ANNEX C4

06/06/92

POSSIBLE SAFEGUARD MECHANISMS

UUP SUBMISSION

1) In our submissions to the present Talks, we have indicated a desire to consider and negotiate upon any reasonable mechanism consistent with the 'Common Themes' and 'Common Principles' documents, which would protect individuals and groups, within the proposed Assembly.

2) At present the main mechanism put forward has been a weighted majority of say 70% being required under certain circumstances. This could also mean that if 30% of the Assembly indicated dissatisfaction, under certain circumstances, the proposal may be referred outside the Assembly, or delayed.

3) Another suggestion has been made, ie that the SOS could have administrative or legislative decisions referred to him for examination, perhaps with an appropriate trigger mechanism to bring this about.

4) We have already indicated that the proposed 'Panel' may have a role to play in determining the outcome of some matters which are referred to it.

5) On top of these issues is the question of the Legislation already in place, together with any additional provisions which may be included in a new or amended Act.

6) It is already clear, that as well as many of the above, access to the courts will always be a safeguard mechanism. There is a risk that we will have such a wide variety of well intentioned measures that a virtual 'veto' is created which will work against the ideas of workability and durability already agreed.

7) We have to find the right balance between all of the possible means of protection.