Ruairi Quinn said on Thursday that Chris Patten's report was neither the first nor the final word on policing in Northern Ireland. The same might be said of many issues now crowding the political agenda: we've heard neither the first nor final words on taxes, wages, the Budget or abortion.
To judge by coverage, of course, the real issue of recent weeks has been the level of expenses paid to members of the Oireachtas.
Now, there's a ready-made cause for you - simple, catchy, easily reduced to terms the boys in the bar can grasp. Ideal meat for excitable radio presenters.
Well, it fits the anti-political bill: if you think we could do with fewer TDs, less interference and a macho approach to life in general, this is your chance to put the boot in.
The politicians make a poor fist of self-defence. No one bothers to explain the difference between reasonable and bogus expenses. They know they're going to be lumped together and summarily dis missed.
You might as well follow the herd, they say. And with the first herd you'll meet, on almost any road, there are journalists - taking the public to the fair.
But to return to policing in Northern Ireland: many union ists reacted to Patten on Thursday as if the report were both the first and final word on the RUC and the need to reform the police service.
It was as if the Belfast Agreement had not recognised the need for change - or placed a concomitant obligation on nationalist and republican parties to lead change, on their side, in attitudes to the police.
The SDLP and Sinn Fein are not the only sources of influence on nationalist opinion. The Irish and British governments took risks when they set out to draw loyalists and republicans away from paramilitary activity and into politics.
Their biggest risk was that, in the attempt, they in turn would be drawn into the shadows of paramilitary rhetoric and evasion.
They took the risk in the belief that, with their help, the Northern parties would build a modern, democratic state with institutions to which Protestants and Catholics could give allegiance. The key institutions, as set out in the agreement, were the Assembly, the executive and a reformed police service.
The difficulties which have delayed the formation of the executive are still being examined by George Mitchell. And some say the coincidence of his review and the Patten report adds to the problems on both fronts.
BUT THE connection between policing, decommissioning and political development is undeniable. And it may be more easily explored when the dust has settled on initial reactions to Patten.
Anti-agreement unionists, led by the DUP, were bound to reject the report, whatever its tone. The authors clearly presented their proposals with the UUP and smaller pro-agreement parties in mind.
But David Trimble's initial objection to the change of title and the removal of flags and emblems shows the extent to which the RUC was seen as a defender of a unionist state.
There has been little enough comment on some eminently sensible ideas about regional divisions and restructuring, the use of more modern means of communication and more up-to-date methods of management.
It's the so-called political elements that have attracted most attention: - flags and emblems, Sinn Fein members on the policing board and what Mr Patten calls "robust arrangements for accountability at local level."
Those who favour change cannot ignore the terrible legacy of the IRA's war of attrition against the RUC, more than 300 of whose members have been murdered since the conflict began. (For unionists, there's the bitter irony that the first and last officers killed in 30 years of violence were murdered by loyalists.)
The parties in the Republic have often seemed, if not complicit in the violence of republicans, at best indifferent to it, provided it happens north of the Border.
When John Bruton points to the violence of vigilantes or evidence of rearming by the IRA he's regarded as, somehow, talking out of turn.
Now that there's a possibility of movement, however unsteady, towards the completion of the Belfast Agreement, all of the parties in this State should encourage the process. Ruairi Quinn, in his statement on Patten, said that we, too, could do with some of the changes proposed. It's a timely reminder; after all, it was in the North that action was taken following the failure of Merchant Banking, and in the North that Patrick Gallagher was sent to prison.
AS WE tune in to TG4 for the proceedings of the Committee of Public Accounts - and admire the persistence of Jim Mitchell, Pat Rabbitte, Sean Ardagh and their colleagues - it seems reasonable to ask yet again why nothing happened here.
But, then, it's becoming clearer by the day that action depends, not only on the policy decisions of government, but on the decisions being passed to the civil service and State agencies - to be followed to the point of implementation.
We've learned in recent years - from the beef tribunal in one instance, through the diligence of the Sunday Tri- bune in another - how significant decisions may be slipped into the Finance Bill and passed unnoticed through the Dail.
We are now beginning to discover from the Public Accounts Committee hearings that decisions publicly announced are not necessarily implemented as the public is given to believe.
We hear of disappointment and discontent within the Revenue Commissioners when, somehow, the best endeavours of enthusiastic officials are frustrated. We hear of information which is generally available - up to a point.
And there's vestigial knowledge, which seems to have no identifiable origin and can never be pinned down.
We have been given passing glimpses of the way in which pressure from outside may filter through the political system to the administration of policy.
One witness refers to the concern raised by the tax marches organised by the trade union movement in 1979; another speaks of political sensitivity to the unions when national agreements are being negotiated.
But you can be sure there's no substitute for the sustained pressure of financial institutions which not only contribute to political parties but keep in touch, one way or another, to warn of the consequences of decisions which are not to their liking.
Superstition is alive and thriving in the hard-nosed world of finance.
This week's prize for hard neck goes to Brian Cowen who, after two and a half years of consultation, thousands of submissions and the memory of two long and bitter referendum campaigns, comes up with a Green Paper on abortion.
It will, he says, help to throw light on the issue.
Not that the Government intends to do anything about it. Certainly not before an election: Mr Cowen has passed the buck to the all-party committee on the Constitution whose members, if they have any self-respect, should throw it back, as the last committee did.