Lithium-ion Battery Safety Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Winston and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch

2nd reading
Friday 6th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I do not know the answer to that specifically. My instinct is that there needs to be a policy of “safety first” on issues such as the London Underground, but we may well get those standards to a high enough level. I was very interested to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said about passports for batteries. There may be schemes like that that we could adopt. I do not know the answer, but it is a very good point that I think we can pursue outside this Chamber.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Winston for delivering an interesting lesson on the science and chemistry behind these products: I know that we all learned from it. I reassure him that the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill will allow for changes to labelling to ensure that proper details are updated and safety information on products is made clear.

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that helpful point. Does that mean that there is a possibility that the chemistry might be labelled? If we could actually teach people a bit more about the chemistry, it would do no harm. Also, of course, we are dealing with products that are going to become scarcer and scarcer and which will be thrown away, or not recycled. There is a public lesson that is rather more important than the average labelling that we see on many foodstuffs, for example.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

In fact, I am going to come on to the point about the availability of lithium, so bear with me for a second. I reassure the noble Lord that we are taking greater education very seriously, and we will be running more consumer campaigns. The composition of the products might be included in that. I recognise, however, that more can be done.

A number of noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Winston, made a point about the new technology implications of this. I assure them that the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill will allow us to regulate for developments of innovation and technology in UK energy going forward, because there are new issues that a number of noble Lords have raised. It will enable powers to change the regulations, to future-proof full technological advancements.

To noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Holmes and Lord Howell, and my noble friend Lord Winston, I say that at the moment lithium-ion batteries are the most efficient way of powering vehicles; we should not lose sight of that. We will, however, continue to keep the mining of critical minerals and their use in our green technology under review. We have to do that because, as my noble friend quite rightly said, if we do not, we are in danger of scarcity on these issues. We have to keep moving forward. There is not an endless supply of these minerals, so we have to make sure that those in circulation are protected and properly recycled.

My noble friend Lord Berkeley made a point about battery safety being a wider issue and gave some very vivid examples of why that was the case. I assure him that we continue to liaise with the Department for Transport on these issues. Similarly the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, raised an important point about wheelchair travel. She mentioned the issue of wheelchair passports, which was an interesting conversation. I assure her that we will continue to liaise with departmental Ministers across the board, including the Disability Ministers, because we need to get this issue sorted.

I have spoken a lot about product safety, but I am aware that the noble Lord’s Bill goes further in scope, so I will now turn to battery energy storage systems, which are also covered by the Bill. The flexibility offered by grid-scale lithium-ion batteries will play a vital role in the decarbonisation of the grid, enabling Britain to balance the system at lower cost while maximising the efficiency of intermittent low-carbon generators such as wind and solar—a point the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, quite rightly made.

The Government agree with the intent of having robust measures in place to manage the risks associated with facilities that involve the use of large numbers of lithium-ion batteries. In terms of the proposals in this Bill, powers already exist under the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999 to bring new sectors and pollution sources in scope of the Environmental Permitting Regulations (England and Wales) 2016. Similarly, the Government do not believe currently that there is a need for additional statutory consultees on planning applications for standalone battery energy storage systems. However, my officials continue to work closely with the industry-led electricity storage health and safety governance group to ensure that a robust health and safety standards framework is maintained.

A number of noble Lords talked about disposal. The Government are deeply saddened at the recent increase in the number of fires at waste treatment facilities caused by batteries. We are committed to cracking down on waste as we move towards a circular economy where we keep our resources in use for longer and reduce waste. The existing producer responsibility scheme for batteries and waste electricals makes producers responsible for the cost of end-of-life treatment.

Under the existing legislation, it is already mandatory for all batteries placed on the market in the UK to be clearly marked with the crossed-out wheeled bin symbol. This symbol indicates that batteries should not be disposed of by throwing them in the bin. This symbol is also mandatory on electrical products containing batteries. Existing legislation also requires those selling batteries to provide a means to take back waste batteries —for example, the waste battery collection bins at supermarkets, which many noble Lords will be familiar with. Similarly, sellers of disposable vapes, which were mentioned earlier, are now required to provide take-back of waste vapes. Producers of industrial batteries, including e-bike and e-scooter batteries, must take back waste batteries free of charge on request. This means that a shop selling e-bikes, such as Halfords, must take back a waste e-bike battery if asked to do so by the owner of that battery.

There are also existing public awareness campaigns such as the HypnoCat Recycle Your Electricals campaign, funded by industry to educate the public on safe battery disposal. Ministers are reviewing proposals to consult on reforms to UK battery regulations before setting out the next steps. However, I agree with noble Lords that we need to find more imaginative ways to help consumers dispose of batteries more conveniently and in greater numbers than is currently the case.

In summary, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for the debate that this Bill has enabled. As I have laid out, my department is already working across government to identify the key aspects of lithium-ion battery safety and has taken action where needed. The Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, which will soon be debated by your Lordships’ House, will enable us, where necessary, to make regulatory change to keep our product safety framework up to date. We are seeking to address this complex issue while ensuring that we have the evidence to help prevent further injury and loss of life. We will continue to engage with all noble Lords on these critical issues as we develop our regulatory approach.

I can of course assure the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that we will continue to consult with him about his Bill, which will happen at a ministerial and official level, as necessary. I hope that the noble Lord has heard my request for him to consider withdrawing this Bill and I look forward to his response.

Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill

Debate between Lord Winston and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch

Committee stage
Monday 12th December 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

I never thought I would be a member of the Green Party, but I clearly am this evening. I must agree with the noble Baroness, because we have to understand that gene editing is a new technique and has been on the books for only about eight or 10 years, which seems a long time but is not at all—in science, that is a very short time.

It was 40 years ago that we genetically modified organisms for the first time. The noble Lord is proposing that we speed this process up when we do not fully understand what is happening with procedures such as CRISPR-Cas9 and other methods. We need much more data before we can be sure about the progeny of these animals. That is one of the problems, and it will not be simple.

Of course, I appreciate that it takes quite a long time to breed an animal. As a human, I understand that quite well—I have dealt with a few humans myself, and no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, has also had children—but we have to accept that it takes time before you can really work out the status of an animal. It is a complex process.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, in one of the earlier debates the Minister sought to categorise some of us as people who are fundamentally opposed to the Bill and trying to find any way we can to derail it. I assure him that I am not in that camp, and I hope that the amendment I will speak to will give some illustration of that.

I will speak to Amendment 88 in my name, which is a very particular amendment about the status of GMOs; this seems a very odd group of amendments that have been put together. It follows on slightly from the comments just made by my noble friend Lord Winston because it recognises that it has been many years since the regulations relating to GMOs have been reviewed. As a result, we appear to be legislating in silos rather than looking at the impact of genetic technology as a whole. We already have the GMO legislation on the statute and now we are looking at GE, but how do those two bits of legislation interrelate?

When the Government announced their plans to roll out gene editing, they also committed to a review of the wider GMO rules, but so far there does not seem to be any sign that the review is taking place—unless I have missed it. Amendment 88 probes whether the impact of Clause 41, which amends the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to exclude precision-bred organisms and differentiates them from GMOs, is likely to require further review.

This is all about the interrelation between genetic engineering and GMOs. Where is that review taking place? Is the wording of the legislation as it stands in Clause 41 how we want it to be? When and how will that wider review of GMOs take place? How will the Minister synchronise any result of that with the provisions of the Bill? It seems rather odd that scientific institutions could be potentially following two different routes for technology that in many ways is very similar.