Two days of talks in the North did produce a measure of progress, the Northern Secretary said last night. Dan Keenan, Northern News Editor and Mark Brennock, Chief Political Correspondent, report.
Speaking to The Irish Times, Mr Paul Murphy confirmed that advances were made on issues including a ministerial code, executive collectivity and scrutiny of ministers by Assembly committees.
Mr Murphy confirmed that he and Mr Tom Kitt, junior minister at the Department of Foreign Affairs, had agreed an assessment of the talks and reported to the two governments.
"It was disappointing we couldn't finish things, but the fact is that the largest party [the DUP] is not a pro-agreement party and the others are pro-agreement. This raised questions of trust," he said.
Mr Murphy said officials were still working on joint proposals with the Irish Government, "but we're not talking about a long time", he said.
Officials in Dublin took a more cautious approach. The Government said that no decision to table joint British-Irish proposals, in an attempt to resolve the political deadlock in the North, has yet been taken.
A Government spokeswoman said last night that it will discuss with the British government the option of publishing joint proposals.
"It is premature to say that the British and Irish governments are putting their own proposals," the Government spokeswoman said. "That is an option but that decision has not been made yet."
Government officials who were involved in this week's failed talks returned to Dublin yesterday, and will brief the Taoiseach and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Cowen, on what transpired. Mr Cowen returns from the UN at the weekend.
Some Dublin sources retain some hope that the talks process is not fully deadlocked, and that there is some scope for further negotiation on the question of the accountability of Northern ministers and other issues which are obstacles to agreement.
Divisions between pro and anti-agreement parties widened yesterday following the acrimonious end to two days of talks at Stormont on Wednesday night.
The SDLP accused the DUP of "not engaging" during a three-hour meeting at Parliament Buildings.
A spokesman said: "There was no movement on anything of any significance." The party accused the DUP of "waiting for the British government to try to cut them a better deal".
Mr Peter Robinson, the DUP deputy leader, countered yesterday, claiming that nationalists were interested more in "power distribution" than " power-sharing". He accused the SDLP of wanting "the functions of government to be dealt out like cards among the main parties and each have a virtually unfettered power to exercise those functions within their own fiefdom".
The Alliance party also criticised the SDLP, claiming it was adopting a position which was too rigid.
The SDLP and Sinn Féin together are holding out against unionist proposals which enable executive ministers to challenge each others' decisions.
They also oppose suggestions that Assembly members should have the means to overturn unpopular ministerial decisions, exercise more control over the executive's dealings with the Irish Government and change the system for voting first and deputy first ministers.
This led Mr David Ervine, leader of the Progressive Unionists, to accuse the DUP of being "culturally unable" to signing up to anything with Sinn Féin.
For the Ulster Unionists, Mr Michael McGimpsey said the concentration of debate on Assembly structures risked letting the IRA off the hook on questions of decommissioning and the ending of paramilitary activity.
"Where is the IRA statement? "Is the war over? Is 'melt away' the same as disband? Everyone is so fixated by the paper chase and political geekery up at Stormont that pressure on republicans is being forgotten about."