THE chair of the Scottish Police Authority has been asked to appear in front of MSPs again amid claims he gave inaccurate evidence about the resignation of one of his board members.
Andrew Flanagan has been invited back to explain the watchdog’s controversial stance on transparency which triggered a row with colleague Moi Ali and ultimately led to her quitting the SPA.
The SPA is the oversight body for Police Scotland, but Mr Flanagan has faced criticism recently over plans to reform his body’s governance arrangements.
Plans were approved last year to hold SPA committees in private and withhold official board papers until the morning of a meeting.
At the December meeting of the SPA, Ms Ali criticised the two proposals and asked for her dissent to be noted as a board member.
Mr Flanagan fired off a private letter to Ms Ali in which he stated that her public objection was not a “reasonable interpretation of collective responsibility”, adding that it would not be “fair” for her to participate in future committee meetings. Ms Ali resigned.
The Chair was then asked about the resignation at a recent meeting of the Public Audit and Post-Legislative Scrutiny Committee on policing finances.
At the Holyrood session, he claimed Ms Ali had not made clear ahead of the December board meeting that she would publicly criticise the proposals.
He told MSPs: “Board members must be, if we’re going to conduct ourselves in public, they must be clear about their intentions and communicate their positions ahead of time. In this case, the Board Member did not – and that’s what I took issue with…..It’s ironic actually that if there had been openness and transparency from the member, then this situation wouldn’t have arisen.”
However, Ms Ali took exception to this passage of evidence and wrote directly to the committee: “I am writing to correct inaccuracies in the evidence of the Chair of the Scottish Police Authority, Andrew Flanagan.”
She wrote: “On at least two occasions, on the telephone and face-to-face, I made clear my intention to voice concerns about aspects of the governance review at the December 2016 Board meeting. I then raised concerns publicly about just two (of 30) proposals in the governance framework.”
Ms Ali continued: “Notwithstanding the fact that I did inform the Chair of my intentions, Board members should not have to ‘communicate their positions ahead of time’. To do so would mean reaching a fixed decision in advance of a meeting, without having heard and possibly been influenced by others’ views."
She added: “Andrew Flanagan’s evidence to Committee suggested that his sole concern was my failure to inform him of what I planned to raise. This account is at odds with the letter he sent me, which focuses on collective responsibility.”
The committee has now agreed to invite the SPA witnesses - Flanagan and chief executive John Foley - to give further evidence on transparency and governance next month.
A spokesperson for the SPA said: "The PAPLS Committee has invited the Chair and the Chief Executive to give further evidence on the Auditor General for Scotland's report on the 2015-16 audit at a committee meeting next month, alongside two representatives of the Scottish Government. We note that the session will mainly, but not exclusively, focus on issues of governance and transparency, and that the Committee may also consider issues around the i6 police ICT programme."
A Scottish Parliament spokesperson confirmed that an invitation had been made to Mr Flanagan, Mr Foley and the Scottish Government.
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel