The Northern Ireland Secretary has warned the Rev Ian Paisley that he will "lose the opportunity to influence events" if his party refuses to rejoin the Stormont talks. Dr Mo Mowlam made the statement after a meeting yesterday at Stormont during which she failed to convince the DUP leader to join negotiations as they enter their substantive phase next week.
A furious Dr Paisley later said he would not enter negotiations because Dr Mowlam had asked him to "sit down and negotiate with IRA/Sinn Fein". Their discussions were "of such a nature that I'm afraid we are even further down the road than even I thought it would be possible to go".
In her statement, Dr Mowlam said she believed the DUP could make a valuable contribution if the party accepted this week's decision to establish an international decommissioning body and to move into substantive negotiations.
"Equally I have pointed out to Dr Paisley and his colleagues that if they decide not to resume full participation in the negotiations at this stage, the DUP will inevitably lose the opportunity to influence events and to represent their supporters' interests in vital negotiations," she said.
But Dr Mowlam said she and her political development Minister, Mr Paul Murphy, were willing to hold further discussions with the DUP, but that "meanwhile, the talks will of course proceed".
Earlier yesterday the DUP deputy leader, Mr Peter Robinson, said he wanted the minutes of the Stormont talks sessions made available to his party. To withhold the minutes from the DUP would amount to "freezing them out", he said. Dr Mowlam said this was a matter for the talks chairman, Senator George Mitchell.
Meanwhile, the Alliance Party strongly criticised the setting up of a political affairs committee at the Northern Ireland Forum, saying it could "undermine the primacy" of the Stormont talks.
The party's chief whip, Mr Sean Neeson, said the Ulster Unionists had made "a grave mistake" in proposing such a committee, which would discuss progress at Stormont. "Quite clearly the DUP are going to hype it and I believe it will be used as an alternative talks process."
At yesterday's forum meeting Mr Neeson said the committee would discourage the DUP from entering multi-party talks. "They now have this other process and the whole question of them re-entering the talks now becomes more remote," he said. The Alliance Party has not yet decided to participate in the new committee.
Mr Ken Maginnis of the UUP rejected the Alliance Party allegations, saying his party had never discouraged the DUP from entering talks. "We believe they are wrong to abdicate their responsibility to the electorate and we certainly don't want to create avenues for others to abdicate their responsibility."
Mr Maginnis also called on the SDLP to return to the forum, which it left in protest over the handling of the Drumcree crisis last year. He said it was "almost soul-destroying to be talking to oneself, as we appear to be doing, to a degree, at the moment."
He said that when the SDLP leader, Mr John Hume, looked at "the responsibility that has been exercised by the unionist tradition over the last couple of weeks", he might feel it was the right time to return to the forum.
Mr Maginnis said the UUP wanted to see the forum "moving up a gear" and that it was important the SDLP played its part in discussing administrative matters and issues that affected everyday life in Northern Ireland.
A forum health committee yesterday criticised the way the health service in Northern Ireland was being run. A report said the service had too many layers of administration and vital services were underfunded.
Meanwhile, the Sinn Fein president, Mr Gerry Adams, has said that an end to British rule in Ireland is the "inevitable outcome" of the peace process. He said it was "nonsense" for other parties to say that Sinn Fein's goal of a united Ireland was unrealistic.
Mr Adams said Sinn Fein recognised that "the concerns of the unionist population about their position in an Irish national democracy must be addressed and resolved in a concrete way".
Editorial comment: page 11