łÉČËżěĘÖ

Skip to main content
Loading…

Chamber and committees

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Filter your results Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 5 May 2021
  6. Current session: 12 May 2021 to 10 August 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 2597 contributions

|

Public Audit Committee

Section 22 Report: “The 2023/24 audit of the Water Industry Commission for Scotland”

Meeting date: 19 February 2025

Colin Beattie

What does that mean?

Public Audit Committee

Section 22 Report: “The 2023/24 audit of the Water Industry Commission for Scotland”

Meeting date: 19 February 2025

Colin Beattie

What you are saying, in effect, is that the Scottish Government’s action of not approving the expenses triggered the section 22 report.

Public Audit Committee

Section 22 Report: “The 2023/24 audit of the Water Industry Commission for Scotland”

Meeting date: 19 February 2025

Colin Beattie

Why did you not retrospectively approve the expenses? In other areas that the committee has looked at, there has been retrospective approval of expenses, but, in this particular case, the decision was taken not to approve them.

Public Audit Committee

Section 22 Report: “The 2023/24 audit of the Water Industry Commission for Scotland”

Meeting date: 19 February 2025

Colin Beattie

Okay. I will move on to a slightly different point. In response to a question from the convener, I think, David Satti talked about the audit and risk committee and the board approving the removal of limits per head for reclaiming expenses. If I remember correctly, that happened in January 2023, and it was for a trial period. First, how long was the trial period intended to be? Secondly, I did not understand the reference to oil prices and so on driving the change. That does not seem to be a reason.

Public Audit Committee

“Administration of Scottish income tax 2023/24”

Meeting date: 19 February 2025

Colin Beattie

There is no real analysis of why. Those are significant movements within the broad bands. You would hope that HMRC would be providing some data as to how that has arisen, what the consequences are and where we are going with this. There is nothing behind it.

Public Audit Committee

“Administration of Scottish income tax 2023/24”

Meeting date: 19 February 2025

Colin Beattie

I keep coming back to the point that using any assumptions, estimates or projections about the UK as a whole will lead to a big discrepancy, because there is such discrepancy between income levels in Scotland and those in the south-east of England, for example. That will distort every tax figure across the country.

Public Audit Committee

“Administration of Scottish income tax 2023/24”

Meeting date: 19 February 2025

Colin Beattie

You do not do it?

Public Audit Committee

“Administration of Scottish income tax 2023/24”

Meeting date: 19 February 2025

Colin Beattie

Again, in self-assessment liabilities, it would appear—and I am interpreting this, so correct me—that the deduction of

“£57 million to estimate Scotland’s share of other relevant Self Assessment balances where specific data are not available”,

is presumably based on a UK-wide average.

Public Audit Committee

“Administration of Scottish income tax 2023/24”

Meeting date: 19 February 2025

Colin Beattie

It is in paragraph 1.9. There are a number of other cases—I will not bore you by going into them one by one—where UK-wide data is being used. That has to be incredibly skewed because the south-east of England skews everything.

Public Audit Committee

Section 22 Report: “The 2023/24 audit of the Water Industry Commission for Scotland”

Meeting date: 19 February 2025

Colin Beattie

I do not think that we are questioning whether it has done a good job. It is a question of its value for money as a stand-alone regulator.