Great British Energy Bill

Clause 3

Objects

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 2B in lieu.

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment (a) to Lords amendment 2B.

I thank all Members of both Houses for their continued scrutiny of this important Bill. In particular, I extend my thanks to my noble Friend the Minister for Energy Security, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for his expertise and, dare I say, resilience, which ensured that we reached the resolution that we are here to discuss. Lords amendment 2B was added to the Great British Energy Bill during consideration of Commons amendments, and the Government motion to accept Lords amendment 2B was passed in the other place.

The Great British Energy Bill delivers on our manifesto commitment to establish Great British Energy, which will accelerate clean power deployment, create jobs, boost energy independence and ensure that UK taxpayers, bill payers and communities reap the benefits of clean, secure, home-grown energy. We recognise the breadth of concern across Parliament and from the public on this issue, and particularly on the issue of how Great British Energy will tackle forced labour in its supply chains. Throughout the passage of the Bill, the Government have consistently stated that they wholeheartedly share that concern and agree on the importance of tackling forced labour in supply chains wherever we find it. That is why we tabled Lords amendment 2B, which is the latest move in the Government’s work to tackle the issue of forced labour while we progress towards becoming a global leader in clean energy.

We expect all UK businesses to do everything in their power to remove any instances of forced labour from their supply chains, and Great British Energy will be no different—in fact, we have stated many times that we expect it to be a sector leader on this matter. Lords amendment 2B makes it clear that Great British Energy is committed to adopting measures so that it can take the appropriate steps to act on any evidence of forced labour in its supply chains, as we would expect from any responsible company.

I am sure we can rely on the Minister to ensure that no solar panels are installed on British farms that are made by the Chinese Government, using slave labour. I am sure that he can assure us on that point.

I have set that out in this debate in a number of ways. We have absolutely committed that Great British Energy will not invest in any supply chains in which there is any evidence of forced labour, and the measures that we are outlining today show how we will deliver that. There is a wider question about forced labour in supply chains for which Great British Energy does not have responsibility, and we have outlined a number of actions for tackling the issue right across the economy. Just a few weeks ago, I hosted the first cross-Government meeting with colleagues from the Home Office, the Foreign Office and the Department for Business and Trade looking at how we can make regulations much tighter. We want to ensure that what the right hon. Gentleman wants applies across supply chains, not just in the energy space, but across the economy.

The Minister is giving an important speech on a really important topic—a speech that I think everyone across the House will agree with. Does he agree that part of the advantage of having a Government-run GB Energy is that we will have greater control over supply chains, and whether slave labour is being used?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We want Great British Energy to be a sector leader in this area. It must meet all the standards that we expect from every other company, but we want it to go further and really demonstrate what is possible in this space. He raises a wider question about the importance of Great British Energy to delivering investment in the supply chain, so that we are delivering not just energy security through the clean power mission, but good, industrial jobs. That is what this Bill is all about.

Great British Energy will strive to be a leading example of best practice, not just in this space, but right across corporate due diligence, setting a benchmark for ethical standards in supply chain management. That involves ensuring that human rights considerations are integrated into corporate policies, procurement and suppliers’ conduct; we will draw on guidance from leading experts in the sector, such as the Helena Kennedy Centre at Sheffield Hallam University.

Lords amendment 2B will strengthen our framework. It demonstrates that both Great British Energy and the Government are absolutely committed to maintaining supply chains that are free from forced labour. I urge the House to agree to Lords amendment 2B and the position that the Government have reached on this critical issue.

I call the shadow Minister.

On 25 March, when we last debated amendments to the Bill, the Minister assured us that the mechanisms for preventing modern slavery in supply chains were adequate, and that the Procurement Act 2023 would provide adequate protection against technology that could have been manufactured using slave labour being deployed in the UK. He confirmed that in the coming weeks, he would convene cross-departmental meetings on that matter, and said that a broad strategy would be developed, through work with the solar taskforce and other Government Departments. Then we had the incredible sight of Labour MPs trooping through the Lobby, being whipped to vote against an amendment that would have prevented Great British Energy from investing in supply chains in which links to modern slavery were proven.

The offshoring of our emissions, our manufacturing base and our skilled jobs is understood and acknowledged to be the result of Labour’s energy policies, but on that day, we also saw the offshoring of Labour’s moral compass. We saw its narrow-minded, ideological obsession with achieving the unachievable: clean power by 2030, at any price and any cost, delivered through solar panels made by slave labour and with coal power in the People’s Republic of China.

Following all that, though, a screeching U-turn took place. Literally weeks after the Government whipped their MPs to vote against the modern slavery amendment the last time the Bill was debated, the Government conceded what we all knew to be the case—that the mechanisms cited by the Minister in this House were simply not up to the job. However, we sincerely welcome the acknowledgement that the UK must take a principled stand. The Procurement Act 2023 and the Modern Slavery Act 2015 were groundbreaking when they were introduced, but it is evident that more needs to be done today to prevent goods tainted by slavery from entering UK supply chains.

As my hon. Friend knows, heaven rejoiceth when a sinner repenteth. Does he share my hope—let us hope it is not naive—that, with this volte-face by Members on the Treasury Bench on this important issue, the cross-party consensus about the seriousness and perniciousness of modern slavery is restored, so that the House can face up to it, whenever and wherever it manifests itself?

I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right: over the past decade and more, a cross-party consensus was reached in this House about the pernicious nature of modern slavery and the work we must do together to drive it out of supply chains that could be contributing to, or investing in, the United Kingdom. I think we all believe that we have to achieve that. Now that the Government have acknowledged that the mechanisms in the Bill were not up to the job, as we said at the time, I hope that we can revert to cross-party working on this incredibly important issue.

The transition to clean power must be just, as we have said before and as the Minister has said many times, but it is clear that there is no justice where there is slave labour in supply chains, so we are glad that the Government have listened not just to the official Opposition, but to Members from across both Houses. However, there is a serious question: what does this mean for the clean power 2030 mission? If the route to decarbonisation relies on importing technology from China made with slave labour, surely there should be a rethink of whether that mission is conducive to good policy.

We are pleased that the Minister has rowed back from the position that the Great British Energy Bill needed no extra provisions to exclude slave labour from supply chains, and have accepted an amendment that safeguards against slavery and human trafficking. While we welcome the Government’s change of heart, it would be remiss of me not to reiterate for the record that the official Opposition remain resolutely opposed to the creation of Great British Energy, which is not great, not British, and will not produce any energy. The Minister often cites my constituency in Aberdeenshire in these debates because of the location of GB Energy’s headquarters, but I say to him in all sincerity that the people and businesses of north-east Scotland do not want more government. They want government to get out of the way and let them get on with what they do best: extracting oil and gas from the North sea, keeping the lights on and homes warm in our country.

I call the Liberal Democrats spokesperson.

I rise in strong support of Lords amendment 2B and the consequential amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion). The Liberal Democrats welcome this key step by the Government towards preventing goods linked to Chinese slave labour from being part of our renewables businesses’ supply chains. The decision, as we have heard, took time, and it is born of pressure from Members of all political parties and the sheer strength of feeling across both Houses. The Great British Energy Bill needed amending, and we thank the Government for reconsidering.

I want to express in particular my appreciation of Lord Alton of Liverpool’s tireless advocacy. Together with Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, the Bill team and colleagues from across both Houses—with important input from the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China—there has been a constructive and cross-party effort to confront an issue that is too often left in the shadows: the scourge of modern slavery in our energy supply chains. Groundbreaking investigative research has helped to shine the necessary light on what is at stake. We have heard irrefutable evidence from the BBC, The Guardian, and the world’s foremost expert on Uyghur forced labour, Professor Laura Murphy, that forced labour is being used to produce the solar-grade polysilicon that powers most of the global green transition.

I reiterate and support what the hon. Lady and the shadow Minister have said. I understand that this Bill applies to all the regions, including Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. One concern raised with me by my colleagues in the Assembly is slave labour and what is happening to the Uyghur Muslims in particular. The view of the Assembly back home in Northern Ireland—I was a Member of it, although I am not now, of course—is that this legislation is important, so I welcome what the Government have put in place and thank the hon. Lady for outlining all the people who have contributed to making sure this change happens, including the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief.

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention.

We have to name the report “In Broad Daylight” from Sheffield Hallam University, which found that all solar industry-relevant polysilicon producers in the Uyghur region were either using state-sponsored labour transfers of Uyghurs or were sourcing from companies that were. As we speak, 2.7 million Uyghurs are subject to forced labour and political re-education camps. We cannot allow our green future to be built on the backs of enslaved people. My constituents in South Cambridgeshire do not expect their solar panels to be made by child labourers in the Democratic Republic of the Congo or enslaved Uyghurs in Xinjiang, and I do not expect that Ministers do either—and they are right.

I understand that the Government will not be supporting the amendment (a) to Lords amendment 2B, tabled by the hon. Member for Rotherham, which is about definitions. Definitions really matter. The definition of slavery and how it is interpreted needs to be clear. This amendment would make it clear that the definition of slavery includes forced labour, state-imposed forced labour, exploitative child labour, abuses of workers’ rights and dangerous working conditions. It would be good to hear from the Minister about how the working groups that he is already working on will ensure that there are no loopholes, no grey areas and no convenient ignorance. The amendment would incorporate and put into practice the International Labour Organisation’s definition. How will that ILO standard be put into practice?

We have progress, but it is not the end; it is the beginning. Lord Alton said:

“The Joint Committee on Human Rights is close to completing an inquiry which is likely to call for a comprehensive overhaul of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 April 2025; Vol. 845, c. 1238.]

This is the opportunity to look seriously at the model set by the United States’ Uyghur Forced Labour Prevention Act, which introduces a rebuttable presumption that goods linked to Xinjiang are the product of forced labour, unless clear and convincing evidence can be shown to the contrary. Embedding a similar presumption into UK law would shift the burden of proof away from vulnerable victims and place it firmly on those who profit. It would close those loopholes that have allowed exploitation to flourish unchecked.

Lords amendment 2B resulted from the work of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, which includes cross-party membership from this House. I see some of its members in the Chamber now. Lord Alton and other members of the alliance, including me, who have been sanctioned by the Chinese Government have worked tirelessly on the amendment, and others have done likewise on other amendments.

Let me say to the Minister that the problem we face at present is that we seem to be attacking this issue piecemeal. When the Conservatives, my own party, were in government, I had a big fight with them to secure a ban on slave-labour-made products in the national health service, and it sits there, in the health service, thanks to cross-party involvement. Now we have a provision in the Great British Energy Bill to block modern slavery, but the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which we helped to enact when I was in the Government, needs to be massively updated in this area because it has no teeth. Unless it is beefed up, what we will have is piecemeal work from officials. If we are to embrace this idea—I know that the Government were tentative about it, but frankly all Governments do this, and the reality is that it has gone through—our objective should be, “How do we make this the case for every single product that is introduced, so that all of Government, including local government, are not allowed to involve themselves in modern-day slavery?” A huge amount of this applies to China, but some of it applies to other countries.

Let me also say to the Minister that this is the beginning, not the end. We must ensure that the lesson that is learned is that we must be paragons of virtue when it comes to modern-day slavery and that we will stand up for those who have no voice. If we go about buying products made through modern slavery, which undercuts the free market dramatically because no salaries are paid, we not only destroy the concept of the free market but cause people to be imprisoned by making our casual purchases.

Well, this is a red-letter day: we are in the Chamber to discuss something positive that is happening with GB Energy. I commend the Minister and his colleagues for that, although it is consistent with the function of a significant U-turn in Government policy. I thank Members of both Houses for their work in bringing Lords amendment 2B to fruition.

The amendment would ensure that no material or equipment produced as a function of slave labour is used in GB Energy’s enterprises, but I heard the Minister talk about “expectation” and “striving”, which are much less unequivocal than “ensure”, so I would be very grateful if he could reassure the House that “ensure” means ensure. Consistent with comments from other hon. and right hon. Members, there is a very straightforward way to do that. It is maybe not legislatively or bureaucratically light, but this is an extremely important issue. If it does not attract a burden of administration to ensure that our collective consciences are clear, what will?

As an engineer, I know that many products that we purchase come with a certificate of conformity. In pursuance of ensuring that there is no slave labour in any enterprise of GB Energy, it would be very straightforward for the Government to mandate that a certificate of conformity must be produced for all equipment, which would explicitly guarantee that the supply chains are free of slave labour. That does not seem to be an especially demanding expectation.

I will make a final point. Can the Minister explain something to me? I am genuinely not seeing this with the clarity that I suspect he is—or maybe he is not. In what enterprises will GB Energy be involved as the decider, rather than the provider, in delivering generation, transmission or storage capacity on the ground and in a meaningful way? How will GB Energy scrutinise or mandate bills for materials to say whether they are provided from this provider or that provider? That is not my understanding of the nature of GB Energy. As has been explained in this House and elsewhere, GB Energy is a derisking device that will inject capital into the market and clear the blockages—it will not introduce purchase orders from this company or that company. I would be genuinely grateful if the Minister could clarify that.

I thank all hon. and right hon. Members for their contributions to this important debate. I will start with the intervention made by the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), which set the tone. He said that there is an important cross-party consensus on this issue, and I think that that has come through in all the contributions we have heard. Hopefully, that gives us a mandate to push further on this issue than any of our parties has done until this point. That is my genuine intent, and the hon. Gentleman’s point is very helpful.

I always welcome my exchanges with the shadow Minister, as he well knows. I thought for a moment that there was an opportunity at this very late stage for him to change his way and support investment in his own constituency through Great British Energy, but he has once again decided to use this opportunity to say to his constituents that he does not want investment and jobs. We will of course remind his constituents of that.

Bring it down to Cornwall!

Cornwall is ever present in these debates. Nevertheless, however much the shadow Minister’s teeth were gritted, I do welcome his support for the approach we are taking today.

We are debating Lords amendment 2B, which, combined with the previous commitments that I have made from the Dispatch Box and that my noble Friend Lord Hunt has made in the other place, demonstrates that this Government are committed to using Great British Energy as a vehicle for taking this issue seriously. As came through in a number of the contributions, though, this is not solely the preserve of Great British Energy; it is much broader, both in the energy system and in the wider economy.

I have committed to doing some things already. I have committed to appointing a senior leader in Great British Energy who will have oversight of tackling forced labour in the supply chain; we have confirmed that Baroness O’Grady will take on that role. Many Members will know that she has significant experience in this space, and she will bring much effort to important deliberations at GB Energy. I have committed to cross-Government departmental meetings, which took place on 7 May as a starting point. I have committed to including an overarching expectation in the statement of strategic priorities, and that will be delivered within six months. We have demonstrated our unwavering commitment to tackling forced labour in supply chains, and we are resolute in our determination to go further.

The question, however, is this: at the end of it all, how will we know that the supply chains have been correctly declared? If they have not been, it will become a matter of avoidance. America checks, tests and sanctions companies that have lied about their supply chains, and that has forced wholesale change to its supply chain process. I ask the Government to learn from America and get companies such as Oritain to use forensic science to test the company supply chains about which they are suspicious.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman. I was going to come to his substantive contribution shortly, but I will do so now. The first point he made in his speech is important, which is that there is a real danger with the piecemeal approach he mentioned. That is partly why I have resisted the idea that Great British Energy will solve all of these issues in isolation; it clearly is not going to do so. We think it has a really important role in leading the conversation and leading the effort, and certainly in demonstrating that by its own actions, but we have to look at these issues right across Government.

The meetings I have convened are a starting point in looking seriously at where the Modern Slavery Act falls short. We are committed to doing that, and it sounds as though there is consensus across the House about looking seriously at that. That is not only for my Department, and I want to be careful about overstepping, because to avoid the work being piecemeal, it needs to be done right across Government. However, the points the right hon. Gentleman makes specifically on tracking supply chains are very helpful, and I will take them away.

The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) made a point about the International Labour Organisation’s principles. Great British Energy will consider the 11 indicators of forced labour, including abuse of working and living conditions, as part of its efforts. I do not think that this Bill is the right place to get into a conversation about defining slavery. We may need to look at that, and I am not against doing so, but this Bill is about creating Great British Energy, and we need to be careful to keep these things separate.

We are already a signatory to a number of conventions, which highlights the Government’s broad support for tackling forced and compulsory labour, and we will continue to take that forward. The Home Office has produced a modern slavery action plan, which sets out the first steps in its departmental responsibilities for tackling modern slavery at its root. The plan, which will be published shortly, confirms that the Government are considering legislative vehicles for strengthening section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act.

I basically want to thank the Minister. This has been quite a robust and rough journey, but he has listened to comments from across the House, analysed the arguments we have made and listened to the other place. I think this is now going to be a very strong Act that will help enormously to shift our global supply chains and get the transparency I think everybody in this House wants, so I thank him.

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, but more broadly, as I have said before, for her significant contribution in this space and for the way she has influenced me and others over the past few weeks on these important issues. I also thank others across the House, because it has been a real cross-party effort, and I think we are in the same place. We want to take this forward, and there is much more work to do. I want the message to be that, while this is progress, it is—as the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) put it very well—the beginning, and certainly not the end, of further work.

Without wanting to tempt fate, this is the last opportunity to speak about the Bill in this place, so I close by thanking everyone who has played a role in getting it to this stage. In particular, I thank my noble Friend Lord Hunt in the other place. I thank all the Members from all parties in this place who contributed to the Bill Committee, and the witnesses who gave evidence. I also thank the parliamentary staff who play such an important role in shepherding Bills through this place and the House of Lords. I especially thank the fantastic team of officials in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, who moved at incredible speed to develop the legislation, but always with good humour, which I have personally appreciated.

Great British Energy is at the heart of what the Government are setting out to achieve: delivering clean power, but delivering jobs and investment as we do it; and delivering energy security and climate leadership, owned by and for the people of this country, and headquartered in the energy capital of Europe, Aberdeen. With investments having already been made, including in community energy in Scotland today, which Members from Scotland might welcome, and investment in supply chains and much, much more, this is the big idea of our time. It will deliver on our energy objectives, but with the public owning a stake in their energy future. I am pleased that Parliament will—I hope, without tempting fate—back it today, so that it can receive Royal Assent and get on with doing what we need it to do.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I just want to remind the House that the Deputy Speaker in the Chair today is also sanctioned by the Chinese Government for her bravery.

That is noted, and no doubt on the record again, as it has been previously. Thank you. I will continue with the business.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 2)

That the following provisions shall apply to the Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 12 February 2025 (Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]: Programme):

(1) Proceedings on the Lords Message shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement.

(2) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.

(3) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Kate Dearden.)