Thank you very much, convener, for allowing me to take part in this morning’s evidence session—I really appreciate it.

Some of my questions reflect on what you have already told us, cabinet secretary. Did I hear you say earlier that those convicted of an offence under the Conspiracy, and Protection of Property Act 1875 will now be included in the pardon?

Okay, so it is not covered. I think that most people accept that, if there are public assaults involved, they are not included in the pardon. However, the 1875 act—I think that only a handful of people in Scotland were convicted under it—is about encouraging people to take part in strike action. That seems to me to be directly related to the activities around the strike, which in my view ought to be covered. However, I am sure that we shall debate that as the bill goes through Parliament.

Another thing that you mentioned earlier—again, keep me right on this, because I was obviously wrong about the first thing—was in relation to answers to questions about community-based convictions, which are currently excluded. You said something about “going through” communities. That reminds me of the case of one of your constituents, Jim Tierney, who was arrested and then convicted in Alloa sheriff court for allegedly throwing a missile at a working miners’ bus outside the Fishcross miners welfare club. He was convicted, but he disputes the conviction and he has evidence to support his disputation. Are you saying that you are willing to accept that such a case could be covered by the pardon?

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.

We have a little bit of time in hand before we wind up, and Colin Beattie wants to come back in with a couple more questions on the cost of administering the Scottish income tax system.

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.

We are going to come on to questions around the cost of administering Scottish income tax shortly, and Willie Coffey will ask about the identification of Scottish S-code taxpayers. Before that, however, Craig Hoy will ask a series of questions.