BOSSES at Scotland’s police watchdog sought legal advice in a failed bid to withhold some of the £100,000 pay-off given to the body’s former head.
Scottish Police Authority (SPA) chiefs have come under fire over “eye-watering” payments and expenses – including the exit package for former chief executive John Foley.
Mr Foley, who also secured a six figure early retirement deal in his previous job at a council construction firm, stepped down in October last year.
Now a written submission to a Holyrood committee reveals the SPA halted a £56,000 payment to Mr Foley in December following concerns raised by MSPs.
But after seeking independent legal advice, the watchdog said it was left with “no option in law but to honour its contract with Mr Foley”.
It is now paying him the full amount alongside a previous early retirement sum of £43,470, insisting that if it continued to withhold the money “any subsequent legal challenge could result in the SPA being required to also pay legal costs arising from the action as well as the original full sum agreed”.
The written submission added: “The interim chief officer has now instructed the sum to be paid.”
Mr Foley and former SPA chair Andrew Flanagan were previously asked to answer “serious questions” about "extraordinarily shocking" financial mismanagement at the body.
As well as Mr Foley’s pay-off, Deputy Chief Constable Rose Fitzpatrick was handed £67,000 in relocation expenses and £53,000 to foot her tax bill.
Jackie Baillie, then-acting convener of Holyrood's Public Audit and Post Legislative Scrutiny Committee, said the mismanagement was the “most shocking” she had ever seen.
Financial watchdog Audit Scotland recently highlighted a series of governance failings and poor use of public money at the SPA, which faces a budget shortfall of £47.4 million this year.
Jenny Marra MSP, convenor of the Public Audit Committee, said: “We note that the SPA took legal advice on whether it could withhold any of the exit payment made to the former SPA chief executive John Foley.
"We recognise that legally this money can’t now be clawed back, but this begs the question of why this payment was authorised in the first place.”
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 here