Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

Our penultimate new petition is PE2162, which was lodged by Sharon Glen and Alex O’Kane. Colleagues will recall that Alex O’Kane is also the petitioner in relation to the child violence petition that we discussed earlier. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make it illegal for strangers to film or photograph children in public play parks.

The SPICe briefing explains that it is not illegal to take photographs or film video footage in public places, unless for criminal purposes. It is possible, however, for the police to charge an individual who behaves in that manner, under existing provisions for offences. There exist both a common-law offence and a statutory offence of breach of the peace. Under either offence, the police do not require to know or prove the intended use of any photographs or footage; the behaviour itself can be enough to constitute an offence.

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition highlights Police Scotland’s statement on the issue earlier this year. That statement notes that Police Scotland is aware of concerns being shared on social media about filming in and around play parks, and that individuals have been charged with alleged offences of breach of the peace in connection with some incidents. The statement explains that police officers balance the rights of people to film with the potential to cause fear or alarm, and that they make decisions based on individual circumstances. The statement also explains that a small number of unconnected reports of filming were found to involve parents filming their own children, or other individuals who were not filming children, and no criminality was established.

The Scottish Government response states that, although it may be possible to create a specific offence, it is not clear what in practice any such offence would provide to the police, prosecutors and courts in terms of powers that they do not already have, using existing mechanisms, to address the inappropriate filming or photographing of children in public places.

The petitioners have provided the committee with two written submissions that outline their concerns. The first submission shares their view that the current arrangements fail to properly protect children. It states that the current legislation was not designed, and has not evolved, to consider the fact that most people carry phones with video and photography capability. The petitioners suggest that photography and videoing be either prevented entirely or conditionally permitted as long as the police have new powers to investigate and reasonable explanations are given by those who are questioned. The final written submission suggests that we consider the possibility of signage being put in place in play parks to ask that no videoing or photography take place.

Do colleagues have any suggestions as to how we might proceed, or any comments?

Our final petition for consideration is PE2161, which was lodged by Ivor Roderick Bisset, who had hoped to be with us this morning but is not well enough to be present. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Act 2002 to allow for the complaints period for people with cognitive disabilities to be extended to two years.

Section 10 of the 2002 act sets out the time limits and procedure for complaints. It states:

“The Ombudsman must not consider a complaint made more than 12 months after the day on which the person aggrieved first had notice of the matter complained of, unless the Ombudsman is satisfied that there are special circumstances which make it appropriate to consider a complaint made outwith that period.”

The SPSO website states that special circumstances can include demonstrating a good reason to delay because of health or personal difficulties, such as a defined disability that impacts upon daily living tasks and functioning.

The petitioner had applied for a time extension from the SPSO believing that he would get a reasonable adjustment under the Equality Act 2010, on the grounds that he is neurodivergent. However, his request was rejected.

The Scottish Government’s response shares the SPSO’s position that decisions on special circumstances are made on a case-by-case basis, with guidance available to decision makers. Its submission states that if the SPSO decides not to waive the time limit, that decision is subject to the SPSO’s review process under which the decision can be looked at again and which provides an opportunity for a complainant to supply new information. The Scottish Government is therefore of the view that the current legislation has a degree of flexibility and offers the SPSO a wide range of discretion in deciding whether to waive the time limit, with any such decision also being subject to the SPSO’s review process.

Edward Mountain MSP has provided a written submission in support of the petition. Mr Mountain believes there should be a separate category to the existing special circumstances category that allows for people with cognitive disabilities to have their complaints considered outwith the 12-month period.

We could summarise our impression that that was the case in the letter that we send to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs. Are committee members agreed on that?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you. That is on the record. I am minded, in closing the petition—if colleagues are content to do that—to say that the committee was unpersuaded by the arguments not to hold a national review and that we believe that the Government’s decision is ill judged and something of a fudge. Are committee members content to add that to the record?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank Meghan Gallacher very much. We will keep the petition open and act on that basis.

I will now leap forward on the agenda to PE1864, which was lodged by Aileen Jackson on behalf of Scotland Against Spin. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to increase the ability of communities to influence planning decisions for onshore wind farms by adopting English planning legislation for the determination of onshore wind farm developments, by empowering local authorities to ensure that local communities are given sufficient professional help to engage in the planning process and by appointing an independent advocate to ensure that local participants are not bullied and intimidated during public inquiries.

We last considered this petition on 13 November 2024, when we agreed to write to the Minister for Public Finance. The committee first requested an update on the publication of the guidance, “Effective community engagement in local development planning”, which was published on 20 December last year. The committee then asked for an update on the work to progress proposals for raising the current 50MW threshold, to allow planning authorities to determine more applications for onshore wind farms. The response from the then Acting Minister for Climate Action referenced the consultation, “Investing in planning—resourcing Scotland’s planning system”, but was otherwise vague about further action, stating that the Government continues

“to consider the process and timeline for making any changes to the Electricity Act 1989 threshold”.

Finally, the committee also asked what consideration the Scottish Government gave to ensuring that support was available to members of the public who wished to participate in public inquiries. The minister’s response indicates continued engagement between the planning and environmental appeals division—the DPEA—the petitioner and other stakeholders in relation to their experiences at inquiries. The minister also mentions the planned publication of DPEA guidance in relation to the use of community sessions, which would allow members of the community who might not wish to participate in an inquiry to state their case to a reporter in a less formal environment.?

The committee has also received additional written submissions from the petitioner. Ms Jackson mentions that the “Effective community engagement in local development planning” guidance fails to address the issue of local support becoming a key material consideration in the decision-making process, which has been repeatedly asked for.

The petitioner also states that DPEA has not, in fact, engaged with Scotland Against Spin regarding the concerns raised in relation to support for participation in inquiries. Additionally, she notes that, a year after the publication of the “Investing in planning” consultation, no decision has been made by the Scottish Government on the matter of the 50MW threshold, despite the proposals being supported by the majority of respondents.

As colleagues will know, a joint UK Government and Scottish Government review of electricity infrastructure consenting has concluded. In a submission on a related petition, the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy has indicated that reform arising from the consultation is being implemented through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which is progressing through the UK Parliament. The cabinet secretary has also committed to publishing guidance for measures to take effect two months after the bill receives royal assent and to consult on any additional measures enabled by Scottish ministers’ new regulation-making powers.

I am aware of the petitioner’s call for a whole-Parliament debate on the matter, which is supported by some of our MSP colleagues. I highlight to members the limited time that we have left until the end of the parliamentary session and the number of other petitions that the committee has already agreed or indicated that it would seek time for a chamber debate on.

We have received submissions in support of the petition from several MSP colleagues, and there was a veritable posse of parliamentarians of my colour, who were very excited at the prospect of coming along to address the committee this morning. I have generously invited two of them to represent that extensive desire to perform today. They are Alexander Burnett and Brian Whittle. I wonder who will shout first—it is at their behest who will sing for their supper first and address the committee before we determine how we might proceed.