I welcome the response from the member in charge of the bill in relation to the phrase “best endeavours”, which the committee previously commented on. I think that the process that he proposes, whereby he will look to amend the bill at stage 2 to create
“an obligation on licensing authorities to immediately alert facilitators to any directions”,
is welcome. He suggests that that obligation will be accompanied by
“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 a public authority or part of a public authority is a little unusual. It is important that the process works in relation to any legislation, but it is particularly important that it works in relation to the bill, as it may affect the life—or lack thereof—of the people who are affected by it in the future.
Therefore, in process terms, I think that there is one further step that Patrick Harvie might care to think about introducing—a requirement on licensed facilitators, when they are advised of any new directions or changes to existing directions, to acknowledge to the authority that they are aware of those changes. That would close the loop, which is particularly important in a context in which the facilitators are individuals who are not part of a public authority and the whole issue is a matter of life and death.
I think that it would be useful for us to write to the lead committee or the member in charge of the bill in those terms, if other members of the committee see things in the same way as I do.