Seòmar agus comataidhean

I do, convener.

It is about the application of the S codes—we ask about that every year. Every year, we see that around 37,000 codes are incorrectly applied, mainly by employers. When will we ever resolve that issue? Is it the same employers, and the same people who are not having their S codes correctly applied? We ask these questions every year, but we never really get close to any solution. What value is placed on the potential loss of tax because of the misapplication of S codes?

I turn to Alyson Stafford. From the Scottish Government’s point of view, you must be encouraged by the most recent findings from 2021-22, but what, collectively, are we doing—Jamie Greene asked about this—to monitor behavioural change in all its facets? In your data collection and data analysis, do you try to find out why people do what they do and why they decide not to make changes? Do we look at the whole blanket of issues to see what affects people’s behaviour?

My next question is perhaps for both Jonathan Athow and Alyson Stafford. The 2021-22 data is much more positive, and the report has established that the previous predictions of gloom and doom about the policy have proven to be untrue. As Robert Burns said, facts are chiels that winna ding—once you get facts, you cannot overturn them. All data is helpful, and we are all able to interpret it in the ways that we choose. We have seen that in the press and the media. Nevertheless, the 2021-22 report provides positive indications for the tax base in Scotland. Could you summarise what you believe the key findings are in relation to the 2021-22 data?

We have all skipped past the mathematical analysis part of the report’s content, but I want to go back to that. Is it worth while? Are both Governments interested in why people do what they do in relation to those important matters? In future, should we consider conducting a separate analysis of why the many facets of behavioural change occur? Otherwise, members sitting around this table might simply interpret those as we see fit.

You have made it clear that the reconciliation process returns the correct amounts that are due.

I appreciate your answers—thank you.

I understand that, but a 2018-19 report involves five-year-old data. Surely the findings from that time could have been shared in advance of developing your data analysis methodologies and your database. Surely the messaging could have been released far earlier. Why was the report published only yesterday?

But not why they have done it.

There are 37,000 such cases.