The Ulster Unionists expect the British government this week to accept an amendment to the Police Bill underlining that the RUC is not being disbanded, despite the scrapping of its "royal" title.
However, a senior Labour backbencher and former shadow Northern Ireland Secretary, Mr Kevin McNamara, said last night he believed this would "run counter to the spirit" of the Patten proposals for police reform.
Consistent with Patten's recommendation, the SDLP has tabled a new clause providing that "the Royal Ulster Constabulary shall be known instead as the Police Service of Northern Ireland".
The standing committee on the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill resumes at Westminster today and the UUP and SDLP amendments are expected to be reached at its final sitting on Thursday.
The expectation is that ministers will adhere to Patten and the working title "The Police Service of Northern Ireland", while seeking to incorporate reference to the RUC in the so-called title deeds of the Bill. The SDLP members of the committee, Mr Seamus Mallon and Mr Eddie McGrady, have declined to say what their attitude is to the amendment standing in the name of Mr Ken Maginnis MP. This would provide that "the body of constables known as the Royal Ulster Constabulary shall continue in being as the Police Service of Northern Ireland (incorporating the Royal Ulster Constabulary) - while accepting that this body of constables "shall be styled for operational purposes `the Police Service of Northern Ireland'."
It is believed the unionist formulation matches that which they thought to have agreed with Mr Peter Mandelson on May 5th during the negotiations that led to the restoration of the Executive and the IRA's proposals for putting weapons beyond use.
However, there is confusion in unionist, and nationalist, circles as to what Mr Maginnis's amendment would mean.
Mr Maginnis said it would retain "RUC" as part of the formal title of the new service and, more importantly, confirm that the force had not been disbanded.
The contrary view, supported by some independent lawyers, is that incorporation means the disappearance of the royal title and that the unionist amendment, if accepted, would not pass the so-called "letterhead" or "LandRover" tests.
It would appear this is also the view of Mr William Thompson, Mr Maginnis's colleague on the committee, who has joined Conservative MP Mr Andrew Hunter in tabling an amendment proposing the straightforward retention of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
Mr Maginnis has indicated he would have no difficulty supporting that proposal. However, Mr Maginnis, and UUP leader Mr David Trimble, stand, at the very least, to be embarrassed by the government's rejection of that - and its expected rejection, too, of the official Conservative amendment proposing the name "The Police Service of Northern Ireland - the Royal Ulster Constabulary".
It is unclear whether Mr Adam Ingram, the Minister of State, will indicate the government's thinking on the question of emblems for the new service, and the flying of the Union flag at police stations and property, on Thursday or at the Report Stage, scheduled for July 11th.
Mr Ingram is expected to bow to SDLP pressure to reduce the quorum required to initiate inquiries by the new 19-member Policing Board from 12 to 10.
Mr Mandelson has also told Mr McNamara he believes "in time it will be possible to relegate convictions in the selection procedures" for District Police Partnerships.
The Police Bill contains no automatic disqualifications from the Policing Board, nor are elected members of DPPs subject to any disqualifications - their democratic mandate overriding any other considerations.
But in a letter to the Secretary of State dated 20th June, Mr McNamara questioned Mr Mandelson's assertion that "the moment has not been reached" when he can relegate the consideration of terrorist convictions in the procedures for the appointment of independent members of DPPs".
Mr McNamara argued: "Clearly there are great sensitivities, but surely the critical `moment' is the moment of creation of the first DPPs. I can not envisage the circumstances of a second attempt . . . I think you have everything to lose and nothing to gain by being defensive on this issue. Perhaps you might look at how disqualification might be recast along the lines of similar provisions that embody the Mitchell principles of peaceful and democratic means."
In his letter, Mr McNamara said Patten skilfully pitched his presentation to achieve a balance between "the aspirations of the next generation leadership of the police service" as against "the experience and morale of the existing leadership". Just as Mr Mandelson would want to pay tribute to the sacrifices of the RUC, and "to underline the courage and skill of the chief constable in presiding over the process of historic change", Mr McNamara said: "There is an additional balance to be struck between the sensitivities of the `old' and the needs of the `new' inside the service."
In his reply, Mr Mandelson acknowledged the importance of this point, telling Mr McNamara: "As the full range of developments comes into play . . . it will be possible, more proactively, to market the new beginning."