Northern Ireland First Minister Peter Robinson has said that much more work is needed to overcome issues that threaten the peace process.

The Democratic Unionist politician said that the talks chaired by former US diplomat Richard Haass had "narrowed the gap" between the opposing sides in the six counties.

Mr Robinson (pictured) said he was confident that the "broad architecture" was satisfactory but many of the proposals were "unworkable."

But on Monday night Ulster Unionist Party leader Mike Nesbitt said the UUP had rejected the plans.

He said the proposals were "not viable and not acceptable," but that "neither was the status quo."

"We are committed to a better and fairer way forward, we don't believe Haass has cracked it" he claimed, calling on Mr Robinson and his deputy Martin McGuinness to "clear up the obvious mess created by this process."

Republicans and the Allicance Party have all endorsed the draft deal.

Sinn Fein's Mr McGuinness accused unionists of allowing extremists to set their agenda.

He warned that Mr Haass had "delivered his final text" and called on unionists to "stand with the vast majority who want to see progress, not with the rejectionist elements within the Orange Order who wish to see this process fail."

Mr McGuinness warned against trying to rewrite the conclusions of the talks.

The document envisaged the setting up of the Commission on Identity, Culture and Tradition to examine the flags problem over a longer time frame - potentially 18 months.

Dr Haass recommended replacing the British government-appointed Parades Commission with a new devolved mechanism for adjudicating on contentious events.

An administrative Office of Parades, Select Commemorations and Related Protests would deal with applications to march and protest and facilitate mediation between groups while a new Authority for Public Events and Adjudication would deliberate on applications for unresolved parading disputes.

Like the Parades Commission it would have seven independent members, but the new authority would provide more scope for appealing against decisions.