Seòmar agus comataidhean

If there are no other comments from colleagues, are we content to keep the petition open and to make that further representation to the Scottish Government?

Members indicated agreement.

That would be appreciated.

Thank you, Mr Whittle. I commend Tim Eagle, Rachael Hamilton, Douglas Lumsden and Tess White, who all hoped to be able to address the committee. Tim Eagle has tabled a written submission, as have Russell Findlay, Finlay Carson and Emma Harper. There is a considerable degree of interest from colleagues in the matter. It has been suggested that a debate be held in the chamber on the subject, but I wonder whether members have other suggestions for action.

Are members content with that?

Members indicated agreement.

Wild Wrasse (Protection of Stocks) (PE2110)

Are we all content to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

Are we content with that suggestion, in light of the strong direction that has been given by the Government and our inability to take the issues raised in the petition forward?

Members indicated agreement.

We move to PE2157, which has been lodged by Ben Morse on behalf of Cockenzie and Port Seton community council. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to update the advice for planning authorities when considering applications for energy storage and ensure that it includes clear guidance about the location of battery energy storage systems—or BESS—by setting out a minimum baseline level of practice around the location and proximity of such systems in relation to residential properties, public buildings and community amenities.

The SPICe briefing states that BESS use lithium-ion batteries to store electricity at times when supply is higher than demand. BESS are generally considered to be grid-scale systems, often over 100MW in capacity, which can release electricity when needed. The briefing also makes reference to the common concern about the potential fire risk of lithium-ion batteries, with a number of examples of BESS fires but with no reliable, publicly accessible record of the number of such fires.

The Scottish Government’s response mentions commissioning consultants in April 2025 to produce planning guidance on battery energy storage systems, and it anticipates that that work will be completed this autumn. The guidance is intended to promote good practice in determining BESS applications and to set out information on other relevant regulatory regimes that are applicable to BESS in Scotland.

The Government also makes reference to existing and well-established consenting procedures for renewable energy and electricity grid infrastructure, which include consideration of residential amenity and cumulative impacts. The Government’s position is that, although national planning framework 4 stipulates that the potential impacts on communities and nature are important considerations in the decision-making process for energy projects, it is for the decision maker to determine on a case-by-case basis what weight to attach to NPF4 policies, with all applications being subject to site-specific assessments.?

In an additional submission, the petitioner further argues that rigorous guidelines on the suitability of BESS sites would provide immediate clarity to the consenting and planning process and ease the burden on local authorities and communities. The petitioner insists that the Government has not addressed the central question that has been posed by his community, which is to do with the appropriate level of proximity of BESS sites to communities such as his, in light of concerns regarding the lack of safety and emergency procedures, noise and loss of amenity or agricultural land.

Before I invite members to comment, I declare an interest in that I have an active case in my constituency, where I am challenging the criteria by which approvals have been granted. That is very similar to the aims and objectives that have been raised by the petitioner, so I place that interest on record. Do members have any comments or suggestions for actions?

I wholly agree with that. There are a lot of live applications around the country, because many developers are seeking to establish sites. There is concern that the volume of sites that are being identified and progressed through the planning process is wildly in excess of the potential immediate requirement. Since most of the sites that are being established will create a new base of energy storage, many of the risks that are associated with them are as theoretical as the practice of the storage itself, which has not been around long enough. However, we know that there have been fires in other parts of the country and the world where such sites have been established.

A framework is needed fairly urgently. As Mr Ewing said, local authorities that are predisposed to look favourably on environmentally friendly forms of future energy generation are erring on that side over the concerns of people in the community and the potential unknown risks that are yet to be properly quantified.

PE2158 calls for the introduction of a maximum temperature for serving hot liquids to children in childcare settings.

The SPICe briefing tells us that existing legislation sets out the temperatures at which foods must be cooked and maintained but not the maximum temperature at which foods, or indeed liquids, should be served. In line with their responsibilities under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, local authorities set their own temperatures for serving food in schools. My apologies, but my note does not actually tell me who lodged the petition.

Those are fair points, and I am happy to incorporate them with the suggestions from Mr Torrance. Does the committee agree to that?

Members indicated agreement.