Battery Energy Storage Sites: Safety Regulations

15:31:00

This is a subject in which I might have more than a passing interest.

I beg to move, That this House recognises the unique challenges posed by lithium-ion fires in battery energy storage sites; and calls on the Government to bring forward enforceable national regulations for their design and construction. I have asked for this debate in order to highlight important issues associated with lithium-ion batteries when deployed at grid scale. These installations are known as battery energy storage systems, or BESSs. In particular, I am calling for clear national regulations that could be applied in the same way in every part of the UK. We need legislation, and I hope that this debate will push the Government further along the road to passing it. The UK has set a target to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. To achieve that, many wind and solar farms have been constructed and permissions are being sought for many more. I fully support the drive towards renewable energy; the enhanced regulation that I am suggesting today is intended to secure the industry’s future, not to create more obstacles. I think it is perfectly possible to draw up regulations that will not stand in the way of BESS roll-out, and which in the long term could actually save the industry from a wholly avoidable setback in the event of an accident. BESSs solve the classic question of what to do when the sun don’t shine and the wind don’t blow. They provide a number of highly useful functions, including load balancing, peak shaving and energy arbitrage. Above all, they make it practical to meet a much larger percentage of our national energy needs from renewables. However, every energy system carries some kind of risk, and most BESSs currently use lithium-ion battery technology. In the event of an accident—and sooner or later there are always accidents—lithium-ion batteries catch fire in a different way from other materials, in a process known as thermal runaway. It is important to note that most BESSs now rely on lithium iron phosphate or LFP batteries. This chemistry is much more stable than lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide or NMC cells, which are common in consumer uses. That means fewer incidents, but those incidents can still be dangerous. In the future, there will undoubtedly be other chemistries, so we need to leave space for innovation. Thermal runaway generates very high temperatures and requires different firefighting methods. It is usually best not to try to put out the fire, but rather to control the spread. Firefighters also have to contend with severely toxic gas emissions, the risk of an explosion, soil contamination and damage to watercourses. To repeat, I am in no way suggesting that battery energy storage systems are inherently unsafe. The risks they entail may be different from those of traditional systems, but they are perfectly controllable.

Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that the location of many of these sites are in rural areas, which are often served primarily by retained firefighters? They are a long way from where specialist firefighting resources would come from, and that does not seem to be taken into account fully in the planning process.

I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention. I agree that such sites can be in remote locations where there are fewer resources. As I will say later in my remarks, fire officer training is very much part of what I am recommending. There is a strong case for mandating water-based suppression systems, off-gas detection, ventilation systems and thermal runaway mitigation as design conditions. Unfortunately, that is far from the case today. The guidelines for planning approval are imprecise and vary across the devolved nations. Currently, the burden of responsibility falls on individual local authority planning officers who have no specific training or background in lithium-ion technology—and why on earth would they? For reasons that are hard to understand—perhaps the Minister can explain—fire and rescue services have not been made statutory consultees for planning applications. The current guidance states that applicants are “encouraged to engage” rather than required to do so, but even compulsory consultation is not enough by itself because the fire services themselves do not always have the expertise. Within the last fortnight, Henry Griffin, Suffolk’s deputy chief fire officer asked for fire services to be given new powers, saying: “I’d like to see a power that is akin to a regulatory order like those for a commercial property, where we would have the power to enforce safety measures on those sites.” He explained that the fire service is currently just a “contributing partner”, able to give “direction and professional advice”, but not necessarily to require what it might like. The result is inconsistency, which is destructive both of public trust and of the success of the industry. In my own constituency of Horsham, the local planning authority has rejected a BESS application, while a similar site, just half a mile away, across the border in Mid Sussex, has won approval. Such inconsistencies show alarming parallels with Grenfell. The Grenfell disaster was the end result of many failings by both individuals and companies, but at heart it was a failure of regulation. The rules left things wide open for exploitation by cost-cutting developers, which is exactly what happened. Just as with lithium-ion batteries, a new technology—in that case cladding—was being used at scale for the first time, without proper understanding of the risks. The time to act is now because the number of BESS applications is expanding exponentially.

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. He is right to highlight the issues around lithium-ion batteries and thermal runaway; we are all reminded of explosions and fires in Liverpool in 2019 and in Kilwinning, in Scotland, in 2025. He referred to the need for legislation for the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but that needs to start here. Is it his intention to ask the Minister to confirm in her response that that will happen, so that the legislation can then fan out to Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales?

The hon. Gentleman is better acquainted than I am with the way that devolution works, but yes, I hope that the Minister will be able to set out whatever course of action is required to get to that point. It is essential that we build battery energy storage sites to proper safety standards so that we do not find ourselves facing the need for a massively more expensive retrofit, with consequences for the entire energy network. What accidents have there been so far? In September 2020, a fire at a BESS site in Liverpool created a significant blast and took 59 hours to extinguish. Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service said that the blaze on Carnegie Road “appears to be the first significant fire of its type to occur within the UK”. However, this was only a small BESS, with just four containers and a modest 20 MWh output in total.

In common with the hon. Gentleman, I welcome renewable energy. Safety is hugely important. In my constituency there are lots of battery sites that are being placed in pockets around beautiful little villages because there are connections to the national grid. Because of the potential fire hazards and possible toxic run-off into local rivers, does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should prioritise brownfield sites as opposed to such pockets around pretty little villages?

The issue of site choice is closely associated with grid capacity, so that is a factor. That is why some of these sites are ending up in otherwise somewhat improbable and very un-industrial settings. Rules around the pollution of watercourses are one of the most important measures to be brought in, and a wider discussion of land use is going on that could help with that. There was another accident in February this year. Essex firefighters dealt with a fire at a BESS project that was still under construction and therefore not even operating at full power. The most serious incident internationally, which caused serious injury, was in McMicken, Arizona in 2019. As a result, America, along with Germany, has some of the most effective BESS protocols in the world, which I think could be copied. Overall, BESS fires are high risk in their impact but low in incidence. The Faraday Institution estimates that only one in 40 million battery cells will experience failure resulting in fire. That is an exceptionally high standard of safety, but there are millions of batteries, so there will be accidents—and, of course, in a BESS scenario one battery can trigger another. Grenfell was one fire in one building, yet the ramifications continue today. It has left us with the huge cost of retrofitting large numbers of high-rise buildings across the UK built with similar cladding methods. Even a single failure can therefore undermine an entire industry if it turns out to be the result of a systemic mistake in design. The UK’s regulatory approach to BESS safety relies on performance-based regulations such as the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 and the Building Regulations 2010. They place the responsibility on the responsible person—the site owner—to ensure that adequate safety measures are in place, but they lack specific provisions tailored to BESSs. Too much reliance is being placed on individual owners to mark their own homework. The National Fire Chiefs Council provides guidance for the fire and rescue services, but that needs to be more comprehensive and updated constantly in line with changes in technology if it is to serve a proper regulatory purpose. On fire response regulation, recent changes to the International Electrotechnical Commission standards suggest a global shift towards mandatory water-based suppression and proactive risk mitigation, but that has not yet been echoed in UK law. There are also the environmental impacts. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Water Resources Act 1991 provide a general framework for managing environmental impacts but, again, they do not specifically address the challenges posed by BESS fires. Existing regulators do not seem to know whose responsibility this should be. In a recent application for a solar park at Cleve Hill in Kent, which includes battery storage, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero stated that the Health and Safety Commission should be consulted on safety advice, but the HSC itself said that commenting on battery safety management plans was not in its remit. That confusion is not exactly reassuring. It is important to note that if the batteries themselves are not manufactured in the UK, the Government have limited scope to regulate. However, because batteries are produced under controllable factory conditions, their failure rate is low. The focus of UK regulation should instead be on the processes that can happen in this country, especially the design of the battery containers and the overall site. I understand from the Electricity Storage Network, which is the industry group for electricity storage in Great Britain, that it is currently talking to officials at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about a new permitting system. It is also talking to the British Standards Institution about laying down new standards for design and emergency response. However, the Government have responded to all questions from myself and others saying that they consider the present regulatory regime to be “robust”. I am tempted to say that pride comes before a fall. In the last few weeks, a spokesperson for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero has stated: “Battery fires at storage sites are rare in the UK. We already have high safety standards in place that require manufacturers and industry to ensure batteries are safe throughout their lifespan.” That is just too complacent. Fires as a result of cladding were also incredibly rare, but that did not save 72 lives at Grenfell. I and others have been asking for action for some time, but so far without success. It feels like the message still is not getting through. It is very concerning that many questions are passed from Department to Department, with no one seeming to be sure exactly whose responsibility it is. Because of inadequate regulation, some BESS units have already been fitted with inappropriate fire suppression techniques, which might actually make the problem worse, but they were installed in good faith by operators looking to do the right thing. Why are the Government so reluctant to act? I hope that the Minister will explain. Perhaps the Government are worried that regulations would slow down the planning process, but I would argue that clearer rules will actually make life easier for planning officers and councillors. Currently, they have to grapple with a complex technical subject for the first time each time—that is too much to ask of non-experts. I further suggest that it would be easier to win public consent if there were more clarity and consistency. Perhaps the Government fear stifling innovation in a new and rapidly changing industry. I wholly agree that any regulations need to be carefully drafted and have sufficient flexibility. Any guidance needs to cover a number of areas, including the transportation of batteries to the site, design and construction, firefighting, ongoing inspection and decommissioning. In the short term, if the Government are—for any reason—still reluctant to regulate, perhaps they could issue clear national guidelines that are capable of being updated annually. Enforcement might then take place through the insurance industry, which would be likely to insist that any new applications follow such guidelines. As no project can go ahead without insurance, this would be enforcement by the back door. Grenfell was a wholly predictable tragedy. A similar fire at Lakanal House in Camberwell, which killed six people, should have made us understand the risk, but that warning was not heeded and history took its course. We cannot go back in time to stop Grenfell, but we can act now to avoid making the same mistake again with battery energy storage systems.

Members will be able to see how many are standing. I do not intend to put a formal time limit on, but if Members can keep their contributions below five minutes, everybody will just about squeeze in.

15:46:00

First of all, I support the fact that there is a debate on this issue, and I support some of the points that the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) has just made. It is clear that technology is moving fast, and when it does, it is essential that public authorities move even faster so that we feel properly secure and protected. I do not think we are quite there yet, and it is clear that there are different patterns of operation by public authorities in different parts of the country. We need an overall pattern. I also agree that we do not want to turn our back on this new technology. It is very important that we continue to transform our energy provision across the country as a whole, but the fact of the matter is that the fires that occur from time to time pose serious problems for fire authorities. Those authorities should take a central role in any national conversation about this matter. Guidance from the National Fire Chiefs Council says that at least 1,900 litres of water per minute are needed to try to control a fire once it gets started. That is an incredible amount of water to deliver, and many sites simply cannot deliver it, although they seem to be making progress in some cases. The Government have said that there have not been many fires, but there have been quite a few. The one in Liverpool that the hon. Member for Horsham mentioned burned for a substantial period of time—59 hours—and there was one in California that lasted for five days. There have been three other fires in the UK this year, and we are only halfway through the year. When the fire authorities are trying to eliminate a fire, it is obviously complex, but it can lead to pollutants going into the ground and into watercourses, which itself is very dangerous. It has been shown that in Liverpool, when the smoke from the fire was sprayed by water, it produced hydrochloric acid that was distributed through the community—obviously, not a very healthy thing to have. Additionally, toxic fumes were created, which travelled a long way.

Will the hon. Member give way?

I will, but quickly.

The hon. Member is making an excellent speech. He refers to the pollution of watercourses; in my constituency, the salmon fishing industry is hugely important to tourism and the local economy, so that could be a disaster waiting to happen.

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, and take his point entirely. Some authorities have suggested that a two-mile radius is needed if a fire starts. People need to keep their windows and doors closed while the fumes are in the air, as there is a risk of children, elderly people and others breathing them in. In my constituency, there are two applications in place, both in beautiful parts of Yorkshire. In Heath, which is regarded as one of the crown jewels of Wakefield, there is a proposal for a large battery storage provision. Hundreds of people objected to it. The chief fire officer said: “The risks of vapour cloud, thermal runaway and explosion are unfortunately very real and are becoming more common as we see an increase” in battery storage. He talks about choices being given to the fire authorities, in whether they allow the fire to just burn itself out, with the risk of pollution of the atmosphere, or whether they attempt to tackle it. To control a fire at the site in Heath would require millions of litres of water in a 24-hour period. It is almost impossible to deliver that level of water and, anyway, what happens to the millions of litres of water used to try to eliminate such a fire? There is a second proposal in Old Snydale, a beautiful village in my constituency. It is a one-road village, and the people who live there work hard or have worked hard. The proposed site will be almost next to the village, and there is no road access or egress. I do not know how the fire engines and other emergency services would get in. The proposal is completely inappropriate, but the two communities of Heath and Old Snydale are sitting there with planning applications in place and the fire officers expressing great worries about the risk of potential fire and how they will control it. Without national guidance and proper regulations that are sensitive to the prospect of fires, our local planning officers are having to reinvent the wheel, as are other planning officers in other authorities. I support the points made by the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) in introducing this debate.

15:51:00

I congratulate the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) not just on securing this debate, but on giving it such a wide-ranging and thoroughly comprehensive introduction. I am sure that many Members would have mentioned many of the areas he discussed in their own way. Madam Deputy Speaker, you and I are very good friends, and I know that you have been concerned about battery storage plants near the River Test and potential runaway fires that may lead to pollutants going into the river. As you are in your place, you cannot comment on that, so I thought it important to get that on the record. The hon. Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) was focusing on some of the planning issues, and that is where I want to go, too. When we look at this debate overall, what we are talking about is a lack of statutory guidance. I want to get on the record immediately that this is not a debate of “Forget net zero and forget about renewables.” That is not the debate, and we are not deniers along that road, but there are serious concerns. The leader of my party has raised those concerns and immediately been accused of being anti net zero. We have to take the concerns seriously, because, as the hon. Member for Horsham outlined, there are changes, slowly but surely, in the materials being used. Nickel manganese, for example, has a vaporisation point of 900ºC. These fires can burn easily over 1,000ºC. I want to focus my attention on the fallout. I had a meeting with some soil scientists, among others, from the University of Leeds at a research facility in my constituency. They are involved in all aspects of farming. I asked about research into potential contamination and fallout and what it could mean for soils if there was a fire. They said no such research had really been done, and I think they had a couple of PhD ideas appear from that. It showed that that work has not been done. Where have we got to on thermal runaway? As has been outlined, such fires need a huge quantity of water. It is not just about trying to do whatever we can to stop the fire spreading. I read in the International Fire and Safety Journal about using high-pressure water mist at the starting point, monitoring the potential for thermal runaway and trying to cool the batteries before they get to that stage. Equally, if that mist is high pressure enough, it can contain the contaminants around the fire. Again, the science around this issue has to be closely managed. As the hon. Member for Normanton and Hemsworth has outlined, acids and other things can be created. We have to be careful about the chemistry, but we do not have any statutory guidance for planning authorities. We keep speaking about what we need to do with water, so surely it should be a condition of the planning process that there is a mains water supply to where such incidents are happening. In my constituency, planning applications for solar farms and battery storage are pouring in. They are being approved and pushed on, but there is no demand for water supply. These applications are for developments in the middle of a rural area, on farmland. Farmers are being offered a golden egg and told, “Sell us your land, and we will develop solar farms and battery storage.” Let me give the example of a planning application for Wetherby services. There were not really any objections or concerns about batteries, but Leeds city council then approved the development of hundreds of houses 600 to 700 metres away. As has been outlined, no one knows how far contamination goes. There must be a lot more statutory undertaking for planning authorities. I recommend a pause on approving planning applications until we fully understand what mitigation could be put in place for disasters, which unfortunately do happen.

15:56:00

As the MP for South Cotswolds and an environmental campaigner who has spent decades campaigning for climate action, I would like to raise serious concerns about the unchecked expansion of BESS facilities. Earlier this year, I brought the Climate and Nature Bill to the House because I believe in having a fast, fair and science-led transition away from fossil fuels, but I also believe in doing so properly—safely, transparently and with communities at the heart of the process. Unfortunately, that is not what we are seeing in the case of the proposed Lime Down solar farm in my constituency. The Lime Down proposal would industrialise over 2,000 acres of rural farmland and introduce a 500 MW battery installation right next to the railway line from London Paddington to south Wales. That is not just a visual or environmental concern, but a serious safety issue. We have already heard a lot about the low risk, but very high consequence, of a fire at such a facility. If such a fire were to break out, the consequences would be devastating for both infrastructure and public safety. Members have already referred to many examples of fires that have taken place, so I will not repeat them, but I want to emphasise that the location of battery storage facilities is absolutely crucial. Right now, there are no national safety regulations tailored to best technology. There is no requirement for thermal containment, no mandatory fire suppression and no clear guidance for local planners. Under the Government’s new Planning and Infrastructure Bill, BESS projects would be removed from national oversight altogether, piling even more responsibility on to under-resourced local authorities. That does not look like thoughtful climate planning; it is a top-down proposal on a massive scale, with too many unanswered questions and too little engagement with the people who live nearby. Despite the obligatory consultations, residents close to Lime Down feel understandably overlooked in a process that should prioritise both safety and consent. We should look closely at the companies behind Lime Down. The developer, Island Green Power, is now fully owned by Macquarie bank, a global investment firm with a track record that should give us all pause for thought. During its time leading the consortium that ran Thames Water, Macquarie extracted billions in dividends while letting infrastructure crumble and rivers fill with sewage. It is an asset management company. Its job is to make money, and it does it well. It is not a public utilities company. It is not interested in home-grown, community-led energy; it is interested in profit. It is not here to protect the beauty of the British countryside or to invest in long-term sustainability. Its business model is simple: build big, move fast and maximise returns, whatever the cost to people, nature or public trust. We need a better alternative. Instead of handing vast developments to multinationals with sketchy records, we should be investing in community-owned energy projects—initiatives that are more resilient, more trusted and far better suited to rural areas such as South Cotswolds. Projects such as Westmill Solar and the Low Carbon Hub have shown how communities can lead the way on clean energy, cutting emissions while boosting local economies. Let us not confuse scale with ambition. Our net zero future should be safe, smart and fair, not shaped by the profit margins of distant shareholders. We can and must do better if we are going to get to net zero without alienating the public and driving them into the arms of campaigners who would do away with the net zero enterprise altogether.

16:01:00

I congratulate the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) on bringing forward this important debate. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in it, because this is a matter of considerable concern to the many rural communities in the Mid Buckinghamshire constituency, particularly given the safety risks posed by battery energy storage systems. Let me be clear from the outset: this is a debate not about the principle of energy storage, although I am in principle opposed to such schemes taking agricultural land and challenging our food security, but about—and this is deeply concerning and the House must urgently address it—the real, growing and too often overlooked safety implications of these installations, particularly when placed in close proximity to villages and rural road networks that are ill-equipped to support them. The most pressing risk, and one that has already led to devastation elsewhere, is the danger of thermal runaway, as others have said. These are not hypothetical risks; they are documented, real-world events. In Merseyside, a fire at a battery site in 2020 caused an explosion that shook nearby homes and required a major emergency services response. In Arizona, a BESS fire led to an explosion that seriously injured eight firefighters, and in Belgium, a BESS fire burned for over a week and forced the evacuation of nearby businesses. These systems contain highly reactive lithium-ion batteries. When one cell fails—often due to manufacturing defects, overheating or damage—it can cause a chain reaction across the entire installation, releasing toxic gases, generating intense heat and creating a fire that cannot be extinguished with conventional methods. In rural areas, where response times may be slower and firefighting resources more limited, the consequences could be catastrophic. In my constituency of Mid Buckinghamshire, we are increasingly seeing applications for these industrial-scale storage sites in rural settings near homes, farms, schools, conservation areas, watercourses and rivers. These are often justified in the name of green energy, but residents rightly ask: green for whom and safe for whom? It is not just the risk of fire; the cumulative impact of associated infrastructure—substations, cabling, transformer enclosures —often means miles of narrow rural roads being torn up by heavy goods vehicles, with lasting safety implications. Roads that were never designed for such weight and volume are left with potholes, uneven surfaces and subsidence. For local motorists, cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders, or schoolchildren walking along rural lanes, this poses a daily and wholly unnecessary danger. I have received multiple reports from parish councils, residents and emergency services who are concerned that the access routes used for construction and maintenance of these sites are not fit for purpose. My constituents in the Claydons and in Little Missenden are at risk from convoys of lorries, with junction visibility reduced, verges destroyed and road surfaces degraded if BESS projects planned for those areas go ahead. Should an emergency arise at the site itself, one has to ask: would a fire engine or ambulance even be able to reach it safely and quickly? Could the fire service even attempt to deal with such a fire? That is why I am pleased that Buckinghamshire Council rejected a 500 MW site in the Claydons last year. I trust that other speculative developers, such as the one planning a site just outside Little Missenden, will take note and spare my constituents from these unacceptable fire risks and road safety risks. We must take a more precautionary approach. At the very least, the Government should introduce clear national guidelines on the siting of BESS installations, including minimum separation distances from residential properties, fire resilience standards, mandatory site-specific risk assessments, and restrictions on placing these facilities on or near rural roads. I urge the Government and local planning authorities to take these concerns seriously. Safety must never be sacrificed on the altar of speed or ideology, or the first technology that happens to be on the shelf that day. Our rural communities in particular deserve better protection.

16:06:00

I congratulate the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) on securing this important debate. Some of the newer Members may not know quite how much I love the geekiest possible debates. I have not had as much time since I became SNP Chief Whip, so I cannot reach the geeky heights managed by the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) in reading the International Fire and Safety Journal. I commend him on that, but I want to bring the debate to another geeky level and talk about the mechanisms by which the Government should take action. There has been a lot of talk today about planning mechanisms and regulations, but I urge the Government to look at health and safety regulations. I am from Aberdeen and a number of years ago we had the Piper Alpha disaster. The Piper Alpha disaster and the Cullen report that came afterwards resulted in a massive step change in safety. It was a huge, drastic change in how those things worked, with health and safety regulations that apply across the whole of the United Kingdom. Planning, for example, is devolved to Scotland and a lot of environmental rules are the preserve of the Scottish Parliament. Currently, there are no health and safety rules in this area. The House of Commons Library briefing for this debate states: “There are no laws that specifically govern the fire safety of battery energy storage systems”. It also states: “There are no specific health and safety laws relating to BESSs.” I have written to the Health and Safety Executive, Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks, the city council and the Scottish Government about this issue. I have done a lot around battery energy storage sites. The HSE wrote back to me saying that it is a member of the cross-Government group on battery energy storage, so it is working on that. It has a landing page on its website that brings together some of the regulations of battery energy storage, but most of them were written for the safety of individual batteries rather than for the safety of these storage sites. That, specifically, is what is missing: the health and safety guidance for battery energy storage sites. A number of Members have spoken about local or UK-wide issues, but across the world there have been 85 fires at battery energy storage sites. That is not a small number or a small percentage. This is a risky business. I do not disagree with those who say that these sites are necessary. We absolutely need them for our energy systems in the future, but they need to be safe. We need regulations in place. We should bring them together, even if it is just the best practice from all different places, to ensure that there is one place where the health and safety guidance is held. I would be even more flexible than having it updated by Parliament. I would give the HSE a level of control over changing and flexing that guidance, should more best practice come through. Again, that would apply across the whole of these islands, and I think that would be the best way forward. I want to mention two other things. First, an earlier speaker mentioned that we have extreme weather events—once-in-a-generation events—just about every week at the moment. It is really important that we look at both the extreme temperatures and the flooding events that may occur, as flooding events at battery energy storage sites are an issue; whether or not there has been a fire in advance of a water leakage, there could still be concerns. Secondly, I want to talk about the money. A number of people are looking at these sites with dollar signs in their eyes, thinking, “We can build these things and make a whole lot of money.” Actually, we should be telling the organisations that are creating the battery energy storage sites that they will need to pay for the fire safety assessment, consult the local fire service, and pay for the training of the local fire teams on tackling fires at these sites. I think that would be the most reasonable way forward. We should ask them to pay for that training, because it is those organisations that will be making a huge profit from the sites. It should not just be the public services that have to train up and increase the number of hours that retained firefighters, perhaps, are working. I think that is really important. I urge the Minister to look at HSE guidance as the method and mechanism for taking this on. I have pushed the Scottish Government to change some of their planning guidance already—particularly around notification of local community councils, for example—but that health and safety guidance is, I think, the key place to take action, make that change and bring it together in one place, so that all our constituents are safer as a result.

16:11:00

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I thank the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) for securing it, and for his comprehensive introduction. I would like to talk about this issue in the context of rural constituencies such as mine, as many other hon. Members have this afternoon. First, farmland is not just another piece of land, but an irreplaceable national asset. The ability to produce food domestically is a fundamental pillar in our sovereignty and our national economic strength. In recent years, we have witnessed prime agricultural land being converted into sprawling arrays of energy installations with solar farms, and now we have the increasing prevalence of battery energy storage systems appearing in glorious countryside across the country. My right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), who is not present, has raised this point comprehensively in the past, as well as safety concerns around battery energy storage systems and the displacement of good agricultural land for energy production. We are at real risk of displacing this good agricultural land and of energy production facilities becoming, in effect, a new cash crop. These facilities area incredibly lucrative for farmers who feel stretched—it is very difficult for them to make a living in this challenging economic climate. I am pleased to be supporting the new clause to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills to protect agricultural land in the long term. There is another point I would like to highlight beyond those that have been made by many other Members today. We face the exposure of our energy supply chains to foreign countries—countries that may not share our values—and the long-term depletion of our energy resilience if they manage to embed their infrastructure within our national energy infrastructure in the UK. In Weatheroak in my constituency, we have been battling an energy storage application bang in the heart of north Worcestershire’s green belt. This glorious countryside will be fundamentally changed forever should the application go ahead. I am grateful to Tony Williams, the chairman of Weatheroak residents association, for having written to me on numerous occasions. I have engaged with many local residents who share the concerns that have been raised today, namely around the proximity of such sites to villages and the potential danger should there be an accident or incident whereby one of these sites catches fire and the sparsely dispersed rural fire services are unable to get there. We also have the impact on roads, which has been picked up by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith). Rural communities across the country are facing a fundamental change in their identities, at the expense of industrial applications that are often granted at ease with little regard to the identity and character of those villages. I know that this is a concern that so many of my constituents share. If I had three asks of the Government, they would be: that they pause the granting of battery energy storage system applications in the first instance; that they consider a minimum radius for the proximity to settlements within which applications can be granted; and that they ensure that fire services across the country are statutory consultees in every case where there is an application for a battery energy storage system of any size.

16:15:00

As you can see, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have come to the Chamber with a pre-prepared speech, but really everything has already been said. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) for securing this debate. I also want to thank everyone who has contributed—this sounds like a winding-up speech, but it is not. Whereas normally I would email my speech to people who have approached me on an issue, in this case I will just email the whole debate as it is published in Hansard, because so many of the concerns have been addressed, fleshed out and aired. There are proposals in my constituency, way up in the north of Scotland, to have power lines from Spittal in Caithness to Lochbuie and Beauly in Inverness—it is massive—and there are lots of applications for battery storage systems. It does feel as if the technology is racing way ahead of the statutory authorities of the Scottish and UK Governments and that we are playing catch up. We are being left behind in a cloud of dust, and that worries me enormously. We have heard about the dangers of a battery fire—of thermal runaway. In the north of Scotland, where I represent, we are no strangers to extremely cold weather. Alnaharra in my constituency is always the coldest place in the winter. Cold temperatures can affect the batteries; they can change their lifespan and their mix.

There is a phenomenon called dendrite, which is a form of crystallisation—especially from lithium—with a tree-like structure. We do not fully understand where it comes from. Does that play into what the hon. Gentleman is saying about trying to understand the stability of battery storage?

I, like others, am left in awe by the diligence of the research that has been carried out by the right hon. Member. Yes, that is absolutely correct; we just do not quite know what happens. We have heard that if one battery catches fire, it can ignite fires in other batteries, but I will not go over that again. Where possibly high-risk infrastructure is proposed for a community, we must surely have mitigation. And yes, we should have a complete consultation with the authorities and those responsible. In Caithness, we have only five fire stations, and they do not have enough personnel, let alone faintly enough water, to tackle such a fire. The authorities want to build a battery near the Castle of Mey where the King sometimes stays, but they ain’t got the troops to sort that one out, absolutely not. I totally endorse what is being said about the Health and Safety Executive. In Scotland it should be HSE, the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency, and the Fire and Rescue Service. I take great heart from what the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) has been saying—thank goodness that this is being taken seriously. In conclusion, we should not simply forge ahead with this sort of stuff until we know exactly what we are doing. To be helpful, I shall namecheck one person. She is a councillor in the highlands. She is not a member of my party—Members can google her later and find out of which party she is a member. She is called Helen Crawford. She has been bravely standing up saying, “I think we need to have a way of structuring this that takes the communities with us, that does not seem that we are imposing something from on high.” She is referring to batteries, grid improvements and so on. Nobody is saying that they do not believe in getting to net zero, but let us take people with us when we do it. I drop a little hint to the Minister and the colleagues of the hon. Member for Aberdeen North in Edinburgh that there will be a meeting of a large group of community councils on 14 June in Inverness-shire. They are reasonable people, and under Scottish law, a community council is a statutory consultee on planning matters. I would be very grateful if the Minister would take a look at what comes out of that meeting, because I think it will be helpful to both the UK Government and the Scottish Government. Let us have renewable energy, but let us get it right.

16:20:00

I rise to speak on the looming crisis facing us in relation to battery energy storage sites. As Members have explained, the sites are beginning to play a larger and larger role in the transition to greener energy sources, but at the moment ideology is winning the day and pragmatism is disappearing. There is over 78 GW of battery capacity that is either operational, awaiting construction having been approved or in the early stages of the planning process. For context, that is enough power to supply nearly 200 million homes at once, which is almost 10 times as many as we have in the UK. One of the 1,100 installations that are proposed but not operational is a battery energy storage site just outside of Grendon in South Northamptonshire. It is part of the wider Green Hill solar farm proposal owned by Island Green Power, and I note the comments from the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) on that. This proposal exposes how the Government are asleep at the wheel on this issue. The Green Hill BESS is a massive 500 MW site proposed for the edge of the town, just a few hundred metres from the centre and next to the beautiful Grendon lakes and the River Nene. On the border of a site of special scientific interest, the environmental importance and sensitivity of the site cannot be understated. The proposal is likely to come to the local planning authority eventually, which understandably has virtually zero experience in balancing the risks and benefits of a large-capacity BESS. The Minister for Housing and Planning wrote to me this week after I raised with him several of the significant risks that the site poses to residents and the environment. He said that the current regulatory framework was “appropriate, robust and future-proofed”. The hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) has already alluded to this comment. I am sure all Members will agree that that sounds rather good, but the title of the framework that the Minister spoke so highly of was “Health and Safety Guidance: Guidance for Grid Scale Electrical Energy Storage Systems”. Unfortunately for the Minister, he has exposed exactly what is lacking in our approach to BESSs. Our framework for regulating the design, construction, running and decommissioning of these sites is simply guidance. We have not gripped the potential threats of these sites and attempted to mitigate them. Thankfully, there are examples of where countries have faced up to the need to recognise the threats. The United States is further along the path of rolling out BESSs than the UK. As we have experienced here, they have faced large-scale fires, explosions, environmental concerns and, understandably, a gap in expertise when it comes to the emergency response to the unique challenges. In response, they realised that guidance did not suffice, so they passed, as the Housing and Planning Minister sort of alluded to, an “appropriate, robust and future-proofed” statutory framework that did simple things. It required co-ordination with local fire services during the planning process. It specified minimum distances from residential buildings. It mandated elevation in flood-prone zones, and it enforced the training of the fire departments and first responders to give them the expertise that they need. That framework is prescriptive, yes, but when it comes to the health of members of the public—health threatened by these sites in the ways that Members have articulated—we must be prescriptive. If we are not careful, much like a fire at a battery energy storage site, a fire will be lit that we cannot put out, and it will burn and burn. I ask that the Government immediately pause the roll-out of these sites until a proper regulatory framework is in place.

16:24:00

People in my constituency are worried. They are worried by the constant stream of applications for new battery energy storage systems in and around the villages across the constituency—from Kinver to Swindon, Hinksford, Wombourne, Lower Penn and the edge of Kingswinford. Their worries were not exactly alleviated by the response the Prime Minister gave to my question last month. He did not give the impression that the Government understand residents’ concerns and some of the reasons for those concerns. Lower Penn in South Staffordshire is a lovely village with a population of just under 1,000, and it felt like pretty much all of them were in the village hall for the public meeting in February. At least seven battery sites have been either approved or proposed in or close to that small village. The same is happening in villages across South Staffordshire. As I have been sitting in the Chamber for this debate, I have received another email from the planning authority inviting me to speak on one these applications, which are coming through at such a rate. That reflects the position across the country. There are 121 operational battery energy storage systems in the United Kingdom, but over 1,500 more are in the pipeline, so we really are at a tipping point, but the planning and regulatory systems have not yet caught up. That is why we need action. As has been said, such batteries have a low failure rate, but sometimes they go wrong, just as they do in mobile phones and electric vehicles. That is why airlines tell us we cannot charge our mobile phone battery while we are on a flight, and it is why Parliament has decided that electric vehicles cannot be charged in the underground car park. It is not because the risk is high; it is because the consequences of things going wrong can be catastrophic. Whereas a mobile phone may have a capacity of 15 to 18 watt hours and an electric vehicle battery perhaps 80 to 100 kW hours, the site in Tilbury—the site of the fire earlier this year, which I think the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) referred to—when completed will have a capacity of about 600 MW hours. To put it another way, that site will be the equivalent of 33 million iPhone batteries. As we see an increase in these sites, we know from basic statistics that there will be more fires on top of those we have already had this year in Tilbury, Cirencester and Aberdeenshire. We therefore need to ensure that our systems are properly adapted and modernised to reflect those risks. The risk of a fire is not only about the potential danger to human life—for both those who may be nearby and the firefighters who are sent to bring those fires under control over what may be 24 or 48 hours —but about our local natural environments.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the issues is that there is no statutory requirement on prevention methods that may stop us from getting to that disastrous situation in the first place?

My right hon. Friend is completely right. Part of the problem is that the planning applications that come in are often very vague about exactly what lithium ion-type chemical and technology will be used, because they are often made years in advance, and therefore before the products that will be on a site have been acquired. In those circumstances, it is impossible to assess the risk properly. When these fires run for 24 or 48 hours and millions of gallons of water are used to bring them under control, the chemical run-off has to go somewhere, and sadly many of these applications—including those in my constituency—are for sites near to our rivers and our canals. For example, in Wombourne and Lower Penn there are plans for two battery energy storage sites to be erected close to the Staffordshire and Worcestershire canal and the South Staffordshire railway walk. Not only is the canal a green corridor through our beautiful countryside—an area of outstanding local beauty—but it is close to the historical Bratch locks and Bratch pumping station. It is a popular site for canal users and anglers alike. The consequences of a major fire and the chemical run-off would be devastating for fish stock and other wildlife. The planning and regulatory systems must catch up with the realities before all the applications are approved and in use, by which time it may be too late. We need the National Fire Chiefs Council to update the guidelines, as well as their assessment of battery energy storage systems. Before that is done, however, we clearly need a minimum distance between battery sites and residential properties. We need the fire service to be made statutory consultees on planning applications for battery energy storage systems. Furthermore, the Government really must go back and make the changes needed to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to ensure that local authorities and communities have a real and meaningful say on where such systems are and are not installed.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

16:30:00

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I am an unpaid director for Reach Community Solar Farm. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) on securing this important debate, and on his strong and comprehensive speech supporting the need for regulation. I have been impressed by all the speeches from across the House, as well as by the fact that every single one supported the motion. I hope the Minister has heard that and will urgently take the actions required. I am proud of the Liberal Democrats’ consistent support for green energy and recognise the need for battery energy storage sites, so I am deeply worried that current practices cause concerns about safety, anger at lack of community involvement and little or no share of the profits coming back to the communities affected. A prime example of those problems is the vast Sunnica solar farm planned in my constituency, stretching through into West Suffolk. Community groups and parish, district and county councils all opposed the development. Their evidence convinced the planning inspector to recommend refusal, but within two weeks of joining the Government, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero granted permission. Now it is down to the local authorities to decide on final details, including the battery energy storage sites for up to 500 MW. The councils will have 14 working days from receiving details from the developer to consider whether they need further information, to share the application with consultees, to collate any requests for further information and then to return the questions to the developer. They must do that without any clear guidance or regulation on battery safety. They are advised to consult the fire service, and the fire service in turn has no battery safety regulations to refer to, just the guidance issued by the national fire chiefs. It will also be difficult, if not impossible, for meaningful public consultation to be fitted into that timetable. The Liberal Democrats are calling for local fire services and the Environment Agency to be statutory consultees for BESSs so that they can advise on making the sites safe and on how to manage a fire should one break out. Local communities also need to be consulted, as they know best how the area is used, where the water courses run and what wildlife is present. Fortunately, as we have heard, BESS fires are rare, but where they occur, they can last for several days. The water used by the firefighters in the Liverpool case combined with the chemicals given off by the batteries to create hydrofluoric acid. Ely and East Cambridgeshire has many interconnected water courses, from drainage ditches through to the River Great Ouse, as well as the internationally important Wicken Fen wetland site and other vital wetland sites. If those became contaminated with hydrofluoric acid, the damage to wildlife, especially in our rare chalk grasslands, would be enormous. We are also the breadbasket of England. Imagine the impact on our farmers and therefore our food supplies, not to mention the impact on the horse racing and horse breeding industries. Our planning departments need clear regulation and relevant statutory consultees, so that they can ensure that BESSs are installed in the right locations and have the necessary boundaries, run-off catchments and so on to ensure that the fire risk is minimised and that, in the event of fire, people, crops, soils and nature are protected. DEFRA has stated that it will consult in June on integrating BESSs into existing environmental regulations. I would be grateful if the Minister could let us know when we can expect the consultation to open. Many BESSs are already operating, more have permission and yet more are applying for permission. Proper regulation and guidance are therefore urgent. The Liberal Democrats want green energy to replace fossil fuels. Green energy reduces fuel poverty, gives the UK fuel security and is better for the environment. To be successful and reliable, green energy needs battery energy storage sites, but those storage sites must be safe, and that requires Government regulation and guidance and making local fire services and the Environment Agency statutory consultees.

I call the shadow Minister.

16:35:00

I am pleased to close the debate on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, and I hope to give a voice to your constituents, Madam Deputy Speaker, given the interest in this important subject in Romsey and Southampton North. I congratulate the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) on securing the debate and making such a comprehensive speech. He was even wise enough to quote the fire experts from the county that matters most—by which I obviously mean Suffolk. The fact that there were such clear themes from Members across the House and across the divides of the House—right and left, net zero enthusiasts and sceptics—shows that we are dealing with an undeniable problem that the Government have not yet gripped. There was a clear consensus across the House, from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), that there is a total absence of regulation with this risky technology. There was also agreement, from the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas), about the effects of the policy on the countryside, such as on the availability of good farmland and on rural roads, as well as the challenges of fire service response times in the country. The hon. Members for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) and for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) made the point that BESS fires can have serious effects on our precious rivers. I also want to single out the speech by the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage), who drew attention to the dodgy finances of a lot of the firms behind a lot of these applications. That is something we need to investigate further. There was broad agreement on the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) that these battery sites should not be allowed to go ahead until a proper system of regulation is introduced. I am afraid that I am going to breach the cross-party love-in by picking up on what my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) said about ideology. The Government are betting on battery energy storage systems thanks to their ideological aim to decarbonise the entire grid within five years, therefore choosing to depend on unreliable, intermittent and expensive renewables. That is the root cause of the dependence on the technologies we are debating. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) can intervene if he wishes. It is the consequence of the zeal of the Energy Secretary that we are debating these subjects. Thanks to net zero policy costs, which are relevant more than wholesale gas prices, Britain already has the highest energy costs in Europe. Pushing policy to run faster than technology will allow risks a crisis in the grid and in our economy.

As someone who worked in the energy industry for five years before coming to this place, I would appreciate some honesty in recognising that the applications the hon. Gentleman has just referenced have been in the pipeline for a lot longer than the Labour Government have been in power.

The hon. Member will note the enthusiasm and ideological zeal of the Energy Secretary, which began, I think, in his very first week when he came to this House and announced that he was imposing masses of solar farms on parts of the country and, in the case of the solar farm in my constituency, completely disregarding the independent expert examining authority. That is a clear difference between the two Governments we are discussing. Mass solar is inefficient and produces less power even than wind, which has a higher load factor—between 10% and 11% for solar, between 22% and 28% for onshore wind, and between 30% and 38% for offshore wind. And that is wind, which is unreliable in itself. The comparison worsens next to nuclear, as it would take 8.5 million solar panels, taking up at least 10,000 acres of often top-quality farmland, to produce enough power to match an average reactor. To the surprise of no one, the World Bank says we are one of the countries with the “least generous conditions” for PV. Indeed, we rank higher only than Ireland. Batteries and solar panels also expose us to dependence on China, which produces more than 80% of the world’s solar panels. Many are made with slave labour, and perhaps all contain kill switches controlled by Beijing. While an amendment to the GB Energy Bill was passed to ban the Government’s new quango from using slave-made imports, it does not apply to private sector purchases. So much for ending our dependence on foreign dictatorships and human rights abusers. So much for our energy security. Giant solar fails even on its own terms, because it is four times more carbon-intensive than wind and nuclear. Apart from biomass, solar is the most polluting of all renewables. As this debate has shown, there are very real safety concerns about the battery sites that we must address. These battery sites pose a public safety risk that the Government are simply ignoring. With 150 BESS sites already in operation, and with well over 1,000 planning applications in the pipeline, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) noted, this needs to be confronted as a matter of urgency. Building these sites and trying to deal with the safety questions later is reckless, expensive and dangerous. When a fire starts at a BESS site, highly toxic emissions are released into the air. They include chemicals such as hydrogen fluoride, heavy metals and carcinogens, forcing people to stay indoors. These fires do not need oxygen to keep burning, so they can last for weeks. They can be reignited easily, and the health effects of exposure to these gases are a major concern. Just look at the fire in Liverpool four years ago, which several Members cited. It took 59 hours to put out. In answer to my written questions, the Government have confirmed that no environmental impact assessment has been made of that incident, so no lessons are being learned. And this year we have seen fires at battery sites near Rothienorman in Aberdeenshire, and in East Tilbury in Essex. I have repeatedly raised fire safety directly with Ministers, but no satisfactory answers have been given. The Government have made no assessment of the adequacy of fire services near battery sites. There is minimal oversight from the Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency. The National Fire Chiefs Council recommends a minimum distance of 25 metres between grid-scale batteries and occupied buildings, but it is only guidance and there is no statutory requirement to maintain this distance. As the Liverpool fire proves, a major blaze can affect people over a much wider area anyway. We need clear involvement from the fire and rescue services in the planning application process for battery sites, looking at concerns around construction, fire safety and retrofitting. Henry Griffin from Suffolk Fire and Rescue Service has described battery sites as an “emerging risk”, saying: “There can be complications with vapour clouds and fires will last a long time.” Fire services have no legal power to enforce safety measures on battery sites. We need legislation and residents need a say. Sunnica is one of the biggest solar and battery farms in the country, as mentioned by my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane), and it has been imposed on our constituents by the Energy Secretary. Three days after entering office, the Energy Secretary approved the application, overruling the advice of examining authorities and, quite clearly from his answer to my question, he had not read the evidence—breaching his quasi-judicial responsibility. Sunnica will cover over 2,500 acres of prime agricultural land across West Suffolk and East Cambridgeshire. Three battery sites will be built, and the whole project will actually increase carbon emissions. Sunnica has treated residents with contempt and used consultants who specialise in questionable assessments of the quality of farmland. Sunnica is also located very close to the RAF bases at Mildenhall and Lakenheath, which host the US air force, and many service personnel live in the area. We believe Russia has already targeted those bases with drones recently, and the director general of MI5 says that arson and sabotage are part of the Russian modus operandi in European countries. To approve Sunnica without assessing this very serious danger is grossly negligent. Rushing towards mass solar and battery farms like this is an act of ideological irresponsibility. It is bad energy policy, reducing our energy security while increasing the cost of energy for families and businesses.

It’s exactly what you did!

Order. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) might like to read the handbook on how Parliamentary Private Secretaries should behave. It is not their job to be heard. If he wishes to contribute to a debate on a policy area, perhaps he should resign his position and return to the Back Benches.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. If the hon. Member for Ipswich were more confident in his arguments, he might want to stand up and take part. As I was saying, it is bad energy policy, reducing our energy security while increasing the cost of energy for families and businesses. It is bad farming policy because it puts some of our best agricultural land beyond use, and as this debate has shown, it is bad for public safety, because the Government, in their haste and zeal, want to ignore the very serious dangers these batteries bring.

16:46:00

I congratulate the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) on securing this debate and on his thoughtful and informed speech. I thank all Members for raising this incredibly important issue. Let me reassure them and this House that the Government appreciate all the concerns that have been raised. There is no complacency, and we are taking a responsible approach to the deployment of grid-scale batteries, which are an essential part of delivering clean energy. We are very clear that increasing the amount of clean, renewable electricity generated, stored and used in the UK will improve our energy security. It will bring down bills for consumers in the long term by reducing our reliance on fossil fuel markets, which are volatile. It will create jobs, and it will tackle the climate and nature crisis, which we must do for future generations. We are committed to delivering clean power by 2030, and it was reassuring to hear support for that ambition from Members across the House, with the disappointing exception of the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), who has adopted a pretty impressive skill of rewriting history and forgetting his own Government’s shoddy legacy on this. In the clean power action plan, the Government outlined that 23 GW to 27 GW of grid-scale battery storage could be required by 2030. I understand that many Members here today are concerned that this comes at the expense of health and safety, but let me reassure them that that is absolutely not the case. I acknowledge that there have been a number of incidents at battery sites, in 2025 in particular, and this has raised legitimate concerns. We hear those concerns and understand them, and Members are right to raise them with Government. However, it is incredibly important for me to stress—and reiterate a point that has been made by other Members—that the risks associated with grid-scale batteries are relatively small and well understood, that there are robust measures in place for managing those risks, and that Government are already taking further steps to address some of the issues that have been raised.

The Minister knows that I am as passionate about clean, green energy as she is and that flexibility will be key to ensuring cheaper bills for customers, but that is why it is vital that we give the public confidence in systems like BESS. Will she reassure me that the Government recognise that we must give the public confidence, so that we can ramp up the energy infrastructure needed to achieve the targets she has outlined?

I will absolutely reassure my hon. Friend. We understand that we must maintain public confidence and that we need a robust framework in place.

Fire services are devolved to the Scottish Government. I do not think that the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) would disagree that co-ordination on this matter between the devolved Administrations and the UK Government, so that we are singing off the same hymn sheet, is crucial.

We recognise that there needs to be co-ordination, but first, let me take the framework that is in place. It is often claimed that there is no regulation in this sector because there is no specific law addressing battery safety. That is simply untrue. The safety and standards of batteries are assured throughout their life cycle. The Government are therefore confident that the safety risks posed by grid-scale batteries are relatively small and well managed. I will take each aspect of this matter in turn, beginning with the planning regime. Planning practice guidance encourages battery storage developers to engage with local fire and rescue services before submitting a planning application, so that the issues relating to siting and location that hon. Members have raised are dealt with before an application is made. I think there is scope to strengthen the process and build on it in order to address some of the issues that have been raised. Let me come to the crux of the regulatory regime for grid-scale batteries: the health and safety laws, overseen by the Health and Safety Executive. The fundamental principle of health and safety law is that those who create risk are best placed to control it. Operators of grid-scale battery sites are expected to assess the specific situation and implement the necessary control measures. Of particular relevance are the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, the Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations 2002, the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 and the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. Together, that framework puts in place protections against some of the issues that have been raised, but I take the point that the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) raised—that there is scope to think about how we bring this together in a way that is accessible and enforceable, and ensures that the underlying provision and protections that are baked into legislation are well understood by the sector. To complement the existing health and safety framework, the Government will consult later this month, to answer the question on the timescale, on whether to include batteries in the environmental permitting regulations, to provide further safeguards and assurances. Environmental permitting will provide for the ongoing inspection of battery sites, giving additional assurance that appropriate mitigations are maintained throughout the project’s life cycle. Critically, the environmental permitting regulations make it an offence to operate a regulated facility without a permit, or in breach of the conditions of that permit. We will consult on the principle and then work with industry, local government and key stakeholders in order to develop the detail. If we get it right, that should go a long way to addressing many of the concerns that have been raised.

When the Government do the research on mitigation that the Minister talks about, I gently suggest that they lay down in statute the minimum mitigation facilities that will be expected to be satisfied in planning applications. At the moment, there is no statutory outline for what mitigation must be put in place. Inspections are great, but we are not actually inspecting anything from a statutory point of view. I encourage her to ensure that the result of the research is that applicants have it laid out for them what mitigation needs to be in place.

We will consult, and work with a host of parties to ensure that we get this right. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) said, we have an interest in ensuring that the public feel complete confidence as we put forward this technology, and as we agree sites across the country. Let me respond to the specific point that was raised by a number of hon. Members on the proximity to residential areas. It is true that there is no mandated minimum distance between BESS sites and occupied buildings, but the National Fire Chiefs Council guidance recommends a distance of at least 25 metres. We can look at how we can build on that going forward. The one thing that I hope everyone takes away is that the Government understand the concerns that have been raised, and that Members’ constituents are raising. We believe that there is a clear health and safety framework in place that we can build on, and we are intent on building on it. We will continue to work to strengthen the guidance and processes that are in place so that we can ensure that we have the confidence of the public. We believe that this is a crucial part of how we get to net zero, but as hon. Members have said, we must do it in a way that ensures the safety of the public. That is a priority for us, as it is for all Members of this House.

16:55:00

I thank the Minister for her response and all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions. Wherever we stand on renewable energy, we can all agree that we must have the highest possible safety standards—that is an absolute given. From the conversations I have had with industry, clear national guidance would be widely welcomed because what we have now is not felt to be sufficient. What industry most wants is clarity, so any rules can be integrated from the start, at the design stage, when the cost impact is minimal. Regulations are clearly a live issue in many constituencies with so many applications across the country, as Members have said. However, everything is progressing in a random and unco-ordinated way. The fact that the Government do not know which Department should answer questions on the subject is revealing. I am concerned that Parliament does a weaker job of scrutiny on niche subjects like this one because they are so technical. We are currently placing part of that responsibility on the shoulders of local councillors and council officers, who cannot possibly have the relevant expertise. In her remarks, I noticed that the Minister was still using the term “encouraged” in relation to consulting with local fire officers. That is not enough as such consultation should be mandated and I am disappointed not to hear that there will be mandatory consultation, which is what we all want. I stress again that incidents will be rare, but a single incident can bring down an industry. I hope that the Minister will not make the same mistake that was made over cladding regulations: let us make this a tragedy that never happens. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House recognises the unique challenges posed by lithium-ion fires in battery energy storage sites; and calls on the Government to bring forward enforceable national regulations for their design and construction.