Seòmar agus comataidhean

Would you expect there to be an upscaling of those activities on compliance and debt management as we come out of the pandemic?

I will ask one quick question of Mr Boyle. In your report, you note that further analysis of taxpayer behaviour

“along with the relative success of compliance activity in Scotland and the Scotland-specific tax gap”

would help the Scottish Government to

“assess whether any Scottish income tax compliance risks are emerging”.

Do you have any concept of, and will you elaborate on, what those risks might be and their potential scale?

The risk might be someone buying a bolthole in Berwick-upon-Tweed and registering themselves there while working in Edinburgh, for example.

Mr Davies, in your opening remarks—or perhaps just after—you said that there was no reason to predict that the levels of income tax debt attributable to Scotland would be any different from those in the rest of the UK. How could you come to that conclusion if no substantive analysis has been conducted?

It is less than 1 per cent of a change.

Next year’s budget is being debated in Parliament at the moment, but the Government has flexibility in where it can direct the underspend. Have you looked sufficiently at the budget to know whether the money will be moved to other portfolios, or are we confident that it will stay broadly under the health and transport headings?

The overspends are relatively modest. Do you have any comment to make on the overspend in the economy, fair work and culture portfolio—which was £53 million—and the overspend in the education and skills portfolio? Have you had the opportunity to drill down into the reasons for those overspends?

There was a view that there was a clear need for training. Has that training started in a meaningful way and are you assured that it will meet current needs and concerns?

To delve a little bit deeper on leadership and governance, paragraph 9 on page 4 of the section 22 report highlights that the acting accountable officer of the commissioner’s office concludes that she is

“not satisfied that an effective scheme of governance operated during 2020/21.”

The external auditor also concludes in the annual audit report that the governance and scrutiny arrangements were ineffective during that period and that they are not currently sufficient to deliver best value.

Noting those very serious issues in relation to leadership and governance, to what extent is the 2020-21 picture different from the assessment that was made in the prior reporting period?

In paragraph 23 of the report, you set out rather clearly that some of the most basic governance processes and functions were absent from the commissioner’s office during 2020-21. Indeed, we just heard, there was no defined performance management framework, risk management policy, risk register or internal audit function. Did the auditors have any growing concerns about the way that the commissioner’s office was operating before the 2020-21 reporting and performance period?

This might be a more abstract and philosophical question, but, as you look forward, what level of underspend would give you cause for concern?