives and principles, and maintain a sense of perspective.

Last Monday, the two governments presented a Propositions on Heads of Agreement paper to the other participants in multi-party talks. We started work on it before Christmas, after the talks had adjourned with no agreement on how to proceed into the consideration of key issues. It was manifestly clear that something had to be done to break the stalemate if the talks were to retain any credible prospect of success.

The paper was devised as a basis for discussion - nothing more and nothing less. There was nothing radically new in it, as it drew from the ideas put forward by the parties themselves during the autumn. But it tried to combine these ideas in a way which struck a balance between them.

On Tuesday, it was accepted that the paper could facilitate detailed discussions. Those discussions begin this week. But we were, and are, well aware the parties took this move without prejudice to their own deeply-held views, and without in any sense signing up to the paper. As Mark Durkan of the SDLP put it on Thursday, it is just a first step. But it is an important one. For the first time in this tortuous process, we have found a way to launch real negotiations on issues of substance.

The two governments believe the propositions are a good basis for working towards a widely acceptable agreement. Time will tell. But what is clear is that they are not detailed proposals, or a draft agreement. Mary Holland observed that they occupy considerably less space than a single column of this newspaper. No matter what is in it, any conceivable agreement would have to be much longer and more detailed, and would have to address issues much more fully and explicitly - as has been done in the key documents of the present process, the Joint Declaration and the Framework Document. The agreement should be squarely in line with and build upon the principles and proposals set out in those documents; the Propositions paper is to be seen in that light.

Of course, any joint paper put forward by the governments, no matter how brief, is bound to be carefully scrutinised. Most comment so far has been very positive. But it is clear there exist some concerns within sections of both unionist and nationalist opinion. Some nationalist anxieties in particular were expressed by Niall O'Dowd in Thursday's Irish Times.

I greatly admire the huge contribution Niall O'Dowd has made both to the burgeoning self-confidence and self-awareness of Irish America, and to key aspects of the peace process. However, on this occasion I feel his worries are unfounded.

He identified three key areas in which, he argued, the Propositions paper moved away from the Framework Document: the totality of relationships; North/South institutions; and the equality agenda.

In fact, contrary to what he suggests, the term totality of relationships, from its first use in the Haughey/Thatcher communique of 8th December 1980 - which spoke of the totality of relationships within these islands - has always been employed to describe the full range of relationships on the islands of Ireland and Great Britain. Indeed, it is used in precisely this sense in both the Framework Document and in the Ground Rules for the present negotiations.

The Propositions envisage a North/South Ministerial Council bringing together those with executive responsibilities in Northern Ireland and the Government in particular areas. They also envisage the establishment of suitable implementation bodies and mechanisms for policies agreed by the North/South Ministerial Council in meaningful areas and at an all-island level. The Government is in no doubt - and has always been consistent in the view - that this has to include bodies responsible for executing policy on an all-island basis. The joint statement of the two governments also made clear that the North/South Ministerial Council will operate independently in its designated areas of responsibility. It will not be subordinate to any other institution. Of course, as the Framework Document also envisaged, all decisions within these North/South institutions would be by agreement between the two sides, both of which would be democratically accountable to the elected institutions in their respective jurisdictions.

So far as rights, equality, justice and confidence issues are concerned, if anything the Propositions contain a more wide-ranging agenda than the Framework Document. Prisoners and security issues, for example, are both addressed. The Government believes any settlement must include provision for dealing satisfactorily with and resolving, in a clearly-defined timeframe and according to agreed principles, all these issues. In the new start which we want a comprehensive settlement to signal, there can be no place in Northern Ireland for the slightest suggestion of second-class citizenship.

More broadly, there is nothing in the Propositions which is incompatible or inconsistent with the Framework Document or the Joint Declaration.

We should look behind particular formulations to the substance of what is being proposed. The Framework Document itself was explicitly presented not as a rigid blueprint, but a shared understanding of the possible parameters of a settlement. What really matters is what the parties themselves, with the governments, can agree in the negotiations. Nothing has been agreed so far, and nothing will be finally agreed in any one Strand until everything is agreed in the negotiations as a whole. It will be up to the parties themselves to decide whether there is enough for their constituency in a prospective settlement to justify their support for it. Then the people, North and South, will make the final decision.

On Monday last, I spoke of the likelihood that any agreement would involve, for the participants, both parity of comfort and parity of discomfort. There are bound to be aspects of any negotiated settlement with which one side or another will be less than happy. But that does not mean that we re-engaged in a zerosum game. What is good for unionists does not have to be bad for nationalists, or vice versa. For far too long in Northern Ireland that's been the automatic reflex. What we have to recognise is that an honourable, balanced and comprehensive settlement, bringing about a truly new beginning in all of the key relationships, will be in everyone's interests.

What is important is not that points of difference will remain - points of difference exist in all societies - but that we create the structures and the confidence through which these differences can be resolved exclusively by peaceful and democratic means. That's the only kind of settlement the Government is interested in, or will agree to.