The stage is set for a protracted battle of wills between Mr Peter Mandelson and Mr Seamus Mallon as the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill begins its Commons Committee discussions.
In a surprise move last Tuesday night, Mr Mallon led his two SDLP colleagues, Mr John Hume and Mr Eddie McGrady, into the government lobby to support the Bill at the end of the Second Reading debate. He subsequently made it clear that SDLP support would be withdrawn unless the Bill was radically altered to reflect fully the recommendations of the Patten commission.
To that end the SDLP is expected to table at least 44 amendments to the published Bill.
The Ulster Unionists also tabled an initial batch of amendments last night, including one providing a new clause which would effectively retain the "Royal Ulster Constabulary" in the formal title of the new force, while acknowledging that it "shall be styled for operational purposes the Police Service of Northern Ireland".
The UUP amendment, which is certain to face strong SDLP/ Sinn Fein opposition, would state that the body of Constables known as the Royal Ulster Constabulary would "continue in being as the Police Service of Northern Ireland (Incorporating the RUC)".
However the Ulster Unionists and the Conservatives are likely to find themselves fighting a largely rearguard action to protect what they consider improvements in the Bill, resulting from the British government's departure from Patten at the drafting stage. It is these departures which will provide the focus of a determined SDLP campaign, led by Mr Mallon, over the coming weeks.
A 16-page SDLP analysis of the Bill, seen by The Irish Times, identifies key areas of nationalist concern.
On Name, Flags and Emblems:
The Patten report proposed that the RUC be named the Northern Ireland Police Service. The Bill does not close the controversy but instead gives the power of decision to the Secretary of State after consultation.
Patten proposed that the police adopt a new badge and symbols "entirely free of association with either the British or Irish states".
The Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to determine the issue.
Patten recommended the Union flag should no longer be flown from police buildings. The Bill does not close the issue and the Secretary of State has taken the power of decision.
Human Rights and Training:
Patten proposed a new oath for all officers, requiring them to "accord equal respect to all individuals and to their traditions and beliefs". The Bill omits the requirement to accord equal respect to the traditions and beliefs of individuals.
Patten proposed a code of ethics integrating the European Convention on Human Rights and "procedures to ensure compliance with the law and international human rights standards and norms . . .".
The Bill gives the Chief Constable the power to draw up a code of ethics, "laying down standards of conduct and practice expected of the police service".
The SDLP argues that this power should be vested in the new Policing Board; that there should be a statutory obligation to consult the Human Rights Commission, and that the code of ethics and all codes of practice must comply with the provisions of all relevant human rights standards.
Past Conduct of Police Officers:
Patten said it was "not satisfactory to suggest . . . that one should somehow accept that every organisation has `bad apples'. They should be dealt with."
The Bill deprives the Policing Board of powers to inquire into matters which occurred or are alleged to have occurred before its establishment and also gives the Secretary of State power to pass regulations preventing the Ombudsman from investigating complaints about matters occurring in the past.
Functions of the Policing Board:
Patten said the primary function of the Policing Board should be to hold the Chief Constable to account and recommended that the board meet publicly at least once a month.
The Bill does not impose a duty on the board (save where there are compelling reasons not to do so) to meet in public.
Patten envisaged a Policing Board "with clearly defined and robust (powers) . . . in relation to the Secretary of State".
The Bill empowers the Secretary of State to issue codes of practice to the board in relation to any of its functions, and obliges the board to "have regard" to such codes.
The SDLP says this is contrary to the separation of powers between government and the Policing Board envisaged by Patten.
Composition of the Policing Board:
Patten suggested the independent members of the board be appointed by the Secretary of State "in consultation with the First and Deputy First Minister". The Bill relieves the Secretary of State of the obligation to consult for the first appointments following devolution.
Patten provided that the first chairman of the Policing Board be appointed by the Secretary of State "with the agreement of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister". The Bill allows the Secretary of State to appoint the first chairman and deputy chairman in consultation with the First Minister and Deputy First Minister.
Policing Board - reports:
Patten said the grounds on which the Chief Constable could refuse to report to the board on any issue "should be strictly limited to issues such as those involving national security, sensitive personnel matters and cases before the courts".
The Bill allows refusal by the Chief Constable on the additional grounds that a report "would contain information relating to a matter being investigated by a statutory authority" or "would, or would be likely to prejudice the administration of justice".
Policing Board - inquiries:
Patten stressed the importance of the board's ability to follow up reports from the Chief Constable with inquiries, subject only to the same limitations (national security etc) as apply to the report procedure, and did not sanction any additional limitations by way of special voting restrictions.
The Bill provides that an inquiry cannot be initiated unless 12 members of the board present and voting agree.
The SDLP says this means, for example, that the 10 political members of the board cannot together initiate an inquiry, despite constituting a majority on the board.
Patten provided that the inquiry procedure be subject only to the same strict limitations as the report procedure.
The Bill gives the Secretary of State power to prevent an inquiry "if it appears to him that the holding or continuation of such an inquiry . . . would not be in the interests of the efficiency or effectiveness of the police service".
District Policing Partnerships (DPP):
Patten recommended there be four sub-groups for the DPP in Belfast; that the DPPs should monitor the performance of the police as well as that of other protective agencies; that the DPPs should meet in public; and that the DPPs be able to raise 3p in the pound for community safety.
The Bill makes no corresponding provisions.
The SDLP also notes that while the Secretary of State has discretion on whether to appoint a person to the Policing Board who has been convicted of a criminal offence, a person similarly convicted at any stage cannot be appointed as a DPP and that there is no discretion in the matter.
Last week in the Commons, Mr Mandelson indicated that he would amend his Bill to implement Patten's proposals on recruitment and quotas (50-50 recruitment of Protestants and Catholics), and also to establish the office of the oversight commissioner in statute.
The SDLP says the Bill should establish the post of oversight commissioner in accordance with Patten, and in so doing confer a duty on him to supervise the implementation of the recommendations of the Patten report; provide him with powers of inquiry to that end;
oblige the Policing Board, the Secretary of State, the Chief Constable, the DPPs and Policing Ombudsman, whenever requested, to provide the Oversight Commissioner, following consultations with him, with objectives and timetables for the implementation of Patten;
oblige the oversight commissioner to report regularly and publicly on progress made toward implementation of Patten, together with his observations on the extent to which any failures or delays are the responsibility of the policing institutions themselves or are due to matters beyond their control.