THE Scottish Government’s former top official has been accused of treating parliament with “discourtesy” after refusing to appear before MSPs to discuss her job.
In a scathing letter, Holyrood’s finance and public administration committee said it was “extremely disappointed” at Leslie Evans’s “failure to engage”.
MSPs said they did not “intend to waste any more of our time pursuing this matter”.
Ms Evans is currently on three months’ leave from her £175,000-a-year job as Permanent Secretary before formally stepping down on March 31.
She was a key figure in the Alex Salmond affair, overseeing the disastrous internal probe into sexual misconduct claims against the former First Minister.
Her decisions contributed to Mr Salmond being able to overturn the findings in a judicial review case that saw him awarded £512,000 in costs.
Despite the blunders of her watch, First Minister Nicola Sturgeon stood by Ms Evans throughout and refused to sack her.
As part of its work into the running of the Scottish Government, the committee approached Ms Evans’s officials last October about her sharing her reflections and insights into her role.
She was repeatedly reassured that the committee did not want to re-run the Salmond affair or revisit events examined by a previous Holyrood inquiry into it.
Instead, the focus would be on “how government functions, the capacity and capability of the civil service, culture, and how policies are developed and implemented”.
However on Monday, the Office of the Permanent Secretary wrote to the committee refusing on her behalf, and offered her replacement John-Paul Marks instead.
It said that as Ms Evans was on leave she was “effectively no longer a post-holder within the Scottish Government and is not able to speak on behalf of or represent the views of Scottish Ministers”.
In reply, SNP committee convener Kenny Gibson wrote directly to Ms Evans making clear the committee’s displeasure, and releasing the correspondence to the public.
He wrote: “We are extremely disappointed at the discourtesy shown to the Parliament by your failure to engage directly with the Committee at any stage regarding our invitation, despite our best efforts.
“When we finally received a response, it was not from you, but from the Office of the Permanent Secretary, stating that, as you are now on a period of leave (dating from 31 December 2021 until you retire from the UK Civil Service on 31 March 2022), you are not able to speak on behalf, or represent the views, of Scottish Ministers.
“At no point have we asked you to do so. We have been absolutely clear at all times that our interest lay in your own reflections, not those of Ministers, to support the Committee in developing a clearer understanding of the workings of government in our new public administration role.
“Very few people have the opportunity to gain your level of experience in government, which we considered would have been beneficial in informing our future scrutiny.
“We are firmly of the view that it is in the public interest for the Committee to hear from civil servants as part of our public administration remit. You remain in the employment of the Scottish Government and we do not accept that your period of leave exempts you from giving evidence to a parliamentary committee, in the way suggested.”
He added: “Given the time that has elapsed since our original approach to you and the response of 7 March, we do not however intend to waste any more of our time pursuing this matter.”
He also said Mr Marks would be invited to give evidence instead.
Labour MSP Daniel Johnson said: "This is just the latest example of secrecy from a tired and out-of-touch government.
"The committee deserved to hear from the Permanent Secretary, but she has turned her back on the committee and on proper scrutiny as a result.
"This sets a very dangerous precedent as civil servants are obliged to appear before our parliament's committees.
“This is a disappoint postscript to the former permanent secretary’s public service.
"It is clear that the culture of this government is to hold the parliament and the people that it represents in contempt."
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