Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes, I have just a couple of things.

The Land Commission recommended a figure of 1,000 hectares. Do you think that the Land Commission got it right?

So you think that the Land Commission got it wrong.

Jon, is that your view?

I would be interested in seeing that. I take from what you are saying that it is important to have the principles of enforcement in statute, but the practical application is probably best dealt with in guidance.

However, that legislative change would not happen before the end of 2026.

Therefore, your answer to that question is no.

I am questioning that because of what Get Glasgow Moving said about what would happen if the panel issue was not resolved. To be fair to it, I am paraphrasing what it said and it might want to challenge this, but it said that, if the requirement for a panel cannot be removed within that timeframe, the SSI should be passed as an interim measure only, with a view to doing something more appropriate in the future. With regard to the timeline that SPT has set out, is it likely that primary legislation will be brought forward between now and the end of 2026—or at least later in 2026—to remove the requirement for a panel to consider any franchising proposal?

You also cannot bind any post-2026 Government anyway. I am conscious that, even after an election, legislation tends to get pushed back as committees are established and priorities are set. That is helpful, thank you.

I am conscious that that matter is not necessarily entirely within your portfolio responsibilities. However, like any good Government, you would always want to learn lessons from experience and build on those. I have no doubt that, if the Government felt that there was a more appropriate mechanism in the future, it would want to introduce that.

Therefore, if SPT took something forward later in 2026 and the SSI had been annulled, we would be in the situation that ministers have set out, namely that the traffic commissioner would have established a panel but that we would have no control over how the panel operated because of the existing arrangements in primary legislation. Is that correct?