Seòmar agus comataidhean

PE2173, which was lodged by Lauren Houstoun, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ban the use of ultra-processed food in school meals across Scotland in order to give our children healthier options.

We last considered the petition on 8 October 2025, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government and relevant school meal providers.

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states that although there is no universally agreed definition of “ultra-processed foods”, they can broadly be defined as foods containing many ingredients used in the industrial production process and, although the term “ultra-processed” may include products commonly high in fat, salt and sugar, such as sweet and savoury pre-packaged snacks and soft drinks, it also includes products that are fortified with vitamins and minerals and have nutritionally beneficial components such as fibre, including bread and yoghurts.

The Scottish Government states that it does not use a single definition of “fresh”, as this will depend on the context; nor does it collect data on “fresh” provision. Instead, the Nutritional Requirements for Food and Drink in Schools (Scotland) Regulations 2020 focus on the nutritional value of school food, drink and meals to support the healthy growth and development of children.

For example, some local authorities cook the main component of a meal at a central location, freeze and transport it for reheating at several local school locations and serve it alongside fruit, vegetables and salad prepared at each site—that sounds lovely. As such, although the meal as a whole delivers the desired amount of energy and key nutrients, it would be difficult to determine whether that meal would be deemed “fresh”.

The Scottish Government adds that, for other local authorities, although the whole meal might be cooked on site daily, it could include frozen vegetables, which deliver high nutritional value but may or may not be considered as “fresh”—well, they are not, they are frozen—as vegetables that have been cooked hours before and kept warm until service. Compliance with food regulations is monitored by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education health and nutrition inspectors as part of the annual school inspection programme.

It all seems to have become more complicated than those terms once used to be. Mr Golden, as the committee member with the most recent experience of being in school—[Laughter.]—do you have any comments?

I think that the Government response is almost a road map of what to avoid saying and what to say instead. If the petitioner lodges a fresh petition, they could navigate around what I thought was a jobsworth’s response as to how you define whether something is fresh or frozen. For me, it has never been in doubt that, if I eat something that is frozen, it is not fresh; it is frozen. That response seems nuts to me. Well, maybe not nuts—we do not want to introduce another term that the Government jobsworths might find difficult to accommodate.

My view is that, if we close the petition, there is still a big issue here and anew petition would need some careful drafting to allow the substantive issue to be addressed without this playing-at-games response, which we all find deeply unsatisfactory.

The next continued petition, PE2178, was lodged by Hazel Margaret McIvor. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce mandatory latex labelling on food products that are sold in Scotland if there is a chance of contamination. I was unaware of the issue until we considered the petition on 12 November 2025, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government. The response states that Food Standards Scotland intends to explore what scope there might be to include statements or warnings about non-food allergens on packaging under general consumer protection law. Officials at Food Standards Scotland will discuss options for packaging-based consumer protection measures with their counterparts in the UK Government and highlight the points that are raised in the petition.

The Scottish Government seems to have taken the issue more seriously in response to what we have said. Do colleagues have any suggestions as to how we should proceed?

PE2185, which was lodged by Christopher Simpson, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 to ensure that any digital material that is presented in court, such as photos or screenshots, is verifiably sourced, time stamped and able to be independently authenticated before being considered admissible, unless both parties agree otherwise.

We previously considered the petition on 26 November 2025, when we agreed to write to the Lord Advocate and the chief constable of Police Scotland. The Lord Advocate’s response explains that prosecutors must be satisfied that any evidence, whether digital or otherwise, is both credible and reliable. The Lord Advocate reiterates that the provenance of any evidence must be established and that the authenticity and accuracy of evidence can be challenged by any party. In addition, the chief constable’s response states that, where concerns regarding the authenticity of digital evidence are raised in the course of a police investigation into a reported crime, those allegations would be treated seriously and investigated appropriately by Police Scotland.

The petitioner refers to his experience to highlight that, in practice, things do not always work as the other submissions suggest that they should. He expresses on-going concerns regarding current frameworks assuming that digital evidence is authentic at the point at which it is presented, and regarding the lack of a mechanism to address the harm that is caused to a person who is reported to the police on the basis of fabricated digital evidence.

Some of the issues struck me as being of real interest when we first considered the matter. We have had some response but, if I was in the position of the petitioner, I do not know how terribly reassured I would be. I am unclear about what to do with this one.

The next petition is PE2109, lodged by Brian Shaw—I think that Mr Shaw is in the public gallery this morning—on behalf of the Ness District Salmon Fishery Board, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create a moratorium on any further development of pump storage hydro operations on Scottish lochs that hold wild Atlantic salmon until the impact of such developments on wild Atlantic salmon migrations is understood. We last considered the petition on 10 September 2025, at which point we agreed to write to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, NatureScot and the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy.

From the written submissions that we received, we found out that, under current regulations, SEPA has a duty to assess the risk to the water environment when assessing a proposed development, including any effects that are cumulative with other activities. Should it consider that a proposal is likely to have a significant adverse impact on the water environment, SEPA may not grant authorisation unless certain conditions are met. Those conditions include requiring that the benefits to sustainable development outweigh the benefits of protecting the status of the water environment; that all practicable steps are taken to mitigate the adverse impacts of the proposed activities; and that the benefits that are expected to be gained from the regulated activities are not achievable by significantly better means.

During the evidence session on 14 January, to which I have already regularly referred, we also heard that SEPA is currently doing some exploration work on the interaction of pump hydro storage with watercourses. The Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy’s belief was that SEPA would consult on developing guidance for considering the cumulative impact of pump storage hydro on fish.

The Parliament recently considered several relevant stage 3 amendments to the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill. One such amendment called for the introduction of energy planning impact assessments to assess the cumulative impact of energy infrastructure developments on the environment and biodiversity. Another amendment called for a moratorium on major energy infrastructure applications until the Scottish Government publishes a national energy strategy—which Mr Ewing referred to a moment ago—that considers the impact of energy infrastructure on the natural environment.

The Government’s view was that frameworks for assessing the impacts of energy infrastructure proposals on the environment are already in place, and that statutory consultees such as NatureScot and SEPA will provide advice on potential impacts of developments on the natural environment. The Parliament voted against the relevant amendments before passing the bill.

Some of the issues reached the chamber for debate. Do colleagues have any suggestions on how we might proceed?

We certainly could do that in closing the petition. I am not reassured by what has been offered to me as a reassurance, which is that there are far more applications than are needed and that a lot of the proposals will not proceed, despite having been given planning consent. That seems to me to be the wrong way round; instead, we should be establishing what the need is in the first instance and having a planning process that authorises that need instead of having some speculative approach.

I met a constituent who was quite evangelical in their support of battery energy storage systems that are in the correct place and are deployed in the correct way. For me, though, it remains a technology that I would like to know a little bit more about. In the hope that the petition will come back to us in the next parliamentary session—[Interruption.] Did you want to come in, Mr Golden?

It is an important issue that has been discussed and raised with the cabinet secretary and that ended up being discussed in the chamber.

Do colleagues have any comments?

Mr Golden, are you going to supply any?

PE1885, which was lodged by Karen Murphy, calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make community shared ownership a mandatory requirement to be offered as part of all planning proposals for wind farm development. The petition was last considered on 2 April 2025, when we agreed to write to the Acting Minister for Climate Action and Scottish and Southern Energy Networks.

As the committee has discussed previously, the power to mandate shared ownership lies with the UK Government under reserved powers, although in an additional submission the petitioner rejects that position and argues that the Scottish Government could, in practice, make shared ownership mandatory.

In May 2025, the committee received a written response from the Acting Minister for Climate Action that stated that the Scottish Government was encouraging developers to offer shared ownership opportunities as standard on all new onshore renewable energy projects, including repowering and extensions of existing projects. More recently, we heard from the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy that there is high demand for grants and assistance under the community and renewable energy schemes. She also pointed to a number of projects to do with shared ownership, including energy repowering opportunities for Forestry and Land Scotland.

We also heard from the cabinet secretary that she engages regularly with the UK energy minister on the issue and that, as a result, the Scottish Government secured funding to augment the capacity of Community Energy Scotland through GB Energy.

Do colleagues have any suggestions on how we proceed on the petition?