Chamber and committees

That is helpful—thank you. I move on to WICS’s international work. On the face of it, WICS has managed to bring a substantial amount of additional revenue into Scotland, but there is a bit of ambiguity regarding the accounting and the actual sums of money.

On WICS’s international work starting again, your report is clear. It says:

“It is critical that appropriate governance arrangements and financial policies are in place to provide clarity on what is permissible activity and expenditure as part of this work.”

I am aware that the final decision on international work will be taken in spring this year. What needs to happen to ensure that any international work that WICS undertakes is in line with the expectations for public sector bodies?

Thank you very much, convener. I have a couple of quick questions on the previous section before I move on.

On the quick settlement and the very short timeframe, how common are such things? In your experience, over the many years that you have been in Audit Scotland, how often have you seen them?

Have you had any direct dialogue with the Scottish Government on the recommendations that you have put forward?

Under agenda item 5, we are taking evidence on the committee’s inquiry into framework legislation and Henry VIII powers.

The witnesses on our first panel are Dr Ruth Fox, joining us online, who is the director of the Hansard Society; Dr Dexter Govan, who is the director of research at the Constitution Society; Dr Pablo Grez, who is a lecturer in public law at the University of Strathclyde; Professor Colin Reid, who is emeritus professor of environmental law at the University of Dundee; Dr Andrew Tickell, who is the head of department for economics and law at Glasgow Caledonian University; and Professor Richard Whitaker, who is parliamentary academic fellow at the University of Leicester. I welcome you all.

I remind all witnesses not to worry about the microphones, because they will be dealt with automatically. If you would like to come in on a question, please raise your hand or indicate to the clerks. There is no need to answer every question—just indicate if it is not for you. If, after the meeting, there is anything that you feel that you have not said on the record that you would like to contact the committee about, please feel free to do so.

We have received a number of submissions from today’s witnesses and others. It is fair to say that it has been quite interesting to read about a subject that most folk would probably think is quite dry. However, as you will be aware, it is a subject that comes up from time to time in the work of this committee.

Among those who have submitted evidence to the committee, there appears to be a broad consensus on what framework legislation is. Do you think that there should be a definition of framework legislation agreed by the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament?

We have heard from the first parliamentary counsel, and in some other evidence that we have received, that it is considered that there was more use of Henry VIII powers and framework legislation throughout the Covid period and in the Brexit legislation and that, as a consequence, they have become more normalised. Do you think that there has been a change in the directions that drafters receive, or in drafting practices, that makes framework legislation more likely?

Daniel, I am conscious of parliamentary time on this aspect as well, because we have other areas to go into. You have one final question.

Thank you. I have another question before we move on to Bill Kidd.

Notwithstanding what has been discussed so far in this area and the various suggestions and proposals that could be considered, in some of the written evidence that we have received, there were other suggestions, including the provision of draft SSIs when a bill is produced. The Public Bodies (Joint Working) (Scotland) Act 2014 is an example of that approach. Consulting on delegated powers before publication has also been suggested, as well as carrying out more detailed scrutiny of SSIs before they are taken out of the draft context. There are other suggestions, too.

The point was raised a few moments ago that we should try to get to a point at which we have a framework—forgive the use of that word—for better or improved scrutiny. With all the various suggestions, would it be difficult to get into that space in the first instance? If the process was too onerous at the beginning, before anything is taken out of the draft context, could that just slow down any activity by the Government? We should bear in mind Dr Tickell’s point that this is a Parliament of minorities—the Welsh Senedd and the Northern Ireland Assembly are the same, but the House of Commons is different. The political context is clearly important, but is slowing down potential legislation, albeit for additional scrutiny, always the right thing to do? The point was raised about how much more Governments and politicians are being asked to look at today in contrast to, say, 40, 50, 60 or 70 years ago.

Daniel Johnson has a supplementary, and then we will move on to Bill Kidd.

I will take you first then, and then go to Bill Kidd.

I will add to the example that Professor Reid provided. Before we broke for Christmas, the committee looked at the Criminal Justice Modernisation and Abusive Domestic Behaviour Reviews (Scotland) Bill, in which there were also Henry VIII powers, and we agreed to what was proposed at that point. That highlights the range of Henry VIII powers when it comes to more technical and minor provisions, as well as the potentially more controversial aspects.