Seòmar agus comataidhean

I agree that the Royal Conservatoire’s response is much more detailed. To be fair, it has responded to many of the points that you raised in the previous meeting. In practical terms, with reluctance, I think that we should close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders on the basis that the Scottish Government does not decide how many funded places individual universities should make available for eligible students in subjects that are not controlled subjects. The Scottish Government and Scottish ministers are unable to intervene in internal institutional matters. It is for the university to decide which courses it offers and how many funded places are available for each course. In making that recommendation, I am conscious of the Scottish Government’s limited scope to do what the petitioner wishes.

Having said all that, I have a lot of sympathy with the petitioner’s cause. Some years ago, one of my constituents had virtually the same concern. It seems to me that the Royal Conservatoire should look very carefully at its processes to ensure that children and young people from Scotland are given the opportunity to pursue that specialist education and training.

Although the table shows that the numbers of applicants from Scotland who accept places are perhaps greater than I had realised, they are, nonetheless, still very small. There were six in 2023, but there were only three in 2022, so we are talking about very small numbers. The issue is not going to go away, so I wanted to put that on the record. I hope that the Royal Conservatoire will agree that we have been reasonable in considering its case, but we are still slightly uneasy about the apparent paucity of places available for Scottish students in a Scottish institution.

Mr MacGregor put the case very well. I noted that 453 signatures have been obtained, which is a fairly substantial number. I support the recommendations that have been made by Mr Torrance and yourself, convener.

I was curious as to how many instances of absolute discharge there have been in cases in which there has been a conviction for rape or attempted rape or, indeed, for sexual assault. I have been advised that the figures show that there were two absolute discharges for rape and attempted rape and nine for sexual assault in 2021-22.

I mention that as I am curious to know whether it is possible to get any explanation, without breaking any rule about confidentiality, as to why an absolute discharge was granted in those cases. To any onlooker, it must seem pretty inexplicable that an absolute discharge would be granted, especially for a crime of rape. It is very difficult to understand what circumstances could be so exceptional as to justify such an outcome when someone is convicted of something as serious as rape. I find it very hard to imagine any circumstances in which that would be fair. However, on the other hand, the whole point of discretion of the court is that, if there are truly exceptional circumstances, it has that discretion. That would be the argument.

I am labouring the point a little bit, but I am curious as to what the justification was for that outcome in those cases. I do not know whether it is possible to find that out, convener, but I think that we should certainly try to do so.

Yes, I think that it would be. There is an additional point here: if the council is unable to explain what the circumstances were that merited that surprising outcome, how can it make a judgment on dealing with those matters in future? In other words, this is a sine qua non in relation to its work on sentencing guidelines.

I do not think that there is much more that we can do. We have already made pretty clear our view that the current situation is arbitrary and basically impossible to support. The abrupt cessation of care at a random age must be arbitrary and, therefore, given the Scottish Government’s statement of intention, it is now up to it to deliver. Should it fail to do so or should there be feet dragging, I would certainly hope that the matter will come before the committee again in the form of a new petition.

A fresh petition could be lodged within a year. Is that right, or is it six months?

I imagine that the petitioner and others who have an interest will consider the matter each year, so it is possible that, if matters deteriorate or do not improve, the petitioner and others who have a similar concern could bring the issue back to the Parliament in the light of the decisions that the Royal Conservatoire makes this year. That might focus minds a little bit.

I do not think that “bursting” is the word that I would use. I think that Mr Torrance was planning to say something.

Yes, I am content with that. I think that the petition should be closed, but I point out that, although the increase in funding has been welcome, the people who are most in danger from potholes are probably not motorists but cyclists, so the Government should consider diverting some of the massive amount of money that is devoted to active travel—I think that it might be as much as £200 million—to filling in potholes. After all, if a cyclist dies, there is no more active travel, is there? That might be a better and more effective method of spending public money to ensure an all-round safer experience for road users, including cyclists.

We have all the wisest owls.

I have some sympathy with what the petitioner has said. This is not an easy topic at all. I will start by making the point that the pre-application process is essential. Once things get to the stage of formal application, the developer will have spent an enormous amount of money on setting out a very detailed scheme; that process can be very costly. There will be an in-built reluctance to depart from that scheme after it has got to that stage. Therefore, it makes sense that pre-application stage is where the real effort on consultation should be made. Moreover, as I understand it, that approach is taken towards large planning applications. It would be inconsistent if that approach did not apply to energy.

Secondly, there is now a new UK Government, and the Scottish and UK Governments are aligned in saying that renewables are a great hope for the economy and for energy. If I set aside whether that is right or wrong, there is a confluence of objectives.

Close consideration needs to be given to how we persuade people that their views are being taken seriously. The SPICe briefing says, for example, that the pre-application guidance states that seven days’ notice must be given of consultation meetings. That period is hopelessly inadequate. Many people will simply not be able to change plans that they have made in order to attend in seven days, or even hear about the consultation meetings or see that in the newspapers. That is a common complaint.

I do not know the situation that Tess White has alluded to in the north-east as I am not familiar with the details, but I know that, in the Highlands—according to Graham Barn, the spokesman for the Civil Engineering Contractors Association Scotland, who gave evidence to the committee on another matter—that there is £45 billion of grid-strengthening work in the SSEN area alone between now and 2035. That is unprecedented, and it will involve substations at places such as Kiltarlity and Broadford, which have attracted huge controversy. Therefore, unless the process is one that enjoys the confidence of people, the Scottish and UK Governments will be storing up problems unless they give serious consideration to that.

My last two points are about the related issue of what benefits local communities get. Unless they get cheaper electricity, there will be sour, rumbling, protracted discontent. Both Governments need to consider how the areas that take the flak and get the infrastructure, receive some benefit directly, whether that be in lower electricity costs or in community ownership, or both.

Lastly, I agree with Maurice Golden that the committee does not have the power to say what Parliament should debate—it is a shame that we do not, because things might have gone a bit better if we did. [Laughter.] That is just my humble opinion, and who is going to listen to that? However, why are we not debating this topic? It is a live issue. Tess White has brought it here today, but a whole suite of MSPs, if that is the right collective noun, are affected, and there is huge concern across Scottish communities about where the turbines and the substations will be. The rest of Scotland may well be absolutely supportive of renewable energy, but it is not bearing the brunt of things.

I am very pleased that the petition has been raised and that Tess White has addressed us today. The interests of other MSPs are noted. I hope that the Scottish Government and the UK Government will take all those things into account.

I am sorry, convener, that that was a bit long.