First of all, thank you for the kind words and welcome.

I have two things that would be useful to put on the record. First, I chair Moving On Inverclyde, which is a recovery service that is in receipt of public money. Secondly, as I have indicated in the past in the chamber, my wife works part time for CalMac Ferries—I declare that for when CalMac and ferry issues arise in the committee.

Thank you.

Regarding the 2007 contract and the legal advice that the board received—as with the convener’s question, you may not be able to answer this—did you find any information or explanation why the contract was not signed but was allowed to sit there until the end point was reached and the chief executive left?

That is helpful—thank you.

The report states:

“It is critical that all parties, Board members, senior management, staff and the sponsor team, work together to move the Commission into a stronger place in delivering its regulatory role while ensuring Best Value in the use of its resources.”

With those comments in mind, to what extent have the issues that you have reported on at WICS—and the efforts that have been required to address those issues—impacted on its ability to perform its regulatory role?

It is fair to say that, given that the situation was unclear, the onus was on the board to clarify the position before moving forward with the contract.

I will move on to questions about the leadership and culture of the organisation. The report was interesting reading, to say the least—it took me back to reports that I was involved in when I was a member of this committee in the past, such as those on NHS Western Isles and Coatbridge College. Are you content that WICS is taking sufficient action to address the issues relating to staff wellbeing?

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?