I won't be able to add much to this, but I was asked these questions.
First, why move from “evidence” to “information”? I think the issue here is that the language has been taken right from a Supreme Court decision that actually rebuked the previous government's model and the efforts they were working on to restrict these kind of sites, but gave direction to the minister on how she could proceed with safe consumption sites.
I want to say here that this isn't advice to a minister, but an application. It's requesting information from an applicant. Sources give the minister information. The information is then looked at. Evidence is drawn by the minister from that for her decision, in this regulation. I think that for an application, it makes sense to talk about “information”; it is the minister who draws evidence.
Second, I think my colleague Mr. Davies said it exceptionally well, so I won't say much more about it. With regard to “regulatory” versus “administrative”, everything that is in that Supreme Court frame is administrative structures and processes, not regulatory ones. I think it has to do with translating the Supreme Court decision, which is issued to a government, taking that, and then writing a bill that deals with the application of it.
I think changing from “regulatory” to “administrative” is right, and I want to thank Mr. Davies for picking up on both of these two wording points. I think they're important clarifications.