I was puzzled by your report "Police chiefs told: Resolve your turf war" (January 7).
The issue seems, on the face of it, a simple one – the new chief constable Stephen House feels his responsibility and accountability for policing Scotland would be difficult, if not untenable, if his financial resources and civilian personnel are essentially the responsibility of someone else: Vic Emery (chairman of the Scottish Police Authority).
My difficulty lies with the apparent attitude of Kenny MacAskill the Justice Secretary and First Minister Alex Salmond, both of whom appear to take the view there is no such structural issue in managing the new service and both parties should just get on with it.
I have every sympathy with the suggestion by Mr House that the legislation needs another look. It is clear to me this ambiguity in roles was originally designed to stop any chief constable having too much power.
While I agree broadly with that principle I feel it was not thought through in terms of what boundaries could then be reasonably expected.
Section 17 (1) of the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland ) Act 2012 ( part 2) makes it quite clear where the buck stops. It states: "The chief constable is responsible, and must account to the Authority, for the policing of Scotland". No pressure then?
What the term "responsible" means in practice is, I believe, that when both Mr House and Mr Emery are regularly called to account for such things as solved crime statistics and effective use of resources, both will be able to point the finger of suspicion at the other one in arguing their case.
If Holyrood doesn't act soon to clarify limits of powers and responsibilities I fear we will be left with a wound which will frequently re-open in years to come.
Bill Brown,
46 Breadie Drive, Milngavie.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article