When the Patten recommendations were published last September, Sinn Fein said it would withhold judgment until the British government had dealt with them.
The British government's full hand will be declared in the next few weeks. British government legislation gives no cause for joy.
Clifford Shearing, an independent member of the Patten Commission, writing in the Guardian on November 14th, described the damage to the Patten recommendations the British government's legislation has done.
He wrote: "The core elements of the Patten Commission report have been undermined everywhere. The district policing partnership boards that are so vital to the Patten Commission's vision have been diluted. So have its recommendations in the key areas in its terms of reference: composition, recruitment, culture, ethos and symbols. The Patten report has not been cherry picked, it has been gutted. The Bill does not fulfil the hopes and vision of the Belfast Agreement."
I fully share the above analysis. The British government's refusal to accept clear analyses which show they are not implementing the Patten report, while persisting with the claim that they are, smacks of the double-dealing attached to their handling of the name of a police service.
Some of the specifics include:
The oath: Peter Mandelson has suggested that the Patten Commission's recommendation that all officers, new and serving, take a new oath is not reasonable. This is astounding.
Badge and emblems: In the wake of Peter Mandelson's handling of the flying of flags at government buildings, there is a paucity of trust among nationalists and republicans in respect of the proposed decision-making process on flags and emblems for the police.
The policing board could, and should, have been tasked with these issues in the context of the Patten recommendation that there should be no association with the British or Irish states.
The name: After the political chicanery we witnessed from May to July on the issue of the name of the police service, I regret to have to say again that a severe trust deficit exists. What the British government has eventually opted for is not in line with the Patten recommendations.
Reports and inquiries: On the related issues of reports and inquiries, I believe independent commissioner Shearing encapsulated what Sinn Fein and others have been saying to the British government for months. Patten is not being implemented on these issues.
Mr Shearing wrote: "The Bill . . . would allow the Chief Constable to question almost any attempt by the board to require a report or get behind a report they have received . . . The Bill also allows the secretary of state to quash an independent inquiry initiated by the board on the same grounds.
"Does this matter? Yes. The Patten Commission recommended `a comprehensive programme of action to focus policing in Northern Ireland on a human rights-based approach'. This requires transparency.
"The terms of reference of the commission required it to `bring forward proposals' that would ensure that the police service enjoys `widespread support from, and is seen to be part of, the community as a whole'. This, too, requires transparency. This Bill does the very opposite. Its provisions make it possible to hide and obscure."
Representation: It is amazing, given the Patten Commission's emphasis on the need to attract nationalists and republicans into the police, that no specific provision is made in the legislation for this. The RUC is 100 per cent unionist, 92 per cent Protestant. It is young nationalists and republicans who need to be persuaded to join the police service.
Accountability: Too much power has been retained by the British Secretary of State, and the margin for discretion for the Chief Constable does not meet the transparency test set by Patten.
Regardless of what Sinn Fein or the SDLP say, young nationalists and republicans do not want to join any police organisation that is not transparent in its operation and safeguards.
Sinn Fein's arguments on all the above issues, and on the legislation in the context of each and every individual Patten recommendation, have been presented to the British government. Much of what we have said and written on these matters enjoys the support of a wide range of opinion in our society, including human rights organisations, academics and individual members of the Patten Commission.
Primary responsibility must lie with Peter Mandelson, but it is also a fact that the RUC itself, and the securocrats within the British system, rebelled against the very idea of accountable civic policing, subverted the Patten proposals and succeeded in winning support for their position from Peter Mandelson and Tony Blair.
What has been presented by the British government is quite depressing. The British government seems to have lost all sight of how central this issue is to the Good Friday agreement and a successful process of conflict resolution.
Young nationalists and republicans do not wish to join any police organisation that is secret or capable of hiding its own mistakes or abuses of its authority. They want open, accountable and transparent policing practices. Peter Mandelson's Bill, which is now law, completely subverts this. The Patten report has been binned.
Gerry Kelly is a Sinn Fein member of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the party spokesman on policing