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.