Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is reasonable. We have agreed to close the petition on that basis. We will send a letter to the Royal Conservatoire explaining that we appreciated the depth of its response, which allowed the committee to close the petition. Nonetheless, we will say that there is still unease about the relatively low number of Scottish students and that we hope that it will continue to review the situation and encourage the best possible talent to apply from within Scotland, with the entry criteria being satisfied, so that more Scottish students can be accommodated.

PE2106, which was lodged by Adam Csenki, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to update guidance on mobile phones in schools to require all schools to prohibit the use of mobile phones during the school day, including at interval and lunch time.

The SPICe briefing highlights that decisions on the use of mobile phones in schools are a matter for local authorities or schools themselves. Indeed, I know from examples in my constituency that practice is variable. In August, the Scottish Government published new guidance on the use of mobile phones in schools aimed at empowering headteachers

“to take the steps they see fit to limit the use of mobile phones in schools, up to and including a full ban on the school estate during the school day, if that is their judgement.”

Responding to the petition, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills tells us that she shares the petitioner’s concerns about the impact of mobile phone use on children and young people’s learning but states that the Scottish Government cannot unilaterally ban mobile phones in schools. The cabinet secretary added during her statement to Parliament earlier this month that

“the updated national guidance goes as far towards a national ban as I am currently able to go”.—[Official Report, 3 September 2024; c 70.]

We have received a submission from the petitioner that welcomes the updated guidance but raises concerns that leaving the decision up to individual headteachers risks creating an unequal experience for pupils and their teachers across Scotland.

Do members have any comments or suggestions?

Unless members have any alternative or additional suggestions, are we content to close the petition on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank Pat Rafferty and Unite and I hope that the action and the pragmatic approach that have been taken offer the taxi trade in Glasgow the comfort and support that it requires.

The difficulty that we have is that the Government is making plain that it proposes to bring forward the legislation before the end of the session, which is the aim of the petition.

Mr Ewing, do you have any thoughts?

Yes. Are there any other comments? Are colleagues agreed? I think that that is the position we are in. The Government has made various commitments as to what it plans to do, but it has set the timeline as being the end of the parliamentary session, which limits our ability to progress things, given that it has said and will continue to say that that is its intention. However, if we find that that is not happening, there will be a new petitions committee sitting here at the start of the next session and any fresh petition, of course, can refer to the current one and the work that was done. I hope that we will have achieved the ambitions of the petition but, if we have not, a fresh petition could be raised at that time.

I am not comfortable with that, but I am not sure, given our ability to act, that there is any more that I can positively see us doing at this stage.

PE1982, which was lodged by Gary McKay, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the funding that is provided to the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland to enable more places to be made available to Scottish students pursuing ballet at that level. We previously considered the petition on 23 September 2023.

The Royal Conservatoire of Scotland’s written submission—which is much more substantial than the one that was provided the first time around, with which the committee was less than impressed—provides detail about its approach to data collection and dissemination. The submission emphasises that Scottish applicants do not compete for places with applicants from the rest of the United Kingdom or with international students. The submissions states that Scottish applicants

“are viewed as an entirely separate category and audition only in a pool consisting of other Scottish applicants.”

We have received a further submission from the petitioner, who continues to be concerned about the ability of Scottish students to secure places. He believes that there are other criteria that are not entirely consistent with rejection notices that say that the applicant has not reached the right standard, because some people who have received such notices have, apparently, been accepted at ballet schools elsewhere, particularly the Central School of Ballet in London. The slight difficulty is that different schools will have different criteria, so it is a bit subjective.

The Royal Conservatoire’s more substantive response, which committee members have before them, goes into a lot more detail and satisfies my disappointment about its previous submission. However, I emphasise to the Royal Conservatoire and the committee that we want Scottish students to get the best possible opportunities from national institutions in Scotland.

Mr Ewing, do you wish to make any comments?

I think that Mr Ewing sums up well the feelings of the committee. We appreciate the depth of the Royal Conservatoire’s response, but it would be useful to use the word “uneasy”—which is the word that Mr Ewing used—in any final letter that we send to the Royal Conservatoire. Is it the committee’s view that, in the light of everything that we have received, we should close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

It is 12 months.

The final continued petition—PE2042—which was lodged by Undine Achilles-Day on behalf of Taynuilt community council, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to abolish car parking charges at all Forestry and Land Scotland sites to promote access to forests and green spaces across Scotland.

The petition was previously considered at our meeting on 22 November. We agreed to seek more information from Forestry and Land Scotland, and I am pleased to note that we received a response from it that sets out the rationale for car parking charges at specific sites. The response provides details of the revenue that is received from the charges and of the management costs of maintaining its trails and car parks. The response states that the management of trails and car parks costs Forestry and Land Scotland £5.8 million annually, whereas the income that it receives from car parks is about £1 million.

We have a detailed submission with interesting information about the costs and the sums that are raised. Do any colleagues wish to comment or make suggestions on how to proceed?

Mr Ewing, you looked as though you were bursting to say something, or were you just bursting to say something but thinking better of it?