Seòmar agus comataidhean

This is a related point. Cabinet secretary, you mentioned the eastern villages—Fallin and Plean, for example—which were a flashpoint in the strike back in 1984 and 1985. Let us consider the village of Fallin, which is where the Polmaise colliery was. The miners at Polmaise were 100 per cent out, so there was no question of there being a need to take action to discourage people from going into the pit. However, it was reported to the Scott inquiry that there was nonetheless a very heavy police presence in the community, which led to tensions in the community and to arrests and subsequent convictions in the community.

Do you not think that there is a case for extending the scope of the bill in recognition of the fact that the dispute was conducted not just at the gates of the colliery or at demonstrations, but in communities as well?

I accept that you are not aware of any convictions in Fallin in that context, but you are aware of the conviction of Jim Tierney, for example, who is one of your constituents.

There is a final area that I want to probe a little bit more. We have heard members of the committee say that they are not in favour of a compensation scheme. I am in favour of a compensation scheme, and the reasons are pretty straightforward. We know from the Scott review that there was

“an element of arbitrary application”

of the criminal law by the police, prosecutors and the sheriffs. The review found an inherent injustice. It also spoke about dismissals being

“disproportionate, excessive and unreasonable”.

In one of the committee’s previous evidence sessions, the former Lothians police officer Tom Wood said that, in his opinion, the dismissals represented “extrajudicial punishment.” He thought—he is a former serving police officer who policed the strike—that the National Coal Board’s actions were “spiteful” and excessive.

You mentioned Orgreave, but the figures show that someone in Scotland was twice as likely to be arrested as someone at a coalfield in any other part of the UK, and they were three times as likely to be dismissed. People have spoken about the then National Coal Board area director, Albert Wheeler, conducting almost a vendetta. Anybody who was convicted was automatically dismissed. In other areas of the National Coal Board, that was not the case. There was a mood of reconciliation—at the time, in 1985—and people returned to their jobs. Do you not see that there is a Scottish dimension that needs to be addressed?

There has been psychological and emotional scarring, and family lives changed for ever as a result of what happened, including what happened to those people who were convicted and then dismissed. We have spoken about women not being included in those who were convicted. That might be true, but many women who were married to or had relationships with miners, or were daughters of miners, were condemned by those decisions and suffered huge hardship as a result of them.

Do you not at least accept that there is a principle that there ought to be some compensation? You may say that it could be paid at a UK level rather than as part of the bill, and members have spoken about a delay to the pardon. It seems to me that, if you set out the principles in the bill, it would be possible to address that. It has been done in other instances where there have been injustices and the Scottish Government has decided to address those.

Where do you stand on the principle of compensation? Surely you understand the arguments about the impact that the dispute had and the injustices that were perpetrated on the miners and their communities, but also their families.

Thanks, Mr Davies. We will look forward to that.

One of the things that is concerning this committee a little bit is the extent to which we are still reliant on estimates, samples and assumptions rather than hard data. The system of a Scottish income tax arrangement has been in place now for three years; why is it that we are still so reliant on estimates, samples and assumptions rather than being able to rely on three years’ worth of Scottish income tax outturn information? I will ask Mr Davies to answer that first and I will come to Stephen Boyle second.

I believe that you raised this issue in your commentary on the NAO report, Mr Boyle, so perhaps you can give us your views on it.

Absolutely. On that note, we will press on with Sharon Dowey, who has a number of questions.

Thank you. Both PAYE receipts and self-assessment receipts have grown, according to the figures that are presented in the report. Is that correct?

Thank you very much indeed. I call Colin Beattie, who has a series of questions.

There was, if I remember rightly, a postponement of the deadline for self-assessment tax returns. Has that had any impact on collection rates?

Do members also agree to take in private consideration of any subsequent draft reports on “The 2020/21 audit of the Crofting Commission”?

Members indicated agreement.

Agenda item 2, which is the principal item on this morning’s agenda, is an evidence-taking session on the report “Administration of Scottish income tax 2020/21”. I am pleased to welcome once again to the committee room the Auditor General for Scotland, Stephen Boyle, who is joined online by Mark Taylor, audit director, Audit Scotland.

I am also particularly pleased to welcome to the Scottish Parliament’s Public Audit Committee Gareth Davies, Comptroller and Auditor General, National Audit Office, who is joined by Darren Stewart, audit director, National Audit Office. I think that this is the first time that Mr Davies has given evidence to the committee. Unfortunately, Mr Davies, we are able to take your evidence only in online form this morning, but I hope that in the not-too-distant future we will be able to welcome you to the Scottish Parliament to meet the Public Audit Committee in person.

I invite Stephen Boyle to give a short opening statement. I will then ask the NAO’s Comptroller and Auditor General to make some opening remarks, but over to you, Auditor General.