Relations between Peter Mandelson and the SDLP have not noticeably improved since Seamus Mallon cried "chicanery" during the Third Reading debate on the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill in the House of Commons back in July.

And nationalist and republican suspicions have been further raised by the decision to postpone passage of the Bill through the Lords until after the Ulster Unionist Party conference in early October.

Does Mr Mandelson accept that he has a real problem with the SDLP and Sinn Fein - that they might reject the new police service, with all the implications that would have for the Belfast Agreement? Or does he think they are bluffing?

"I think on this issue, like any other in the peace process, it's unwise to take fixed, inflexible positions . . . and even more dangerous to try to find a way forward by having a war of words. The bottom line is that we either find a solution which, whilst not perfect, goes a very long way to meeting everyone's concerns and needs, or we put everything at risk."

Signalling his openness to further amendments as the legislative process continues, Mr Mandelson then offers his bottom line on the Patten proposals: "Whatever form the legislation takes, our position on Patten is very simple and remains unchanged. There will be a new police service, it will be called Police Service of Northern Ireland, and it will be one that grows out of the RUC. That is the spirit and the letter of Patten and is reflected in the Bill. It has been our consistent position and remains so."

The consistent position of the SDLP, of Sinn Fein, the Irish Government and the Clinton administration, however, is that Patten's insistence that in terms of title, emblems and flags, the new service should be free of any association with the symbols of either the British or Irish states is essential to a new beginning for policing. And Mr Mandelson has yet to commit to that.

The Secretary of State repeats his desire to hear local opinion, and the views of the new policing board on these issues. "The shadow policing board is going to have to assume a lot of responsibility of this kind," he offers. "If they can't reach agreement then I have the power to determine the matter. But my judgment would be based on what local representatives say. And if, as I hope, representatives of the SDLP and Sinn Fein and other nationalists take their places on the policing board then they will be in a pole position to affect the outcome of this discussion."

Does this mean there will be no decision on these issues until the board is operational? "That's my present intention, and I think it's difficult to gainsay the view that when it comes to designing insignia, deciding what the police flag should look like, and what emblems should be, that it shouldn't simply be left to the Secretary of State."

Grand in theory. But if there is no agreement, and it falls to him, can Mr Mandelson assure the SDLP and Sinn Fein that he would not opt for something - for example a symbol incorporating the crown - to which they were expressly opposed?

"Any decisions I take," he replies, "will be based on what I regard as sensible cross-community consensus. There is no other way when you're making a fresh start . . . that is the essence of Patten and it represents my view completely."

There have been reports that "sources close to" the Patten commission have expressed concerns about his failure to implement its recommendations fully. Mr Mandelson says he has kept in close touch with opinion in the Patten commission and talked directly with Chris Patten: "I respect the view they've taken, which is that, having delivered their report, it is now up to the government to implement it. They have not expressed any opinions in this current debate and I think that is wise."

Specifically, has Mr Patten expressed any concern that Mr Mandelson might be failing to implement his report? "Absolutely none whatsoever. I have kept him abreast of everything the government is doing, and he has acknowledged that information without further comment."

Many unionists suspect Mr Mandelson is long-fingering decisions which will eventually be made in nationalism's favour. Many nationalists, of course, suspect a classic British attempt to hive-off the SDLP and Irish Government from Sinn Fein.

Insisting he has neither "the inclination, time nor energy" to sow divisions between parties, Mr Mandelson insists his task is to "divine as broad and strong a consensus across the community as it is possible to achieve". But will it be sufficiently broad if Sinn Fein is not aboard? Can it work if, at the end of the day, republicans say this is not a police service they can accept?

"Nationalists and republicans must see the new service as representing a fresh start in policing. That is an imperative," he affirms, before adding: "But it has to be one equally that unionists can see has grown out of the RUC, because, as Patten made clear, the RUC is not being disbanded."

Mr Mandelson signals one possible development certain to delight nationalists and enrage unionists. Considering the problems he will probably encounter, at least initially, in terms of Catholic recruitment to the new service, might there be arrangements for secondment or whatever, which would open up a role for members of the Garda Siochana in the new Police Service of Northern Ireland?

"I think it's called lateral entry and the policy of the government is to support that," he confirms. And so there could be a quite significant input by the Garda into the new service? "In theory it is possible that such lateral entry could come about," he replies, "but precisely how, and on what terms, would remain to be considered."

NATIONALISTS, on the other hand, have been perplexed by Mr Mandelson's acceptance of a unionist amendment to the Police Bill saying that "for operational purposes" the new service shall be styled the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Why that word "operational" at all? And what might non-operational purposes be?

"The meaning of it is," he says, as he described it at Third Reading, "that wherever and whenever the police service interfaces with the public it will be known by the name Police Service of Northern Ireland." Plainly irritated with continuing accusations of bad faith, Mr Mandelson adds: "That's what it means, everyone accepts that. And I think when people quibble over this sub-clause or that parenthesis, they should remember not only what we've taken on in terms of policing, but also how far we have come in gaining acceptance that a fresh start should be made."

Recalling Mr David Trimble's furious response to Patten one year ago, the Secretary of State says: "It is not by chance that we have legislation which commands remarkable acceptance. That is a very big prize, one that many would have thought unimaginable a year ago."

And is it imaginable that Mr Trimble could remain in the power-sharing Executive should the SDLP and Sinn Fein ultimately reject the new policing dispensation? Or does he accept that the UUP leader's position in that event would become untenable?

Failure, clearly, is also unimaginable for the Secretary of State: "That's a hypothetical question which I don't believe anyone is going to have to answer because I don't think it's going to arise."