Readers of The Irish Times who are not familiar with every line of the Patten report or every clause of the British government's Police Bill may have become a little bemused by the series of detailed articles on policing in Northern Ireland this week.
As the Minister responsible for steering the Bill through the House of Commons - including many hours of line-by-line scrutiny - I know that the sheer complexity of the legislation can obscure the wider picture. But I appreciate the detailed criticisms as a valuable contribution to the process of refining the Bill.
I understand the passion generated on all sides. I welcome constructive criticism and I do not ignore well-argued objections. The Bill has already changed substantially during committee stage and more changes will follow. Before addressing the few remaining areas of disagreement, let me describe the Bill as it currently stands.
Northern Ireland will have a policing service with a degree of accountability, a commitment to human rights, and a level of community involvement unparalleled in Great Britain or the Republic of Ireland. The new service will match or exceed the best international policing structures, including those in the United States.
Critics of the Bill focus on a few areas of dispute. They are unwilling to recognise the breadth of change introduced. For example, the creation of a new Policing Board with powers unparalleled in Great Britain or the Republic, a board which will include, as of right, members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, including the SDLP and Sinn Fein.
Also 26 new District Policing Partnerships, including councillors from all of the political parties, will play a crucial role in holding the police to account at local level and in developing policing plans to meet local needs. A code of ethics applying to all officers and a new police oath will reinforce the commitment to human rights, in full compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights.
The root and branch restructuring of the police service, the new provisions for training, and the radical approach to community policing will be a model for police services worldwide.
A system for dealing with complaints which is completely independent of the police has been placed in the hands of a powerful new ombudsman. Again, these arrangements are unknown elsewhere in the UK or the Republic.
In order to ensure an appropriate balance of Catholics and Protestants in the new service, the Government will implement a 50:50 recruitment scheme even more radical than that recommended by the Patten report. We have committed ourselves to this in the face of sustained criticism that it is discriminatory and contrary to EU law.
This is the new beginning for policing which some seem to have missed. It tends to be ignored by those who focus on the few Patten recommendations - a handful out of the original 175 - which are the subject of continuing discussion. So let me respond to some of the details raised by Paddy Hillyard, Alex Attwood, and Andrew Mackay in their articles this week.
The name of the police
A comparison of Andrew Mackay's and Alex Attwood's views shows all too graphically why the name is such a painful and difficult issue. Their demands cannot both be satisfied. We have been persuaded by the strength of argument in the Patten report and accept that the name must change, and change it will, to the Police Service of Northern Ireland.
As The Irish Times noted on its front page (July 12th), the RUC name will pass into history. However, as Patten recognised, the sensitivities of those who cherish the history of a police service which has sacrificed so much and earned our gratitude and respect must be recognised.
The Police Ombudsman
The Police Ombudsman is given powers in the Bill to report on police policies and practices when they arise as part of a complaints investigation. However, the whole purpose of the office is to investigate complaints. Wider reports into policies and practices are a matter for the Policing Board. Even so, the board can ask the Ombudsman to carry out such inquiries on its behalf.
The Policing Board
The board will have the power recommended by Patten to require reports from the Chief Constable and to initiate inquiries into the police service. The Secretary of State has acknowledged that the original Bill went too far in placing safeguards on these powers. After consultation with political parties, many of these safeguards were removed in Committee Stage and further changes will be made.
Police Efficiency
The Government has already said that it will restructure the provisions on efficiency to ensure that the Policing Board has the lead role in driving the efficiency agenda: another example of more power being given to the board.
The Oversight Commissioner
The Oversight Commissioner will oversee the process of implementation, as Patten intended. The SDLP and others have argued that his remit should cover Patten's recommendations rather than our plans for implementing them, but it seems more sensible to concentrate on implementation, which is the Commissioner's primary purpose. He will issue reports to give public reassurance and validation of the changes.
Retrospective Inquiries
We have provided powers for the Ombudsman to carry out retrospective investigation of complaints against the police. But where the Policing Board is concerned, some of our critics seem to have forgotten that the Good Friday agreement and the Patten report are both about a new beginning, not raking over the past.
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that there is a political motive in the desire to pursue old grievances. Patten never intended the Policing Board to become a surrogate truth and reconciliation committee - that is not its function.
The Taoiseach and Tony Blair discussed the Police Bill when they met earlier this week. A relatively small number of outstanding issues remain. They will be resolved in the months ahead, before the Bill becomes law.
In the meantime, I hope all sides in this debate will take the opportunity of the summer break to reflect on the radical nature of the Bill's proposals. Above all, instead of concentrating purely on their own areas of dissatisfaction, I hope they will spend time reflecting on the difficulties of those who disagree with them.
Alex Attwood rightly comments that nationalists have taken risks. He must surely appreciate that unionists have also taken risks. And both will have to take further risks if the Good Friday agreement is to be fully implemented.
There is a degree of pain to be borne by everyone as a result of the Good Friday agreement, a point well illustrated in yesterday's thoughtful editorial on the killing of Det Garda McCabe.
If both traditions in Northern Ireland can appreciate the pain inflicted by their demands in relation to policing, then we will have gone a long way to achieving the goal shared by the two governments and by Patten himself - "a police service that can enjoy widespread support from, and is seen as an integral part of, the whole community".
Adam Ingram MP is the Minister of State at the Northern Ireland Office