The brief was, to put it mildly, "challenging". Meeting that brief, or even getting close to it, was always going to be difficult. The reaction to Chris Patten's report, A New Beginning: Policing in Northern Ireland, was always going to be "mixed".
While the language used in the terms of reference is relatively neutral, the task it outlined is hugely complex. In the simplest terms, Chris Patten and his seven fellow commissioners were asked to reinvent a police force viewed by some significant chunks of the population as hopelessly biased and by a violent minority as an occupying army. They were asked to undertake this duty during a period of historic upheaval, an upheaval that had at its core law and order in Northern Ireland.
Inevitably the report would be used as a political football. The level of change required to even pay significant lip service to the terms of reference would provide every side with plausible grievances to exploit.
Patten is an astute politician whose previous job, overseeing the handover of Hong Kong to China, will have reminded him of how deeply a population's feelings about their government and police force go when a new and unknown one is being forced upon them. Even where the public representatives were not engaged in point-scoring, the people would be worried. They had lived with nearly three decades of violence and, for some, the RUC had been their only protection.
And, of course, the "stances" had been taken up. One group demanding one extreme solution, another demanding the opposite.
In the face of all this, it would have been tempting to go for as neutral a report as possible. One that would have pleased and displeased no one, solved no problems, addressed no serious issues. A report filled with vague aspirational language. Mercifully he didn't.
Broadly the report can be broken down into two areas. The first deals with the sort of changes that needed to be made, regardless of the political context. Structural changes in the way the RUC would be run. A refocusing of their efforts to build the sort of links with communities that are vital to all police forces.
For the most part, these recommendations seem to be the result of his team's work with other police forces. They spent a significant amount of time examining how things are done in North America, Europe and Britain. It is difficult to find fault with these changes, as they are based on a mixture of common sense and human rights, and any move to bring a police force closer to the people it is protecting is usually a good move.
Indeed, the report's description of a police force being effective, impartial and accountable, with respect for human rights, should apply worldwide. Even the suggestion to reduce the size of the force to 7,500 has been greeted relatively quietly.
I am a little wary of one or two of its suggestions. Members of the police force having their names clearly visible on the uniforms would tend, I believe, to take away from their authority.
Its second area deals with matters political, sectarian and symbolic, which produced its first swathe of knee-jerk reactions within minutes of publication.
Changing the force's name, badge and flag has been described as a "gratuitous insult". The unionists have been talking about the sacrifices made by members of the RUC over the years and how they are being ignored or in a way "covered up" by these proposals. It is this sort of comment that is at the root of the problems in the North. What it demonstrates is that one side of the community cannot, or will not, understand the other's outlook.
To the unionists it seems perfectly logical that the Union flag should fly over police stations. That there should be a crown on the badge and that the name Royal Ulster Constabulary is entirely appropriate. To them the symbolism of these items is inexorably linked with their membership of the United Kingdom. And, it is arguable, they are right. Or they would be right if the police force under review patrolled Somerset.
The problem is that these symbols no longer simply refer to their nationality. Over the course of the Troubles both sides have subverted these images. The colours of the Union flag and Tricolour have been used to mark out territory. Kerbstones painted red, white and blue, or green, white and orange, told you what area you were in. The crown and the shamrock have been used for 30 years as symbols of hatred or pride. At the heart of all this has been a police force whose very name seemed to set it up as being biased towards one side over the other. That is why those symbols have to go, not because Chris Patten's commission has some bizarre nationalist agenda, as seems to be implied, but because the symbols of hatred have to be put away.
Once those symbols have been changed then the really difficult work will begin, addressing the Catholic-Protestant imbalance in the force. I am always worried by discrimination of any kind, positive or negative. What the commission proposes is a positive discrimination policy towards Catholics.
I believe this approach is likely to lead to problems of perception outside and inside the force. While Patten has been clear that this policy will not entail any lowering of standards, it will inevitably lead to the question: did they get into the Northern Ireland Police Service because they were the best or just because they were Catholic?
However, I don't see a better solution. The number of Catholics there does need to be raised and, given the reluctance of members of that religion to apply, there doesn't seem to be any way around it. What is needed above all is for the report to be read and discussed in full and a considered response given by all sides by the November deadline set by Dr Mowlam.