
MP: Grenfell-style mistakes could be repeated over battery storage regulation
Liberal Democrat John Milne said there were 'alarming parallels' with the systemic failure which led to the west London tower block fire.
Currently there are no laws which specifically govern the safety of battery energy storage systems (Bess), according to the House of Commons library. However, individual batteries could be subject to product safety regulations.
Speaking in the Commons, Mr Milne accused the Government of being 'too complacent' as he called for enforceable regulations for the design and construction of the storage systems.
The MP for Horsham said: 'The Grenfell disaster was the end result of many failings by both individuals and companies, but at its heart it was a failure of regulation.
'The rules left things wide open for exploitation by cost-cutting developers, and that is exactly what happened.
'Just as with lithium-ion batteries, a new technology, in this case cladding, was being used at scale for the first time without proper understanding of the risks. The time to act is now.'
He continued: 'The Government itself has responded to all questions from myself and others to say that it considers the present regulatory regime to be robust. I am tempted to say pride comes before a fall.
'In the last few weeks a Department for Energy Security and Net Zero spokesman has stated that battery fires at storage sites are rare in the UK, we already have high standards in place that require manufacturers and industry to ensure batteries are safe throughout their lifespan.
'This is just too complacent.
'Fires as a result of cladding were also incredibly rare, but that did not save 72 lives at Grenfell.'
Grenfell Tower (James Manning/PA)
Mr Milne said the industry would benefit from clear guidance, before adding: 'Any guidance needs to cover-off a number of areas, including transport of batteries to the site, design and construction, fire-fighting, ongoing inspection and decommissioning.
'In the short term, if the Government is for any reason still reluctant to regulate, perhaps it could issue clear national guidelines which are capable of being updated annually.
'Enforcement might then take place through the insurance industry, who would be likely to insist that any new applications followed such guidelines, as no project can go ahead without insurance, it is 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 the warning wasn't heeded and history took its course.
'We can't go back in time to stop Grenfell, but we can act now to avoid making the same mistake again with battery energy storage systems.'
Elsewhere in the debate, Conservative MP for Mid Buckinghamshire Greg Smith said there should be minimum distances between battery storage sites and housing.
Mr Smith said: 'This is not a debate about the principle of energy storage, although I am in principle opposed to such schemes taking agricultural land and challenging our food security, but today's debate, which is deeply concerning, and what this House must urgently address, are the real, growing, and too often overlooked safety implications of these installations, particularly when placed in close proximity to villages, and rural road networks ill-equipped to support them.'
He added: '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.'
SNP MP for Aberdeen North, Kirsty Blackman, said developers should pay towards fire mitigation measures.
She said: 'If we're saying to those organisations that are creating the battery storage sites, you will need to pay for the fire safety assessment, you will need to consult the local fire and you will need to pay for the training of those local fire teams in tackling fires at battery energy storage sites, I think that would be the most reasonable way forward.
'Ask them to pay for that training, because it's them that are going to be making a huge profit off it.'
Energy minister Miatta Fahnbulleh said: 'It is often claimed that there is no regulation in this sector because there is no specific law addressing battery safety. This is simply untrue.
'The safety and standards of batteries are assured throughout their life cycle. The Government is therefore confident that the safety risks posed by grid-scale batteries are relatively small and well managed.'
She added there is 'scope to strengthen' the planning process.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New Statesman
an hour ago
- New Statesman
The eco-centrists want the Green Party back
In last year's General Election, the Green Party quadrupled its representation in parliament (from one in 2019 to four in 2024, albeit). Caroline Lucas, elected in 2010, was for a long time the party's only MP. After years of the Green's representation in Parliament resting solely on Lucas's shoulders, July 2024 was a turning-point. 'I spoke in the House of Commons five times yesterday, on a range of topics,' Ellie Chowns, the Green MP for Northwest Herefordshire told me when we met on a drab evening at a café in St James's Park. 'We as Greens have got a much stronger voice [in Parliament] speaking day in day out on the issues that really matter,' Chowns said. Alongside her, Adrian Ramsay, the Green MP for Waveney Valley nodded. During our 45-minute interview, we were all variously forced to dodge the pigeons who kept flying dangerously close overhead. Ramsay has been the current co-leader of the party, alongside Carla Denyer, the Green MP for Bristol Central since 2021. But their term is almost up; the party will hold a leadership election later this year. While Denyer has decided not to re-contest, Ramsay, who has been a Green Party politician since 2003 felt he isn't done yet. He is running once again to be co-leader of the party once again, with Chowns as his co-star. Chowns and Ramsay's pitch to Green Party members is simple: a vote for them is a vote for two experienced leaders, who already have a position inside parliament and a proven track-record of winning elections .'We're the only candidates in this [leadership] election who have won under first-past-the-post,' Ramsay told me, 'and we want to build on that success, it is about substance.' He added: 'Anyone can say that they want to be popular,' Ramsay said, 'we've shown how you actually do it.' Chowns agreed: 'The only way to change politics is by winning more seats in the system,' she said, 'and Adrian and I have shown how to do that. You build the biggest possible coalition of voters.' The pair have received backing for precisely this reason from Green Party Grandees such as Lucas and Baroness Jenny Jones. This is all no uncertain dig at the pair's main competition: current deputy leader, Zack Polanski. Shortly after the May local elections, in which the party won an additional 181 councillors, current Polanski, launched a (not so surprise) solo-leadership campaign. His platform of 'eco-populism' has exposed a split in the party between the radical left wing (which Chowns and Ramsay indirectly describe as 'loudhailer politics') and those who want to appeal to a wider base, including former Conservative voters. Ramsay is irked by Polanski's decision to run. The current co-leader, who wrote the Green Party's handbook on how to win council elections, has spent most of his political career working out how to turn the party from a fringe group into a force capable of winning Parliamentary elections. The election of an additional three Green MPs last year, was the culmination of this, or so he says. Polanski's wants to position the Greens as a left-wing mirror to Nigel Farage and Reform. In fact, when I spoke to him shortly after he launched his leadership bid in May, Polanski said he may even actually 'agree' with some of 'Nigel Farage's diagnosis of the problems' . Chowns and Ramsay think this is the wrong approach. 'We've already demonstrated how ecological ideas can be popular,' Chowns said. She added: 'I don't aspire for the Green Party to ape Reform in any way neither in its content, not its style…We can't out shout Reform.' Polanski is a member of the Greater London Assembly, but if he is elected he will sit outside the machinations of Westminster; an arrangement which could cause more trouble than it's worth. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe 'There are some major pitfalls that would need to be addressed here,' Ramsay said, 'journalists look to what's happening in parliament to see where each party stands on the issue of the day because parliament is the centre of British political debate.' Having a leader outside of Westminster could become particularly troublesome if there is a disagreement between the party's leadership and its MPs. In some ways, this has already happened. Polanski has said the UK should withdraw from NATO, a policy which neither Ramsay nor Chowns support. 'If on that day you had the leader, who was outside parliament, speaking for the party saying I want to leave NATO and then our foreign affairs spokesperson in Parliament saying that the Green party want to stay there and reform NATO, then who do you look to as giving the Green Party's position?' This could get messy. Members of other parties are looking at this race, curious about where it could leave the Green Party (one sympathetic Labour MP told me they thought it would be a 'disaster' and would alienate much of the party's more moderate base). Polanski did not inform Ramsay or Chowns of his intention to run before going public with his campaign. When I ask the pair how things will work if Polanski does win, Ramsay said: 'I think that's for Zack to set out… he's certainly had no conversations with the MPs about whether that would work or how he would make it work.' As I went to ask my next question, Ramsay shot back, 'he's made no attempt to talk to us about it at all.' Though Chowns and Ramsay's campaign may not have landed as loudly as Polanski's, they have election-winning credentials. As Ramsay said, it took time to build the 'broad coalitions' which have pushed the Green Party to where it currently sits. With polling for the leadership election opening in a matter of months, the pair may need to ramp up the volume in order to win the fight; it won't take much time for that 'broad coalition' to be unpicked. [See more: Did Zia Yusuf jump, or was he pushed?] Related


Wales Online
5 hours ago
- Wales Online
The £6bn rail line argument that masks what you should be really angry about
Our community members are treated to special offers, promotions and adverts from us and our partners. You can check out at any time. More info Over the last few days, there has been one hot topic in the world of Welsh politics - a train line which will run between Oxford and Cambridge. Given these two cities are roughly 200 miles from Wales, you can be forgiven for asking why. East West Rail is a railway project which will link Oxford and Cambridge at an estimated cost of £6.6bn. Any money spent on it will trigger extra payments to Scotland and Northern Ireland so they can spend it on their transport systems. But, just as has been the case throughout the HS2 debacle, there won't be any extra money for the Welsh Government. The reason for this is both incredibly simple and reasonable on the surface but devillishly complicated and truly unfair beneath it. It may not necessarily be a scandal in itself. But it symbolises everything that is wrong with how rail funding is allocated in England and Wales. For our free daily briefing on the biggest issues facing the nation, sign up to the Wales Matters newsletter here On the face of it, this issue isn't linked to the spending review that has been happening in Westminster for the last six months or more and of which chancellor Rachel Reeves will stand up in the Commons on Wednesday and deliver the conclusion. Yet it helps shed a light on why that will be enormously complex to understand and why the real story may not be the one you read in headlines that evening. So bear with us while we go through it. The fury from politicians Opposition politicians in Wales have been fulminating about East West rail. They say that the rail line should have been classified as an England-only project like Crossrail so that the Welsh Government would get a guaranteed share. Lib Dem MP David Chadwick said Wales will lose out to the tune of between £306m and £363m as a result. Describing it as another HS2, he said: "Labour expects people across Wales to believe the ridiculous idea that this project will benefit them, and they are justified in not giving Wales the money it needs to improve our own public transport systems. 'It's a disgrace, and it shows there has been no meaningful change since in the way Wales is treated since Labour took power compared to the Conservatives." Plaid Cymru's leader Mr ap Iorwerth took a similar tack, telling plenary: "For all the talk of the UK Government acknowledging somehow that Welsh rail has been historically underfunded, this is some partnership in power." Yet, while there's a lot of truth to what they're saying, it's also much more complicated. Which is where the spending review comes in. Comparability factors There will be so many numbers in the paperwork that accompanies Wednesday's spending review that finding the most important ones isn't straightforward. Yet if you want to know just how much of the England and Wales transport pot is going to be sucked into paying for massive rail projects in England like HS2 (£66bn) or East West rail (£6bn) or all the tram/train projects being promised in England outside London (£15bn), then look out for the overall transport comparability factor for Wales. Very simply, this is the number that the Treasury uses to work out how much the Welsh Government should get for every £1 it spends on transport in England. The reason everyone has been so, so angry about HS2 and the massive billions being poured is that back in 2015, Wales used to get a comparability factor of 80.9%. Yet when the number crunchers in Horse Guards Road sat down to work out how much the Welsh Government should get at the last spending review in 2021, that comparability factor fell to just 33.5%. Ouch. For every £1 spent on transport by Westminster, since the last spending review the Welsh Government has received a population adjusted share (5%) of 33.5%. Or about 1.6p. For context, it used to be around 4p. If Mr Chadwick and Mr Iorwerth are right and the UK government plans to plough even more money into rail in England in the coming years on projects like HS2, East Coast and what the Tories used to call Northern Powerhouse rail, then the new comparability factor that the Treasury mathematicians will conjure up this time could be even lower. But even that is massively misleading. Because if the UK government also promises to plough vast sums into rail in Wales then the comparability factor for the Welsh Government would not rise - it would fall further still. Is your mind boggling yet? We said it was complex. What the Welsh Government wants Because the Welsh Government isn't responsible for rail infrastructure spending, the transport comparability factor really just reflects how much money is going on rail. The less that's spent on rail, the higher a share of the overall transport pot the Welsh Government gets. The more that goes on rail, the lower a share of the overall transport spot the Welsh Government gets. The real problem for Cardiff Bay then is not the comparability factor. Neither is it the fact that East West rail isn't classified as England-only. The problem, as far as the Welsh Government is concerned, is the fact that the England and Wales rail pot itself isn't shared fairly. HS2 and East Coast rail are the symbols of a system that is broken that pours vast sums into English rail projects while Wales misses out. Even if they were classified as England-only, the money would go to the Welsh Government which isn't responsible for rail infrastructure spending. "The way that the system operates at the moment—for years I've been saying—is redundant," Wales' transport minister Ken Skates has said. "The east-west line, which has been in development, I believe, for around about 20 years now, is part of the rail network enhancements pipeline, where everything in a large footprint, a substantial footprint, including Wales, is packaged together. "Where you have all schemes in England and Wales packaged together in what's called the regional network enhancement pipeline it means that projects in Wales are always going to be competing on the business case with projects in affluent areas of the south-east, of London. That means that we are at a disadvantage. "I want to see it change. I've been saying it for years. There's nothing new in this story. I've been saying that we need reform for years and suddenly people have woken up to it." Wales' First Minister Eluned Morgan has said the same. "What we have is a situation where there is a pipeline of projects for England and Wales. Are we getting our fair share? Absolutely not. Are we making the case? Absolutely." "I've made the case very, very clearly that, when it comes to rail, we have been short-changed, and I do hope that we will get some movement on that in the next week from the spending review," she said. What does this mean for the spending review When Rachel Reeves stands up in the Commons on Wednesday, we fully expect she will announce some funding for rail in Wales, as you can see in our piece here, and our expectation is that will be about the rail stations earmarked in the work by Lord Burns after the M4 relief road was axed. They would be in Cardiff East, Parkway, Newport West, Maindy, Llanwern and Magor. But what matters is how much and when - and how that compares to the money being spent in England. Imagine the chancellor announces a few hundred million pounds for those rail stations in Wales in the spending review, what we do not - and will likely not know for many years - is whether that amount is a fair reflection of the mass spending she has announced in England because we know she has also touted £15bn of improvements in England. It will likely take years for academics to assess what kind of share of the rail pot has been spent in Wales. In the past, it certainly has not been fair. In 2018, a Welsh Government commissioned report by Professor Mark Barry estimated that the Network Rail Wales route, which covers 11% of the UK network, received just over 1% of the enhancement budget for the 2011-2016 period. In 2021, the Wales Governance Centre told MPs on the Welsh affairs select committee that had rail been fully devolved to the Welsh Government, Wales would have received an additional £514m for enhancements via Network Rail had rail infrastructure been devolved as it is in Scotland. So when Leeds West and Pudsey MP Ms Reeves gets to her feet in the Commons on Wednesday, you can pretty much guarantee there will at least one or two headlines relevant Wales. But we may not understand what they really mean for a while yet and East West rail won't help us understand either.


South Wales Guardian
5 hours ago
- South Wales Guardian
Rayner faces Labour backbench call to ‘smash' existing housebuilding model
Labour's Chris Hinchliff has proposed a suite of changes to the Government's flagship Planning and Infrastructure Bill, part of his party's drive to build 1.5 million homes in England by 2029. Mr Hinchliff has proposed arming town halls with the power to block developers' housebuilding plans, if they have failed to finish their previous projects. He has also suggested housebuilding objectors should be able to appeal against green-lit large developments, if they are not on sites which a council has set aside for building, and put forward a new duty for authorities to protect chalk streams from 'pollution, abstraction, encroachment and other forms of environmental damage'. Mr Hinchliff has told the PA news agency he does not 'want to rebel' but said he would be prepared to trigger a vote over his proposals. He added his ambition was for 'a progressive alternative to our planning system and the developer-led profit-motivated model that we have at the moment'. The North East Hertfordshire MP said: 'Frankly, to deliver the genuinely affordable housing that we need for communities like those I represent, we just have to smash that model. 'So, what I'm setting out is a set of proposals that would focus on delivering the genuinely affordable homes that we need, empowering local communities and councils to have a driving say over what happens in the local area, and also securing genuine protection for the environment going forwards.' Mr Hinchliff warned that the current system results in 'speculative' applications on land which falls outside of councils' local housebuilding strategies, 'putting significant pressure on inadequate local infrastructure'. In his constituency, which lies between London and Cambridge, 'the properties that are being built are not there to meet local need', Mr Hinchliff said, but were instead 'there to be sold for the maximum profit the developer can make'. Asked whether his proposals chimed with the first of Labour's five 'missions' at last year's general election – 'growth' – he replied: 'If we want to have the key workers that our communities need – the nurses, the social care workers, the bus drivers, the posties – they need to have genuinely affordable homes. 'You can't have that thriving economy without the workforce there, but at the moment, the housing that we are delivering is not likely to be affordable for those sorts of roles. 'It's effectively turning the towns into commuter dormitories rather than having thriving local economies, so for me, yes, it is about supporting the local economy.' Mr Hinchliff warned that the 'bottleneck' which slows housebuilding 'is not process, it's profit'. The developer-led housing model is broken. It has failed to deliver affordable homes. Torching environmental safeguards won't fix it—the bottleneck isn't just process, it's profit. We need a progressive alternative: mass council house building in sustainable communities. — Chris Hinchliff MP (@CHinchliffMP) June 6, 2025 Ms Rayner, the Deputy Prime Minister and Housing Secretary, is fronting the Government's plans for 1.5 million new homes by 2029. Among the proposed reforms is a power for ministers to decide which schemes should come before councillors, and which should be delegated to local authority staff, so that committees can 'focus their resources on complex or contentious development where local democratic oversight is required'. Natural England will also be able to draft 'environmental delivery plans (EDPs)' and acquire land compulsorily to bolster conservation efforts. Mr Hinchliff has suggested these EDPs must come with a timeline for their implementation, and that developers should improve the conservation status of any environmental features before causing 'damage' – a proposal which has support from at least 43 cross-party MP backers. MPs will spend two days debating the Bill on Monday and Tuesday. Chris Curtis, the Labour MP for Milton Keynes North, warned that some of Mr Hinchliff's proposals 'if enacted, would deepen our housing crisis and push more families into poverty'. He said: 'I won't stand by and watch more children in the country end up struggling in temporary accommodation to appease pressure groups. No Labour MP should. 'It's morally reprehensible to play games with this issue. 'These amendments should be withdrawn.'