 Jenny Good morning. I welcome members to the 11th meeting in 2015 of the Delegates, Powers and Law Reform Committee, and I ask members to switch off mobile phones, please. The Gender item 1 is a decision on taking business in private. It's proposed we take item 5 in private. This is further consideration of delegated powers provisions in the British Sign Language Scotland Bill. Do we agree to take these in private, please? Does the committee also agree to take any future consideration of its stage 1 report on this bill in private? Ganionferwyd Cymru, genedlaeth y Prif Weinidio ni. Ysgolod yr���rach judicial gyfarfa ar fynd yn cael eu cyfrifiadau yn unigol ar y llwyffin. Ysgolod yrdwng i'r newid ei wneud yn diffnitiad. Yayrhyw hwnnw gweithio'r ganionferwydion ardill y lythu Gwyrddwr wasgwrf, ofeniw defnyddu Llywodraeth A seasgwr Thym Llywodraeth Cymru. Senedd ganionferwyd Cymru. Mae'r regu wneud yn 640-2014. Mae'r sgwr yng Nghymru yn hynny ydw i'r rhan ogymniol. Does the committee agree to draw this instrument to the attention of the Parliament and to the general reporting ground as it contains a minor drafting error? The committee may wish to note that, however, the Scottish Government has undertaken to remove this reference on the next occasion on which the principle scheme is amended. No points have been raised by our legal advisers on the aquaculture and fisheries Scotland Act 2007, fixed penalty notices, order 2015, SSI 2015, 113. Is the committee content with this, please? Gender item three, instruments not subject to any parliamentary procedure. No points have been raised by our legal advisers on the land and building transaction tax Scotland Act 2013, commencement number two, order 2015, SSI 2015, 108. Nor the landfill tax Scotland Act 2014, commencement number three and transitional provisions order 2015, SSI 2015, 109. Nor the revenue Scotland tax bars Act 2014, commencement number four, order 2015, SSI 2015, 110. Nor the certification of death Scotland Act 2011, commencement number two, order 2015, SSI 2015, 115. Nor on the tribunals Scotland Act 2014, commencement number two, order 2015, SSI 2015, 116. Is the committee content with these instruments, please? Yes. Gender item four is the Assisted Suicide Scotland Bill. The site of the business is consideration of the response from the member in charge of the bill to the committee's stage 1 report on the bill. Members have seen the briefing paper and the response from Patrick Harvie MSP. Do members have any comments, please? Thank you, convener. I welcome the member's response in relation to the phrase, best endeavours, that the committee previously made a comment on. I think that the process that he is proposing, whereby he would look to amend his bill at stage 2 to create an obligation on licensing authorities to immediately allow facilitators to any directions, is welcome, and he is suggesting that travels with an obligation on facilitators to comply with any directions to which they are alerted. As far as I am aware, the whole business of directions being given that affect people who are not themselves a public authority or part of a public authority is a little bit unusual. It is important that the process works in relation to any legislation, but particularly in the legislation that may affect the future life or lack of for people affected by it. There is perhaps, in process terms, one further step that the member might care to think about. That is requiring that the facilitators, when advised of new directions or changes to existing directions, acknowledge to the authority that they are aware of those changes, thus closing the loop, particularly important in context where those individuals are not part of a public authority and where the whole issue is a matter of life and death. It would be useful perhaps for us to write to the lead committee or the member in charge in those terms if other members of the committee see it the same way as I do. Thank you for that observation. It does occur to me that there might then be a duty on the licensing authority to do something if the loop has not been closed, which might then make a question as to who is going to police that. Nonetheless, I think that the point is fairly made. Do members have any other comments? I agree with what Stuart is saying. I feel the whole tone in here is that the licensing authority seems to do the minimum, and I accept that there has to be a minimum that it does. I just feel that in other areas where licences are issued, the licensing authority might be a little bit more proactive in dealing with a whole range of things, be it taxis or illegal fishing or whatever it might be. However, I guess that we are where we are, and at least if we are raising it, that is acceptable. Given those comments, and I think the suggestion from Stuart Stevenson that we should write to the lead committee in those terms, which I am happy to propose, is the committee content that we do that, please? Thank you very much indeed. Relating the day, can I just say? I mean, I am still not certain that a member's response is adequate to our concerns about best endeavours, and just with one point to highlight that to the policy committee, I still have concerns about the member's view that it is sufficiently clear as to the full meaning of best endeavours. I am not certain that it is sufficiently clear quite what that means. I think that we have the option to do two things. Firstly, to point that out, and secondly, to Stuart Stevenson's suggestion as to how that might be accommodated with the variation in words that the member has himself suggested in his response. I think that we can address both. Just to say that the understanding that I am basing my remarks on is that the member in charge intends to remove reference to the best endeavours and replace it, to quote, to recast is an obligation on licensing authorities. I think that perhaps the best endeavours it is intended that that be removed. That is my understanding, and of course I may or may not be correct. Thank you for that. I think that we need to be clear that the member is suggesting that there are white routes that could be followed. I am not sure that he is necessarily saying that I am definitely going to do that. I think that we need to work on the basis that that might not come forward and make our own suggestions. Can I just ask—we have clearly got those two issues, which we will write about. Are there any other issues in either the response or possibly even not in the response? I think that this is probably our last opportunity to contribute as a committee at this stage. The first item where the person called the facilitator will acknowledge from the licensed authority the changes that have been made. Could we confirm also that he confirms that he will follow those changes as well? There is not much point saying that you have read it and signed it, but do we not need confirmation that he will adhere to those changes as well? I would like to suggest that he will have no option. As suggested, I think that he is going to be duty bound to comply. Therefore, saying that he will comply is something that is unnecessary because he will already have agreed if he is a facilitator that that is what he will do. However, it does beg the question of what happens if he does not. How do we close this and how is it to be policed and audited? I am sure that there are issues that the policy committee is considering in great detail. That was mother concern. How do you ensure that he is following out those rules and guidelines? That is a very fair question. Does that cover it? I will put together a letter that I hope covers all those points. I think that concludes—formally, are we happy to note the response and write in the terms that we have discussed? I think that concludes item 4, which brings us to item 5, which we will take in private, so I now close this meeting.