Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have one final question. Auditor General, at the start of the session, you talked a lot about Scotland’s economic performance relative to the rest of the UK. I want to delve slightly deeper into that. When you talk about slower economic growth, what metrics are you specifically talking about? Has there been any analysis of the effect of that on the Scottish economy?

Thank you for your candour and what I think was an apology. At the end of the day, we received a document that was key and fundamental to the whole conversation around the business case, as was who signed it off or who did not sign it off. There was a name attached to it, which we now learn was erroneously added to the business case.

I presume, Mr Brannen, that you had no sight of the business case and that you had no involvement in the sign-off. The business case was written after the severance package had been agreed between, and signed by, the two parties, which in itself is a worrying development that the committee has looked at.

Thank you. It is good to see you back in good health.

I understand that. On 19 September, the former chair said this to the committee:

“we sought approval from the sponsor team for that approach. The approval was given in a phone call involving the deputy director in the sponsor team”.—[Official Report, Public Audit Committee, 19 September 2024; c 30.]

I will repeat the question. Was that approval given erroneously?

Let me ask another question on this in light of what we heard in the opening statement from Mr Hinds, the new chair. He said that he was “shocked and dismayed” by the content of the section 22 report. He talked in detail about weaknesses in financial governance and a loss of public confidence in the agency. My question is quite simple: why on earth was the former chief executive allowed to resign from his position? Why was he not sacked?

And what about the public perception? If anybody in this room had been subject to the damning report that was issued and everything that has since come to light around financial mismanagement of public money, we would have been out the door on our ears in seconds—we would be on the front page of newspapers already. There is no way any of us could walk away from that with six months’ pay. WICS is a public body, and we are talking about public money. Can you understand why there is so much public anger around this?

In November, after the last time we met to discuss this in September, we received a submission from Mr Sutherland, which I want to refer to. I do not know whether you have a copy of it. There is one particular item that struck me as of interest. I am quoting:

“On leaving WICS, I was required to delete or destroy all materials relating to my employment. I did not question this request.”

He goes on to say:

“I was required to destroy any and all materials ... I did so diligently.”

Who asked him to destroy any and all materials relating to his employment, and why?

There are lots of other questions around this, but my final one on the severance issue is for the Scottish Government, because, ultimately, you are the sponsor of this public body.

What are you doing differently now, given what we now know about the sponsorship arrangements between the Government and WICS? Can you give me and the public some reassurance that we will not see public money similarly spent and squandered in future?

I do, convener.

Good morning, gentlemen and lady. I want to cover a few areas. First, I draw your attention to figure 7 on page 21 of the HMRC report, which is probably one of the more helpful tables in what is quite a lengthy and detailed report. It is certainly more visual, from my point of view; I was wanting to get my head around the analysis that has been done on the Scottish tax base in general, and this table paints a picture that we can look at.

Just to make sure I am being accurate, can you tell me whether the table is saying that higher and top-rate taxpayers in Scotland accounted for 13.3 per cent of taxpayers in 2018-19, and that in 2022-23, the latest year we have available, that figure had risen to 18.1 per cent of the tax base? That is the percentage of the tax base, but alongside that—and what is more important—is the percentage of tax that they are paying, which for the same group has risen from 58.6 per cent to 64.2 per cent. Is such a shift normal? If the percentage of taxpayers in any tax band increases, does the amount of tax that they pay also increase proportionately and at a similar or the same rate?

Does that present any risk at all? For example, when we look at the top rate, we see that less than 1 per cent—0.8 per cent—of Scottish taxpayers paid 17.8 per cent of all tax. In other words, less than 1 per cent of taxpayers account for nearly a fifth of the Scottish tax base. Again, the relevance of this questioning will become clear in my later questions on tax behaviour. You have said that it is a UK-wide phenomenon, but irrespective of that, does that present any risk to any Government when it comes to trying to forecast how much revenue it will get in any given year from its tax income as opposed to from the block grant?