Seòmar agus comataidhean

A consultation is on-going at the moment with—

Sorry—my apologies. Let me correct the record. They will be consulting shortly on whether they are going to go for the franchising model.

Absolutely—we want to get it right. However, I go back to a point that I made previously. If we stop and we do not proceed with the measures that are before us, we will potentially go back to square 1.

On the evidence that you heard from Mr Bray and the proposals that were rejected, there had been a recommendation, as opposed to a final decision. We could turn that round the other way: if a transport authority knows that the final decision could be taken out of its hands, then—going back to the point that I made to Mr Lumsden—it will make damn sure that it gets it right in the first place. It will therefore do all the work and the due diligence that it needs to do to ensure that, when it presents its proposal to the panel, it has done absolutely everything within its power.

No. The panel will be required to make its decision within a six-month period, although it will be up to whoever is presenting the franchising proposal to ensure that they have done all the work that they need to do for it to be progressed.

We are taking a belt-and-braces approach. Anyone who cuts corners will get stopped, so why start in the first place? It is a matter of having certainty that someone else is taking another look—and they might say, “You didn’t do that bit.” Those who are making a proposal should therefore do it right in the first place.

Would I personally do that? I would not answer that question right now; I would go back and have a much broader look at everything right back to 2019. I have to be absolutely honest and say that I have not gone back and looked at the debates or the amendments or anything that was done leading up to the 2019 act. However, I reiterate that we are where we are today. Either we pass the regulations or we do not. On what will happen after that, we will just have to see where we go.

I will not give any commitment about what I will do if the instrument is annulled. The only commitment that I can give you is that, if it is not annulled, I will certainly bring the guidance back to the committee so that you can scrutinise it. Other than that, I cannot give any other commitment.

SPT is aware that the SSI is on-going. My expectation would be that, if it was concerned, it would reach out and make its issues known.

I think that you are alluding to due diligence not having been done by the Government. I do not think that that is the case. We learned late on Friday that there was a motion to annul, so we are now sitting here on Tuesday morning. I spent my time speaking with officials and asking what the issues and problems are, how we could get around them and what the implications will be. Let us assume that we will get this SSI done and we can continue, but if we do not, we will have to go away and give it further consideration. I would not do that over one weekend; I would ensure that we give it proper consideration.

I will restrain myself, convener.

If the regulations are to be annulled, I assure you that the rest of my day will be scrapped—let me put it that way. We will go away and have a long and detailed conversation about what will happen next. If the instrument was annulled, the panels would still be implemented and they would then be decided on entirely by the traffic commissioner, without any input from us. That would be the net result.

We would then have to consider whether that was a road that we were prepared to go down or whether we had to stop the approach in its entirety. That is why I am saying that we would be going back to square 1.

It will be sometime in 2026-27.