Great British Energy Bill

Commons Reason

Motion A

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 2, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 2A, and do propose Amendment 2B in lieu—

2A: Because it would alter financial arrangements made by the Commons, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

2B: Clause 3, page 2, line 18, at end insert— “(e) measures for ensuring that slavery and human trafficking is not taking place in its business or supply chains.”

My Lords, I will also speak to Motion A1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Alton. It is good to welcome the Great British Energy Bill back to your Lordships’ Chamber. I again thank all Members of this House for their continued scrutiny of this important Bill.

We are here to discuss specifically the issue of forced labour in Great British Energy’s supply chain—something that I have been adamant, throughout the Bill’s passage through your Lordships’ House, that the company will tackle. As I have stated in previous debate, we expect Great British Energy not only to abide by but to be a first-in-class example of adherence to the UK’s existing legislation and guidance. That is demonstrated by the commitments made by my colleague, the Minister for Energy, in the other place.

Great British Energy will appoint a senior individual dedicated to providing oversight to ensure ethical supply chains. I am delighted to confirm that the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, one of Great British Energy’s non-executive directors, will take up that role. Her role as chair of the House of Lords Modern Slavery Act 2015 Committee positions her extraordinarily well to lead on the issue, ensuring robust practices across Great British Energy in tackling forced labour.

In addition, my officials are working to ensure that the statement of strategic priorities outlined in the Bill, which will be published within six months of Royal Assent, will include an overarching expectation that Great British Energy proactively works to deliver on these commitments.

I think the House will also be pleased to hear that the cross-departmental ministerial meeting with my department, the Home Office, the Department for Business and Trade and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office will convene for the first time in May to accelerate work across government to tackle forced labour in supply chains across the whole economy. To underscore the Government’s commitment, a letter will be sent to all FTSE 100 companies following the aforementioned meeting to communicate our expectations regarding responsible business practices, including on modern slavery.

Moved by

Leave out from “propose” to end and insert “Amendment 2C in lieu—

2C: Clause 3, page 2, line 18, at end insert— “(e) the eradication of goods and services tainted by modern slavery and human trafficking from its energy supply chains.””

My Lords, I express my profound gratitude to the Government—and especially to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath—for acting to address concerns regarding forced labour in the renewable supply chain that were raised from all sides of your Lordships’ House during earlier stages. I have had the pleasure of working with the noble Lord on human rights issues, mainly around China, before and during his time in government, and I commend him and his Bill team on the sincere and constructive way in which they have sought to grapple with this problem. I also strongly welcome the statement he has just made in your Lordships’ House about the role that will be taken by the redoubtable noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, who will be a great champion for all those who have been subjected to modern-day slavery.

The government amendment before us today stands testament to the worth of parliamentary engagement, and that is the way it should be. I thank the Government again for the progress made. I include thanks to those Members of both Houses who have been key to the amendment’s progress, especially the Front Benches of the two opposition parties. The commitment announced following our debates on the Bill represents a significant and welcome shift in ensuring that the United Kingdom’s green transition is not built on the backs of broken slaves.

When I tabled my amendment seeking to prevent goods made with forced labour entering our renewable energy supply chains, it was with a heavy heart. As many colleagues know, mounting evidence, including from Professor Laura Murphy of the Helena Kennedy Centre, as well as detailed investigations by the Guardian, the BBC and others, show that forced labour, particularly of the Uyghur Muslim people in Xinjiang but also child labour in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, is embedded in the production of key green technologies.

The BBC’s recent report underscores the gravity. At least 35% of the world’s solar-grade polysilicon comes from Xinjiang, a region where state-imposed labour transfer schemes and human rights violations are widespread. Sheffield Hallam University research, along with other corroborative studies, has revealed that supply chains are often deeply compromised. We cannot in good conscience drive our green transition by trampling on human rights. To do so would be to substitute a form of environmental degradation with another form of human degradation.

This move must, however, be seen as a beginning and not an end. 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. We have had over 800 pages of written evidence and moving oral evidence from witnesses such as Rahima Mahmut of the World Uyghur Congress. We raised it earlier this afternoon during a constructive session of the Joint Committee on Human Rights with the right honourable Shabana Mahmood MP, the Justice Secretary and Lord Chancellor.

As I have often pointed out, Section 54, requiring mere transparency statements from companies, has proved toothless. The noble Baroness, Lady May, who pioneered the Modern Slavery Act 2015, agrees that the legislation must be reviewed and reformed. We should now look seriously at the model set by the United States in the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, which introduced a rebuttable presumption—something we raised today with the Lord Chancellor—that goods linked to Xinjiang are the product of forced labour, unless clear and convincing evidence can be shown to the contrary.

With forced labour endemic throughout the region, and the leviathan-like Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps—an entity sanctioned by the United States—controlling so much of the commerce, it is hard to see how else we can manage the huge exposure to forced labour. Embedding a similar presumption into UK law would shift the burden away from vulnerable victims and place it firmly on those who profit. It would close loopholes that have allowed exploitation to flourish unchecked.

Additionally, we must not overlook the underutilised powers in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Following the World Uyghur Congress v National Crime Agency judgment in 2024, it is now clear that goods made through gross human rights abuses constitute criminal property. Yet, to date, enforcement has been patchy at best. A more systematic use of those 2002 powers to seize tainted goods would deter bad actors and use our purchasing power to raise the bar together. To that end, I cite evidence given last week to the Joint Committee on Human Rights by the National Crime Agency and Border Force.

The creation of Great British Energy offers a vital opportunity to anchor resilience into the heart of our energy transition. Its chair, Jürgen Maier CBE, said to me in a conversation yesterday that GBE is “entirely comfortable” with this amendment—the government amendment before us today—and “will put measures in place to prevent slavery”. He said, “We are a publicly owned company, and we have to live up to that. So we are comfortable and committed to this amendment. We will have to allocate resources and will do so”. Incidentally, I was also deeply encouraged by his determination to bring technology to the UK which, for instance, will enable battery manufacturing which is not dependent on lithium or rare earth minerals.

As the Minister and others have rightly said, this new entity can champion not only decarbonisation but sovereignty, supply chain integrity, and British manufacturing. GBE should not be divorced from the rest of UK industry. By investing in British steel, British solar and British renewables, we can build a secure future, free from dependence on authoritarian regimes and the iniquities of forced labour. I have said it again and again, as have so many others, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra: we need resilience not dependency.

There is no contradiction between pursuing environmental sustainability and standing for human dignity. On the contrary, the two are indivisible. Our new green economy must be not only carbon free but cruelty free. Those taking to the airwaves to argue that we cannot pursue a greener economy without compromising on fundamental rights are simply wrong; if 35% is from Xinjiang, by definition 65% is not. There are alternative markets, and we need to use GBE’s purchasing power to shore up clean supply. It has already announced a £300 million supply chain fund, the whole purpose of which will be to bring clean and ethically sourced energy to the UK. I greatly welcome that.