I thank the Member for her observations and questions. First of all, what we have to understand fully, and I think I’ve articulated that through the statement today, is the economics of the park. The financial viability of the report was questionable in terms of the detail we received back and that’s why I’ve been unable to make a decision. But, I do understand that some parks will build a 10 per cent commission rate into their business plans. We’ve got to understand that better and, when they come back with evidence, we’ll fully understand that.

I do take issue with the Member suggesting that our consultation exercises are skewed to one side, skewed to businesses, et cetera—that isn’t the case. This will be a full, open and transparent opportunity for all sides or interested parties to be involved. My team are already starting to plot out how we engage stakeholders, both site owners and residents, which is an important process.

The Member broadens out the scope in terms of the opportunity of this statement with regard to energy bills and best practice. I will be looking at issuing guidance around that. The Member raises some issues, or opportunities perhaps, of training et cetera, and mandatory training. I will give that further consideration. Indeed, co-operative models of site ownership are ones that I’m very interested in. I’ve already spoken to my colleague Jeremy Miles, who raised that in the margins of discussions earlier today. Of course, I think what we have to do is make sure we have a sustainable industry, because people are living there, but make sure it’s fair for everybody.