Seòmar agus comataidhean

or benefit the aims of it.

I endorse what the convener and Jackie Baillie have said. Plainly, thanks to the courage and campaigning efforts of Sir Chris Hoy, this has been very much a matter of public debate and concern. It affects a huge number of people, including men in the west of Scotland and furth of the west of Scotland.

In addition to what has been said, I note that the submission from the screening committee is dated 20 February 2024, and we are now some distance away from then. The NSC commissioned an analysis of screening in response to submissions of six proposals for screening of various categories of people who might be thought to be at particular risk—I will not go through them all now. Given the urgency of the matter, I would very much like to know the timescale for the completion of those studies. When will they conclude? Will they drift on for ever while more people die, or is a time limit being placed on those efforts by the UK Government and the Scottish Government, I hope, working together?

I second David Torrance’s suggestion and support further examination of the consequences of pump storage, as Edward Mountain has eloquently set out, not least because of the potential for disturbance of the habitat of my most famous, albeit elusive, constituent, Nessie.

There is a great deal of support for pump storage schemes in principle, and I am among the most enthusiastic of supporters. I should say for transparency that I am due to speak to Mr Shaw later and have been in correspondence with him about the issue.

The concern about the impact of pump storage schemes is an enduring one, and the right time to bottom out the issues is now, not when it is too late. I do not know what the answers are. Mr Mountain has expertise in this area, and so do many other people. I have had many discussions, over many years, with the Ness District Salmon Fishery Board and others who are interested in the success of our wild salmon sector. The petition addresses an enduring concern that will not go away. We must bottom things out. This is the time for the Government to get to grips with the issue.

I have a supplementary suggestion to make. I would like to find out what work has been done by the developers. Plainly, all the developers will have commissioned their own research. In the interests of openness and transparency, I suggest that we write to the developers, including the developers of the project in question, and to SSE. I suspect that they will have already commissioned reports on the impacts on wild salmon. In order that we can have a proper debate, we should ask them to make those reports public, to avoid any suggestion that any unwelcome or inconvenient truths that might have emerged from those reports are being kept secret. We need to get to grips with the issue. If we do not, others in decades to come might well question what we were doing.

Are you ruling out a local referendum, cabinet secretary?

I think that you are right, convener. However, in closing the petition, perhaps we could write to the minister indicating our strong view that there is now a duty on the Government to bring forward the legislation as quickly as possible. It is not that complicated so, basically, the Government should get on with it. If we sent that message very clearly, there is a written record for the petitioner and those who have an interest in the issue. It is a very serious topic. We have given a clear steer as a committee of Parliament that we think that this should happen quickly.

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?