Sir, - In their rush to criticise the British Government, Brendan O'Leary (Letters, August 2nd) and Paddy Hillyard (Opinion, August 2nd) fail to recognise how far we are on the way already to a fundamental transformation of policing in Northern Ireland.
Far from "forgetting" that Patten's terms of reference came from the Good Friday Agreement, the Government is acutely aware that these require "a police service that can enjoy widespread support from, and is seen as an integral part of, the whole community". That is precisely what the Police Bill aims to achieve.
Prof O'Leary concedes, gracelessly, that the name of the police has indeed changed ("weasel formula"). But he complains that the new name is not Patten's recommendation. While it is certainly true that "Police Service of Northern Ireland" is not "Northern Ireland Police Service", nobody else, to my knowledge, complains about a word re-ordering which does no more than provide a less inelegant acronym (PSNI instead of NIPS).
He dislikes any commemoration of the name of the RUC in the body of the Bill. But then, writing in the Guardian (June 20th), he appears to believe that Patten recommended the disbandment of the RUC, when of course Patten specifically rejected that argument.
The front page of The Irish Times of July 12th proclaimed: "RUC name passing into history". That is a fair description, but the Patten Report and the British government, unlike Prof O'Leary, also recognise the sensitivities of those who cherish that history.
He disapproves of the government's desire to consult the new Policing Board before fully implementing the recommendations on the new badge and flag - a surprising lack of trust in a body to which he rightly attaches such importance.
Most puzzling is his approach to the few recommendations which are security dependent. Patten recognised that "the pace of change in some areas will depend on the security situation". To most people this is common sense. To both governments it has been policy for many years. But to Prof O'Leary it seems to be evidence of an "unethical foreign policy" and "spin".
Constructive comments on the Bill have brought about very substantial refinements during the legislative process and will continue to do so. What is truly depressing about Prof O'Leary's grinding of axes is that he fails to admit just how radical the new Bill is. This is not spin but fact. It provides for a police service with stronger provisions for accountability, human rights and community involvement than any in Great Britain or the Republic of Ireland. The powers of the Ombudsman, the Policing Board and the Oversight Commissioner will set the international standard in policing.
Both governments have recognised that there are issues remaining to be resolved in the autumn. Let us recognise that they are few, and that they can be discussed and resolved calmly, and without personal rancour or animus. - Yours, etc.,
Ivor Roberts, British Ambassador, Dublin.