 I welcome members to the 35th meeting in 2014 of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. As always, I ask members to switch off mobile phones, please. Agenda item 1, instrument subject to affirmative procedure. No points have been raised by illegal advisers on the advice and assistance by way of representation Scotland amendment regulations 2015 at draft, nor upon the European protection order Scotland regulations 2014 at draft, is the committee content with those instruments, please. Agenda item 2, instrument subject to negative procedure. The conservation of salmon annual close time and catch and release Scotland regulations 2014, SSI 2014, 3, 2, 7. The schedule sets out the various dates during which salmon fishing is permitted in each salmon fishery district entry 50, relating to the ER district, states that rod and line fishing is permitted during the dates of 10 September to brackets, 31 October close brackets, open brackets, 29 October close brackets. Scotland Governance confirmed the intended date is 30 November and the other references are in error. Does the committee agree to draw the instrument to the Parliament's attention on reporting ground I as entry 50 of the schedule appears to be defectively drafted? Does the committee agree to note however that the Scottish Government is undertaken to amend the provision in due course? The charities account Scotland amendment number 2 regulations 2014, SSI 2014, 3, 3, 5. The charities account Scotland amendment regulations 2014, SSI 2014, 2, 9, 5 were considered by the committee at its meetings on 25 November 2014, where it was agreed to draw the attention of the Parliament to certain minor inaccuracies in respect to the names and dates of publication of the various statements of recommended practice for accounting and reporting by charities known as SORPs referred to in the regulations. The instrument revokes SSI 2014, 2, 9, 5 and gives the correct names and dates of publication of the various SORPs. There has therefore been a failure to observe the requirements for section 28.2 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform Scotland Act 2010. The instrument will come into force on 1 January 2015, meaning that the requirement to leave a minimum of 28 days, including recess dates, between laying and coming into force, has not been complied with. The committee may, however, wish to find the breach acceptable in this instance because the Scottish Government is seeking to make corrections to satisfy the committee's report on the previous instrument. Does the committee therefore agree to draw the instrument of the Parliament's attention on reporting ground to J, as there has been a breach of the 28-day rule? Does the committee agree to report however that it finds the breach of this rule to be acceptable in this instance? No points have been raised by our legal advisers on the civil jurisdiction and judgments protection measures Scotland regulations 2014, SSI 2014, 3333, nor on the plant health import inspection fees of Scotland regulations 2014, SSI 2014, 338, nor on the regulation of investigatory powers, authorisation of covert human intelligence sources Scotland order 2014, SSI 2014, 339. Is the committee content with these instruments? Content. Dender item 3 is the assisted suicide Scotland bill, and the purpose of this item is for the city to consider the delegated powers in the bill at stage 1. The committee is invited to agree the questions it wishes to raise with the member-in-charge of Patrick Harvey MSP on the delegated powers in the bill. It is suggested that these questions are raised in written correspondence. The committee will have the opportunity to consider the responses at a future meeting before agreeing a draft report on the bill. Section 23 of the bill provides that Scottish ministers may issue directions about how licensed facilitators are to act. Licensing authorities are required to use best endeavours to ensure that these directions are complied with by licensed facilitators. Licensing authorities must have regard to any guidance issued by Scottish ministers, and any directions or guidance must be published. Does the committee agree to ask the member-in-charge for an explanation of the following matters in relation to the powers to issue directions and guidance in section 23? Firstly, how those powers will be used, or may be used, pardon me. Secondly, what matters the directions and guidance could cover and why this would be appropriate rather than these matters being contained in regulations under section 22. Lastly, why it is appropriate that licensing authorities should be required to use best endeavours to ensure that directions are complied with by licensed facilitators. I am certainly content with the questions that are proposed, but I would suggest that we should ask a further couple of questions in relation to section 23, directions and guidance for facilitators and licensing authorities. There is no parliamentary procedure associated with that, and I think that we should ask the proposer of this bill why there is no parliamentary procedure, because it would appear that if facilitators—and quite novel and new role—have to have regard to the directions and guidance, there should be a process at the very least of laying those before Parliament and perhaps gaining Parliament's approval for those directions and guidance. We should ask the proposer of the bill why that has not been considered and included. I support the fact that we ask those questions. I am not enthusiastic about the bill as a whole, and in some ways I find it strange that we start getting into the detail here before we have debated the principles of the bill. However, be that it may, I am concerned that directions and guidance could mean quite a lot. We have seen other controversial areas, such as abortion, where the practice over the years seems to have drifted away from what was originally intended. I would certainly want to be sure that there would be a fairly firm line on directions guidance, for example in supervising the licensing authorities and the licensed facilitators over time. In addition, the phrase best endeavours, which is in the questions because, as far as I am aware, other legislation and regulations generally have to be applied or they have not to be applied, but best endeavours would let anybody off with anything, almost. I think that our advice is that best endeavours is probably not a legal term, so I think that we are with you. I agree that, although I oppose the bill utterly in principle, if it is to go beyond the stage that we are currently at today, the regulations must be very tight and very accurate and there should be no room for dubiety in terms of an interpretation. Best endeavours is simply not good enough. I have to say that I find the term facilitators almost Orwellian in concept or Kafkaesque. It is particularly unattractive. I think that your comments are unnoted. I take it that we have approval of the three questions that I had suggested. We also take Stevenson's question. Does anybody want to add? It is a question in relation to direction and guidance for facilitators and also for licensing authorities separately. It is effectively two questions. Thank you for confirming that point. Are members happy that we ask those questions? Yes. Super. Thank you very much indeed. That brings us to the end of agenda item 3 unless I have missed anything in which case I can now close the meeting.