Great British Energy Bill

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 25th March 2025 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords amendments

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendments 2 and 11. If either of Lords amendments 2 or 11 is agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.

Clause 3

Objects

17:24

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)]

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss:

Lords amendment 2, amendments (a) and (b), and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendments 3 to 12.

[Michael Shanks]

I am pleased that the Great British Energy Bill has returned to this House. I would like to thank all Members of both Houses for their scrutiny of this important legislation. I extend my thanks in particular to the Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for his invaluable support and collaborative approach in guiding the Bill through the other place.

Twelve amendments were made there, which I will seek to address today. Before I turn to them, I remind the House that the Government were elected on a manifesto commitment to set up Great British Energy, and that is exactly what the Bill does. Since the Bill was last in this House, we have appointed five start-up, non-executive directors and announced Dan McGrail as interim CEO, based in Aberdeen, so that Great British Energy can quickly get the expertise needed to help the company develop. I was delighted to convene the first meeting of Great British Energy’s board of directors last week in Aberdeen.

We are determined to get Great British Energy delivering for the British people as soon as possible. It has already made some incredibly exciting announcements on initial projects, including a partnership with the Crown Estate, and most recently announcements on solar for schools and hospitals across England, with funding also for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We look forward to GBE making further investment decisions on projects this year, driving forward our clean power mission and creating thousands of jobs across the country in the process.

Lords amendment 2 would prevent the Secretary of State from providing financial assistance to Great British Energy if credible evidence of modern slavery was found in its supply chains. There has understandably been significant interest in this amendment from Members in the other place and on both sides of this House. We recognise that concerns have been raised widely on this issue, and I am seeking to approach it in a collaborative and open way with hon. Members.

I will also address amendment (a) to Lords amendment 2, as our approach to this amendment is similar. I first of all thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for amendment (a). I have been grateful for her engagement with me ahead of the Bill returning to this House. I also pay tribute to her tireless work over many years on this important issue. Her amendment would amend Lords amendment 2 made in the other place by creating a cross-ministerial taskforce to which Great British Energy would need to prove that its supply chains were free of forced labour.

I want the House to be in no doubt that this Government are absolutely committed to confronting and tackling modern slavery in energy supply chains. As set out by my colleague Lord Hunt in the other place, Great British Energy has a range of tools to tackle modern slavery in its supply chains. GBE will prepare a slavery and human trafficking statement when it meets the thresholds set out under section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. That will outline the steps it is taking to ensure that slavery and human trafficking are not present in its supply chains or any part of its business.

Under the Procurement Act 2023, GBE can reject bids and terminate contracts with suppliers that are known to use forced labour themselves or that have it anywhere in their supply chain. I commit here that GBE will utilise the debarment list to ensure that suppliers with unethical supply chains cannot participate in procurement or be awarded contracts by GBE.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

That is not altogether correct. The Minister will know full well that the Procurement Act can only be enacted once a supplier has had a conviction under section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act. To do that, proceedings have to be able to be taken against the company that is involved in the slavery. A British company involved in agency is not involved in the slavery. It would have to get the Chinese Government to prosecute the Chinese company to make sure that they got a prosecution here. That is never going to happen.

[Michael Shanks]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution and his many years of work on this issue. I will come to some of the detail in addition to this measure, but it is important to say that the debarment list, which was part of the Act passed by the Conservative Government, has been in force since February and will be populated in due course. We will use that list as the basis of challenging the decisions that Great British Energy can make not to take contracts with those on that list. I will look in more detail at the specific points that he raised, and I will come to some of that later in my speech.

17:30

In addition, GBE will use the modern slavery assessment tool to assess its supply base for modern slavery risks. We expect Great British Energy to take a leading role in ensuring that any companies in which it invests can demonstrate their own assessment of their supply chains for exposure to forced labour. I assure the House that with these tools, GBE will tackle modern slavery head-on. Where there is credible evidence of involvement anywhere in supply chains, GBE will ensure that it does everything in its power to combat the scourge of modern slavery and to pull up the standards expected of the wider UK energy sector in the process.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

My constituent Dorit Oliver-Wolff is a Holocaust survivor. She knows what slave labour looks like, and she has written to the Prime Minister to urge that our energy transition does not repeat so many of the atrocities that she has seen. She is awaiting a reply from the Prime Minister. Will the Minister nudge No. 10 to ensure that she gets the response that she needs and deserves on her own behalf and that of victims of modern slavery across the world?

[Michael Shanks]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. I saw that powerful letter, which was widely reported in the press. I am not sure that nudging No. 10 is quite within my gift, but I will certainly raise the issue for a response. The wider point raised is absolutely right. I recognise the need not just in the energy sector but across our economy to ensure that we remove any risk of forced labour in supply chains. We all share that commitment across the House. We need a number of different measures to make that happen. I am determined that Great British Energy will a leader in the sector on doing that, particularly within the energy space.

Returning to the focus that Great British Energy will have at the highest levels of its work, I can commit today that it will appoint a senior individual in the organisation to lead on ethical supply chains and modern slavery. Further, the statement of strategic priorities outlined in the Bill, which the Secretary of State will issue to GBE once it receives Royal Assent, will include an overarching expectation that GBE proactively works to deliver on these commitments and, in doing so, becomes a sector leader in this space, as we would expect from any company owned by the British public.

To further demonstrate our commitment across Government, we will write to all FTSE 100 companies outlining our expectations on responsible businesses to ensure that these issues, especially forced labour and supply chains, are being effectively identified and addressed. Given the importance of tackling modern slavery, it is crucial that businesses play their part to tackle that abhorrent crime. We cannot do this without their support, so it is an important step across Government.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

The Minister is explaining what the Government are doing, but they are not doing what Members of this House and of the other place want—not just asking people to do stuff but leading. That is what this amendment does: it would allow the UK to really show its leadership on behalf of the British public. This will be a huge public company. Why will the Minister not just commit to that further step today?

[Michael Shanks]

Let me come to that point, because the specific reason that we disagree with their lordships on this amendment is that it would not actually do what the hon. Gentleman says. It would force the Government to cease all GBE’s activities, rather than give it the scope to address any of the issues that we are raising today directly within the framework that we have outlined. As I said, we as a Government are wholly committed to doing this. Great British Energy will be committed to ensuring that the highest standards are maintained. The amendment would cease the funding immediately, which would not give GB Energy the scope to actually invest in the appropriate supply chains and to tackle those issues directly.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Will the Minister accept that many people listening to this will see it as evading rather than addressing the issue? We can have the Procurement Act, the taskforce and the letters to all the major companies, but the fact remains that most companies will seek financial assistance for the kinds of projects that they wish to do. If credible evidence is discovered that supply chains have been contaminated by slavery, the easy way of stopping purchases from suppliers who act in that way will be to say, “You’re not getting any support.”

[Michael Shanks]

I do not disagree with that at all, and that is possible. Nothing forces Great British Energy, or any other company, to take investment from any individual or company. They can choose not to do so for a whole variety of reasons, and if one of those reasons is credible evidence of modern slavery in the supply chain, I would fully expect them not to invest in those companies. That is exactly what we are talking about today. The point is that that conversation must be broader than one just about Great British Energy. It is about wider supply chains and companies right across the economy, and that is what we are hoping to tackle.

In parallel, although the energy sector is particularly important to me, I want to work across Government to outline a comprehensive plan to tackle modern slavery, which is a question right across the economy. Rather than dealing with the problem on a company-by-company basis, we must look to do so more broadly. To drive forward that work, I confirm that in the coming weeks I will convene cross-departmental ministerial meetings involving the Department for Business and Trade, the Home Office, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and my Department to discuss how we can accelerate work across Government on this really important issue.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful to the Minister for his speech and the consideration that he is giving to this issue. Will he look at a reverse burden of proof so that, instead of proving an exclusion, it is switched to show no association with modern slavery?

[Michael Shanks]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I will come to that briefly in a moment.

All of this work builds on the implementation of the new procurement regime, which focuses on ensuring fair and open competition and treating suppliers equally, as well as the work that we are doing on the relaunched solar taskforce—it started under the previous Government and has continued under this Government—to develop resilient, sustainable and innovative solar supply chains that are free from forced labour.

We recognise that the landscape has shifted since the Modern Slavery Act came into effect, which is why yesterday the Home Office published updated statutory guidance on transparency in supply chains that provides comprehensive and practical advice for businesses on how to tackle forced labour in their supply chains. Great British Energy will, of course, follow any new measures on modern slavery to which it is subjected, just as any responsible public or private body should. I hope that the new steps I have outlined will reassure the House that Departments across Government will continue to work intensively on this issue.

Before I move on, I will reflect briefly on amendment (b) to Lords amendment 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), which would require the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner to define “credible evidence” in Lords amendment 2. While I thank him for the amendment, we have to resist it as the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner’s role was established to encourage good practice rather than to look specifically into supply chains of individual companies. The amendment would place a significant lawmaking function on the commissioner, which the role was not designed for, and is currently not within the commissioner’s powers. The amendment would also have wider implications for how evidence of modern slavery is assessed and could create unnecessary legal uncertainty and precedent.

I turn to the remaining amendments. The Government were pleased to table Lords amendment 1 and Lords amendments 3 to 12 following positive discussions with peers in the other place. Lords amendment 1 puts community energy on the face of the Bill. The Government had a manifesto commitment to deliver a step change in community energy across the UK. We set up GBE to deliver our local power plan: it is at the heart of our plans for GBE. However, we recognise that during the Bill’s passage, it was highlighted that the role of community energy should be made explicit in the Bill. As my colleagues in the other place said, the Government have accepted that, and it is right that that is now in the Bill.

[Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

I very much welcome the amendment. Does the Minister agree that community energy is important not just for jobs and investment but for engaging communities with the transition to a new energy system? Does he recognise the need for the Government to support those initiatives with funding going forward?

[Michael Shanks]

I agree with my hon. Friend on both points. Community energy is incredibly important to give communities a stake in their energy future and to deliver the social and economic benefits that go with it. Just last week we announced a significant amount of funding through GBE for community energy projects across England, and funding for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to spend on similar projects, including community energy projects in their own areas.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Michael Shanks]

I will give way briefly, but then I will have to make a bit of progress.

[Dave Doogan]

Can the Minister advise the House on the level of recurrence to that funding? Will it be year-on-year funding? Will he also give us an indication—maybe not precisely, but broadly—what that funding stream will be year on year under GB Energy?

[Michael Shanks]

It will not be recurring in the same methodology. GBE does not yet exist, so we carried out the initial set of investments in a particular way. Going forward, those projects will be on the basis of the individual investment propositions put forward. Individual projects in Scotland or in other parts of the UK will therefore apply for funding, they will be considered alongside other investments and those investments will be made. However, we will not deliver funding on a population share on that basis going forward. Of course, funding is already going to the Scottish Government, with a significant increase in the budget this year to fund, for example, the community and renewable energy scheme and the community energy work, which are going on in Scotland already.

Briefly, Lords amendment 3 came in recognition of concerns raised about the length of time GBE could operate without strategic priorities. We have agreed to an amendment that would prepare a set of strategic priorities within six months, although I will say to the House, as I did in Committee, that we intend to move far faster than that. Lords amendments 4 to 10 were brought about following positive engagement with the devolved Governments and we are committed to collaboration on a UK-wide basis. The amendments, which relate to clause 5, moved from consulting with devolved Governments to consent in relation to devolved competencies. I am grateful to my ministerial colleagues in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland for engaging so productively and for the Parliaments’ legislative consent motions on the Bill.

Lords amendment 11 introduces an independent review of Great British Energy’s effectiveness. Finally, Lords amendment 12 ensures that Great British Energy will keep the impact of its activities on sustainable development under review. I know that was a concern raised by a number of Members in relation to how we conserve nature and biodiversity while advancing clean power. I therefore hope the House will join me in welcoming that addition.

I look forward to this debate—albeit short—and I urge the House to support the Government’s position on the amendments.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

This is a sad and quite incredible day in this House. We have debated this Government’s energy policies on many occasions in the past few months. We have frequently debated the merits, or lack thereof, of Great British Energy, an organisation about which we still know very little—what it is for and what it will do.

We were told by the Labour party that it would bring down bills by £300, but bills have gone up. We were told by the Labour party that it would create jobs, but nobody can tell us how many or by when. We were told by the Labour party that it would be based in Aberdeen, but the interim chairman is based in Manchester and it looks unlikely that we will see little more than a brass plaque in the granite city. We were told that it would employ thousands of people, but that then turned to hundreds. We were told it would generate energy, but it will not—it does not have a licence to do that. We were told that it would guarantee a positive return on every investment, but that is impossible. I therefore ask the Minister again: what will the entity actually do? Do they know? Will it be seeking an electricity generation licence? How will it bring down energy costs in this country?

Turning to today’s proceedings, far from the Secretary of State and the Minister’s insistence that Great British Energy will free us from reliance on foreign dictatorships, this headlong rush to clean power by 2030 will, in fact, make us more reliant than ever on the People’s Republic of China. He and his Ministers are quick to note the reluctance to rely on petrostate dictators. I wonder how he would characterise the People’s Republic of China, where political opposition is illegal, where citizens have more limited political rights than in the Russian Federation, where dissent is invariably punished and where the use of forced labour is proven.

In 2022 we blocked China General Nuclear from involvement in Sizewell C. In 2020 we prevented Chinese influence on our communications networks under the guise of Huawei. Yet despite serious concerns about the national security implications, the ethical implications and the high climate emissions, the Secretary of State and Ministers are opening the gates to Chinese technology in our North sea wind farms, to solar panels made with slave labour and to using coal power.

It is in the context of our increasing reliance on foreign states that I wish to speak to the Lords amendments, and particularly Lords amendment 2, tabled by Lord Alton of Liverpool. I am grateful to him, and we all recognise his long-standing dedication to this serious matter.

I said that this was a sad day, and I feel for those Labour MPs, for many of whom I have a great deal of respect, who came into this House, into politics and specifically into their party because they believed in social justice and decency, and for whom this is not just a job but a vocation. They came here in July believing that they would be part of a project to create a better world, in the spirit of Bevan, Attlee, Hardie and Wilson. I wonder what those titans of that proud labour movement would make of this today, because it was on this day in 1807 that the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act received Royal Assent, and 218 years on, Labour MPs are going to be whipped to allow the state to directly fund imports of goods built by slave labour in China. [Interruption.] They complain, but it is true.

17:48

What will those MPs say to their constituents—to their voters? How will they explain this vote in the week that we mark 10 years since the Modern Slavery Act 2015? Indeed, how will they explain it to themselves? We are proud to have introduced that Act 10 years ago. It was a landmark piece of legislation. However, it is right that we recognise now that the protections against the use of public money in supply chains with exposure to the use of modern slave labour need to be more robust. They are voting against this incredibly sensible amendment that seeks to protect some of the most oppressed people in the world, and to ensure that our net zero objectives, whatever one’s view of them, will not be built on the back of slave labour, or on the backs of the Uyghur Muslims of Xinjiang and elsewhere. The vast majority of solar panels are exposed to Xinjiang silicon, where manufacturers have been found to have links to Uyghur forced labour.

Therefore, what we are seeing today is not simply the offshoring of our emissions, although we are, and it is not just about the offshoring of our energy security, although that is also true. Today we are seeing the offshoring of the Labour party’s moral compass, and we all know why: because clean power by 2030 demands it. The fact is that the Government will not achieve that target that they signed up to without the help of China and without importing this green revolution from coal-powered factories thousands of miles away. They are pursuing a made-in-China energy transition built on the back of slave labour and powered by Chinese coal.

It is quite ironic that the Minister is willing to stomach the higher carbon emissions associated with importing liquefied natural gas from abroad. The emissions are four times higher than those from drilling at home. The Government want to import solar panels manufactured using coal power and tainted by human rights abuses, rather than giving our domestic supply chains the time to grow. It is an irony that is not lost on us, and neither will it be lost on the country. This is, I am afraid, the pyrrhic victory of ideology over sense, and of zealotry over the national interest. It is bad for Britain, it is bad for bill payers and it really is quite bad for the climate.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that building more of that infrastructure here in the United Kingdom would be good for British jobs and for our energy security, just as issuing new oil and gas licences in Scotland would be, as that would allow us to produce more of our energy here at home and make us safer from volatile energy markets abroad?

[Andrew Bowie]

My hon. Friend will not be at all surprised to learn that I agree with him entirely. It is purely the imposition on this country of arbitrary, needless targets, such as clean power by 2030, to generate headlines and get the Secretary of State’s name up in lights that is requiring us to become more reliant on the People’s Republic of China for the goods, technology and equipment to develop the solar farms, nearly all of which will be tainted by slave labour in some way, given the reliance on slave labour in part of that country for that infrastructure and technology. So of course I agree with him, and of course it would be much better if we were issuing new licences and continuing to support our own domestic oil and gas industry. That is something that we have debated time and again, and I am sure we will come back to this House to debate it again in the future.

Great British Energy is not great, it is not British and it will not generate any energy. Public funds should not be—must not be—funding imports tainted by modern slavery and slave labour. British taxpayers deserve better: a domestic supply chain that creates jobs at home rather than funding abuses abroad. That is why we support Lords amendment 2, and I urge Labour Members to do the right thing today and vote for it as well.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to my amendment (a) to Lords amendment 2, which I hope might act as a bridge between our two Houses. Although I welcome this Bill, from the moment it started its journey through Parliament I have been issuing a warning. Without proper safeguards in place, our transition to net zero will be carried through on the backs of those in slavery.

Renewable energy is vital for our transition to a low-carbon economy, but we know that human rights abuses are inherent in our green technology. There is evidence of child labour in cobalt mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and of labour exploitation in nickel processing in Indonesia. Forced labour is committed at scale in Xinjiang in China, with the abuse of Uyghurs in steel production—a material that makes up nearly 80% of our wind turbines—and, of course, there is well-documented abuse in the production of solar panels.

On Report, I was hugely grateful for the Energy Secretary’s commitment to me:

“We have been clear that no company in the UK should have forced labour in its supply chain, and we will be working with colleagues across Government to tackle the issue of the Uyghur forced labour in supply chains”—[Official Report, 29 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 775.]

But too often we have accepted warm words at the Dispatch Box that have failed to materialise.

The Bill is a serious piece of legislation, not least as the Government have committed to capitalising GB Energy with over £8.3 billion. If companies want to benefit from taxpayers’ money, they must be able to prove that their supply chains are free of forced labour. I have tabled amendment (a) to that effect, as it would place the burden of proof on businesses.

Cross-Government working is the only way to end the stagnation in our response to modern slavery. Once slavery is found, we must take action, including by placing rogue companies on the Procurement Act’s debarment list to ban them from winning other public contracts. The public deserve a guarantee that their money will not be used to fund human rights abuses. To quote a Business and Trade Minister, “no company should have abuses in their supply chains”, so I admire Ministers’ resolve to give genuine commitments to root out slavery in their areas of responsibility. When it comes to GBE, my amendment offers a simple, cost-effective method to achieve that. I am glad that the Minister agrees, but for clarity, let me repeat what I believe he has committed to and push him a little further.

Primarily, will the Minister confirm that there will be clarity within GB Energy’s strategic objectives and framework document that designated companies must not use forced labour in any part of their supply chains, and that that needs to be mapped down to raw materials? I am glad that there will be a cross-ministerial working group to work across Departments to tackle slavery in supply chains—that is exactly what needs to happen—and a commitment to leverage the Procurement Act’s debarment list where there is evidence of bidders or suppliers with unethical supply chains. Let us remember that the Act includes discretionary grounds that do not require a conviction. Of course, all of that requires a designated leader within GBE to take accountability.

Finally, I have one more ask: will the Minister prioritise buying British to boost our economy and avoid the risk of reliance on slave-made renewables from international sources? Of course, the issue of modern slavery is bigger than renewables, but we must start somewhere. With a clear path and strong commitments, GB Energy can lead from the front and stop the UK becoming a dumping ground for slave-made goods.

Based on the Minister’s word, and having sought those clarifications, I will not press my amendment. I hope it also satisfies the other place that the Minister has listened and acted to stamp out modern slavery in GB Energy’s future procurement, and I thank the Minister for that.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

Alongside community groups across the country, including Power for People and Community Energy England, I am pleased to welcome the inclusion of community energy and benefits in the Bill through Lords amendment 1. It was possible after all, and I congratulate the Government on taking this step. We Liberal Democrats have pushed hard for that in this House and the other place, but there has been a lot of cross-party working to achieve it, and I am delighted that its inclusion is now enshrined in law. This is a victory for community voices, giving them a real stake in the energy transition through full or partial ownership of local power. Communities like mine in South Cambridgeshire, where many are off grid and struggling with volatile oil prices, want to generate and sell their own green energy locally. It is absurd that that is not possible.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

There are five community energy schemes in my constituency, and they all contribute to local energy supplies. An increase in community energy projects would boost the local economy, as my hon. Friend says, create jobs and reduce energy costs, especially in rural areas. Does she agree that we must go further and create long-term plans to support this type of initiative?

[Pippa Heylings]

I completely agree. The Great British Energy Bill gives a statutory steer that helps us have those long-term plans.

The clean energy transition has to be done with communities, not to communities. I commend the Government for committing an additional £5 million to the community energy fund, bringing certainty at least to its short-term future.

Lords amendment 1 also addresses community benefits, which are critical for taking people with us on this pathway to the energy transition. If communities are to host energy infrastructure, whether for onshore wind or large-scale solar farms, those benefits have to go beyond token gestures such as roofs for scout huts or some apprenticeships. In Scotland, for example, community benefit is worth £5,000 per installed megawatt per year. This means that a controversial large-scale solar project in my constituency, such as the Kingsway solar farm, could provide £2.5 million annually to the local community. That is the scale we should be talking about, and it has to be the community that determines how and where that money is spent.

Lords amendment 12 is also a vital addition to the Bill, requiring GB Energy to keep its impact on sustainable development under review. Credit is due to Baroness Hayman, who fought tirelessly in the other House to ensure that sustainability is embedded in our energy transition through that amendment. We welcome the assurances we have received that in the updated framework agreement, not only will the local economies of coastal communities be taken into consideration, but there will be an explicit climate and nature duty for GB Energy. GB Energy has to consider economic, environmental and social needs, ensuring that future generations can meet their needs.

I would have liked to discuss amendment (a), in the name of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), and amendment (b), in the name of the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), both to Lords amendment 2. Modern slavery is a barbaric practice that should have been eradicated long ago. We look to the promise of our green energy transformation, but it cannot take place at the cost of human rights abuses across the world.

Research from Sheffield Hallam University has directly linked China’s labour transfer programme to the global solar panel supply chain. China produces 40% of the world’s polysilicon and 80% of its solar panels, and right now, 2.7 million Uyghurs are subjected to state detention and forced labour. It is incomprehensible that the Government are seeking to vote down an amendment that would withdraw GB Energy investment from supply chains tainted by forced labour. GB Energy has to set the standard, not muddle along.

There is nothing sufficiently robust in the Bill to ensure that there is no forced labour in this supply chain. The solar taskforce does not have the mandate to ensure that. As we have heard, the Procurement Act 2023 cannot address the issue. This should be an issue not just for the energy sector. The health sector has shown leadership by addressing the matter in the Health and Care Act 2022. The Great British Energy Bill is a key piece of legislation, and measures on forced labour should be part of it.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

This is not just about the practicalities of the need to include these measures. Is it not essential that we show the public that the measures we are promoting to achieve net zero—a cause for which there is overwhelming public support, notwithstanding some parties’ attitudes to our need to get there and when—are not tainted by human rights abuses?

[Pippa Heylings]

I completely agree. That is why the Liberal Democrats will continue to call for restrictions on trade with regions where abuses take place, including Xinjiang, and advocate for Magnitsky-style sanctions against individuals and entities involved in Uyghur persecution. This is about more than Britain. It is about playing our part conscientiously in a global movement to see all human rights abuses stopped.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

I rise to speak in support of my amendment (b) to Lords amendment 2, in my capacity as a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which is undertaking an inquiry on forced labour in UK supply chains. Lords amendment 2, tabled in the Lords by our Chair, Lord Alton of Liverpool, and passed there, seeks to prevent the Secretary of State from providing financial assistance to any company designated “Great British Energy” when there is “credible evidence” of modern slavery in its supply chains. My amendment takes into account some of the arguments made by the Government in the Lords, and seeks to refine the Lords amendment by providing a mechanism for determining “credible evidence”. My amendment empowers the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner to define what constitutes “credible evidence” of supply chain slavery. It is crafted so as to allow the Bill to be as business friendly as possible, while ensuring that it still has teeth. The commissioner is backing this initiative.

18:00

I welcome the Bill. I support the creation of Great British Energy and the Government’s commitment to achieving our net zero ambitions and clean power by 2030, but we must have the highest ethical standards for our solar industry. The British public do not want our net zero future to be built on slave labour. In its report, “Sourcing solar energy without Uyghur forced labour”, Unison stated that all polysilicon manufacturers in the Uyghur region have participated in forced labour transfer programmes, and/or are supplied by raw materials manufacturers that have done so. Multiple UK public sector bodies have been found to procure solar materials from companies sourcing polysilicon from the region. As the UK’s solar capacity is set to double, concerns are mounting that councils and other public service bodies will get locked into long-term contracts with unethical suppliers. We must ensure that our solar supply chain is free from Uyghur slave labour.

A report by the China Strategic Risks Institute estimates that if Beijing were to restrict solar exports, it would cost the UK economy £4.4 billion, raise household energy bills by £155, and stall our path to net zero. It would leave our ability to meet climate goals and protect British consumers at the mercy of decisions made in China. We need only look at the raising of tariffs around the world, including on China, to understand the risks of relying solely on China for polysilicon and solar panels. If GB Energy becomes reliant solely on solar panels from China, we will not just be complicit in human rights abuses, but will create an enormous point of strategic vulnerability in our energy system. That would give the Chinese state a lever of influence over our critical infrastructure, and undermine our sovereignty.

Professor Laura Murphy, who until January this year was senior policy adviser to the United States Department of Homeland Security on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, and is perhaps the world’s leading expert on Xinjiang supply chains, stated:

“From a human rights and climate perspective, the alternative of basing our green energy future on Xinjiang coal’s high carbon emissions and on the forced labour of oppressed communities is a higher and longer-term price to pay.”

If we allow GB Energy to contract with companies that profit from modern slavery, we directly undermine fair competition. No British worker can compete with a system that relies on forced labour. In our manifesto, we pledged secure, well-paid green jobs. My amendment seeks to ensure that British workers are not undercut by Chinese renewables companies that profit from modern slavery, and that GB Energy promotes not only the development of the UK’s renewable sector, but improved human rights conditions for all workers at each point in the supply chain.

It is true that the United States’s legislation has nudged companies to diversify their supply chains, and there is a gradual move away from suppliers using forced labour in the United States. A number of companies have been sanctioned under the Uyghur Forced Labour Prevention Act for using forced labour. The solar taskforce, while a welcome step, is not empowered to assess modern slavery risks in procurement, and neither is it equipped with the anti-slavery expertise necessary to mitigate those risks. The taskforce’s work is coming to a conclusion, so will the Minister outline the steps that will follow that work to ensure a solid mechanism that excludes forced labour products from the solar supply chain?

As my hon. Friend the Minister has stated,

“no UK company should have forced labour in its supply chains”,

and the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero reaffirmed that position. The Secretary of State for Business and Trade gave an “absolute assurance” that “no modern slavery” would be permitted in supply chains affecting UK goods. The amendment simply ensures that those commitments are enforced. Sadly, the current statutory position has not been sufficient to prevent slave-made renewables from entering the UK. More must be done, and the amendment is a modest and business-friendly way to incentivise cleaner supply chains. The Bill presents an opportunity to use the Government’s purchasing power to nudge business in the right direction. This week marks 10 years since the Modern Slavery Act 2015 became law. Once a leader in the fight against modern slavery, we are now in danger of falling behind the US, as I have outlined, and the EU. The amendment presents a credible mechanism for ensuring a clean energy future.

As the Minister outlined, this is just one way of ensuring that we remove forced labour from our supply chains. He raised the prospect of using the Procurement Act 2023, and I welcome what he said, but the Act requires a supplier to be convicted under the Modern Slavery Act 2015, or of an offence in their country relating to forced labour. The nature of forced labour in China means that it is disguised, so those conditions would not be met. Will the welcome cross-departmental working group, which the Minister announced in his opening statement, look at the Procurement Act and ensure that it is fit for purpose? Will the group look at the way that the United States has used a rebuttal presumption for goods from Xinjiang, or at another similar mechanism? As a matter of urgency, will the Minister and his group ensure that we have the powers and expertise to prevent forced labour in our solar panel supply chains? Will he work with trades unions, non-governmental organisations and the Independent Anti-Slavery Commission on this?

Will the Minister meet me and Professor Laura Murphy, who works on this issue at Sheffield Hallam University, as a matter of urgency to explore the detail of how we can ensure a robust system, like the one that she helped to implement in the United States—a robust system not just for GB Energy, but for the whole solar industry? I agree with the Minister that this is not just an issue for GB Energy, but for the whole industry. Will the Minister work with me to get a workable debarment list, so that we can ensure that GB Energy is acting on modern slavery? Will he give a commitment that GB Energy’s operating framework is committed to tackling forced labour? If I get these assurances from the Minister, I am happy to withdraw my amendment and work with the Government’s cross-departmental working group and others to ensure that we can take the scandal of forced labour out of our solar supply chain.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I am grateful to be called at this point, Madam Deputy Speaker. Others will want to speak, so I will be as brief as I possibly can.

As I said earlier, the Minister is incorrect in believing that the Procurement Act gives any protection at all against modern slavery in the supply chain. That is a fact of life that we have known for ages. I was one of those who brought the Modern Slavery Act into being 10 years ago, but at that time we did not understand how bad the situation was in China. Over 90% of polysilicon is made in China, and we know for a fact that 97% of all the solar arrays being sold here contain polysilicon from Xinjiang, which will have been made by slave labour. There is no dispute at all about that.

The question facing the Government is not—[Interruption.] I would be grateful if the Minister could listen. The question facing the Government is not whether they think that modern slavery is good—I do not for one moment accuse them of thinking that. What has gone missing, and what Lord Alton’s amendment focuses on, is recognition that there is no requirement on the Government to deal with slavery in the supply chain, and no way for them to do that. As has been said, America has turned the burden of proof upside down and said, “We assume you have slave labour in your product. You must prove to us that you do not.” That is the only way to deal with this. The Americans then sanction offending companies, but under our legislation, the Government do not have such measures available to them.

The Procurement Act does not even do a whisper of that, because it needs a prosecution to have been mounted under the Modern Slavery Act, and that cannot happen because a company that is an agent for a Chinese-made solar array will not be prosecuted. Under the present laws, only the Chinese company that makes the solar array can be prosecuted. That means that no prosecution will take place; no company in China will be prosecuted by the Chinese Government, because the Chinese Government are the ones who set up this ghastly process. Why? Because it makes their arrays cheaper than anybody else’s in the world. That is how they have pretty much wiped out all other array production in the world. Let us ask ourselves: where will we get our arrays from? The answer is that we cannot get them anywhere else, but if we had to, we would have to pay a lot of money. I understand that there is probably a debate going on in Government about whether we go down that road, which would make arrays awfully expensive.

In conclusion, the Government know the facts. I support amendment (b) to Lords amendment 2; I support the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), who brought it forward for the right reasons; and I support the way in which the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) brought forward her amendment (a) to Lords amendment 2. The Government must act. If we do not act, make forced labour illegal and punish the companies involved in it, directly or as agents, then we will be guilty of increasing slavery in China—that is what tonight’s debate is about.

I am sorry that the Government will get rid of this Lords amendment. They could have done a deal to enhance it or whatever, but now they will have to commit to coming forward with legislation to increase and improve the Act that they already have, which will take another debate. I say to the Government: for goodness’ sake. By the way, I had this issue with my own party when we were in government, and I voted against it; I voted with the Labour party to put this provision in the Health and Care Act 2022. We did that together.

I hope nobody thinks that I am being party political, because I am not. I am sanctioned by the Chinese Government because we raised this issue originally. I say to them that I and many in this House will not stop until the Government face up to one thing and one thing only: not one life through modern slavery is worth a lower cost on a solar array. That should be the epitaph of the ridiculous position that the Government are in.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

As an energy industry professional before entering this place, I am very pleased to see that Great British Energy is making impressive strides. It has secured a landmark partnership with the Crown Estate, and we have seen it commit to more and more solar power, which is much welcomed by my constituents. We have also seen investment in carbon capture and storage clusters in Teesside and Merseyside, bringing thousands of jobs to those areas.

More broadly, I welcome the Government’s move to lift the ban on onshore wind in England and to promote funding in newer, emerging industries, including hydrogen and fusion energy. I also look forward to the Government announcing the winner of the small modular reactor contract at some point over the coming weeks, when I hope that the Government will also place a sizeable order.

As we advance towards a future of clean, secure, home-grown energy, we must ensure that that future is built on principles of justice and respect for human rights. I will therefore speak to Lords amendment 2. Since being elected last year as the Member of Parliament for Rushcliffe, I have been contacted by constituents voicing their concerns about what is happening in the Xinjiang Uyghur autonomous region of China. In 2021, Sir Geoffrey Nice KC delivered the Uyghur tribunal’s judgment here in London deeming that the Chinese Government’s policies amounted to

“a deliberate, systematic and concerted policy”

to bring about

“long-term reduction of Uyghur and other ethnic minority populations”.

I am afraid that forced labour is being used as a key instrument in this campaign of oppression.

More than 1 million Uyghurs have been detained in re-education camps, and many are transferred to work in factories, mines and fields under barbaric conditions. As has been mentioned, some of those factories produce polysilicon, which is a critical component in 95% of the world’s solar panels. On that basis, it is estimated that around 40% of the UK solar industry may be at risk of sourcing materials tainted by this state-sponsored forced labour. That is why I believe this House has a responsibility to ask hard questions, as these Lords amendments have done. If we are to stand as a country that champions both human rights and climate action, we must ensure that our clean energy future is not built on the backs of exploited peoples.

The choices we make on legislation such as this on who receives British taxpayers’ money and what standards we demand in procurement are not abstract: they are ultimately a measure of whether we are willing to trade convenience for complicity. It is therefore right that we always examine how supply chains operate. It is right that we consider how credible evidence of forced labour should be defined and who is best placed to determine that. It is right that we reflect on whether our current legal frameworks are sufficient.

As has been mentioned, the Modern Slavery Act 2015 was groundbreaking at the time, but it lacks the teeth to tackle the forced labour taking place in Xinjiang. In that context, we should note the steps taken across the Atlantic. In June, it will be three years since the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act took effect in the United States, and I believe similar resolve is needed here in the United Kingdom. We should expedite updating and strengthening our modern slavery legislation in the light of Great British Energy’s ambitious plans. The Uyghur people, and others facing slavery around the world, deserve to know that Britain will not turn a blind eye. We cannot end all injustice, but we can ensure that our laws, procurement policies and public financing do not sustain atrocities. I therefore implore the Government to listen to Members on the Labour and Opposition Benches today. I thank the Minister for the significant steps he has already outlined, and ask him to reassure us once more that the relevant steps will be taken to prevent Great British Energy from in any way contributing to promoting or sustaining known atrocities.

18:15

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

I appreciate that a number of Members still want to speak, so I will keep my comments short. The Government’s refusal to support Lords amendment 2 shows the absolutism of their net zero and energy policies. The amendment is not only sensible but morally correct, and in voting against it, the Government are signalling that their ambition to reach net zero trumps everything else. Can that really be correct? If we cannot support those who are suffering from modern slavery, what are we doing? Is the rush to net zero really worth that?

Net zero is intended to prevent people on this planet from going down a route towards a planet that is not inhabitable—that is what we have been sold. What are we saving the planet for, if not to enable people to work in a safe, secure way? We cannot sacrifice that; we cannot condone forced labour by selling our morals to China in order to rush towards net zero. The Uyghur Muslims in China do not have a safe, secure place to work. They are oppressed, and by not supporting Lords amendment 2, the Government are supporting that oppression. We have rightly condemned slavery in the past. The Government have rightly condemned past slavery, but they are now happy to condone forced labour in China.

It is an unbelievable situation that we find ourselves in, but we are getting used to this sort of behaviour from the Government. We have seen the heartless policies that they have implemented since they came to power, whether that is the family farm tax, the tax on jobs that is putting people out of work, or taxing children’s hospices, which the Government have voted for this afternoon. By not supporting Lords amendment 2, the Government are effectively saying that they are happy to turn a blind eye to modern slavery across the world. That is something that Conservative Members cannot possibly support. Until July last year, those in the Labour party were happy to promote their morals, but it seems that those morals were left in front of the last door they knocked on in July.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

With the leave of the House, I call the Minister.

[Michael Shanks]

With the leave of the House, I will sum up the debate. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions to this debate, although it has been short, on a number of the amendments but perhaps most importantly on forced labour and modern slavery in our economy. I want to reflect on some of the contributions from Members on both sides of the House, but let me start by saying that I hear the very strong views that have been expressed on this issue. It is right that Governments of whatever party constantly challenge themselves to go further in tackling these issues, because—as the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) put it—even one person being affected by forced labour is an absolute disgrace. We should collectively tackle that issue using whatever means we can.

As such, I want to reiterate clearly that contrary to some of the contributions we have heard from Conservative Members, Lords amendment 2 is about amending the Great British Energy Bill, not about the Government’s wider commitment to tackling modern slavery. It can be repeated as often as Conservative Members like, but it is simply disingenuous to come to this place and suggest that the Labour party has suddenly decided not to care about this issue. I really do take issue with that.

[Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Michael Shanks]

The right hon. Gentleman was not in the Chamber for a lot of the debate, but I will give way to him.

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

I think the Minister would accept that Lords amendment 2 is a very modest proposal that could make a significant difference to people’s lives and outcomes in China. There is talk of Labour buying off its Back Benchers by saying that further legislation is coming down the line—is that in six months’ time, a year’s time, or two years’ time? When is it going to come?

[Michael Shanks]

First, the right hon. Gentleman cares so much about the issue that he has only just turned up to the debate. Secondly, he was a senior member of the Government for 14 years. If this was an issue that he cared about so much, why are we here debating it now? The truth is that the previous Government could have tackled this issue in a much clearer way. I will not follow him on that point.

As I said clearly in opening the debate, which I do not think the right hon. Gentleman was here for, there should no modern slavery anywhere in our economy or our supply chains. To deliver, we must work across Government and across the economy, because it is not just about the investments that Great British Energy makes.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Michael Shanks]

I will give way briefly to my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer), and then I need to finish.

[Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)]

The Modern Slavery Act 2015 and the Procurement Act 2023 do not work in this area. To do anything, two criteria must be met, and they are only advisory. In the World Health Organisation, we had to prove that organ harvesting was not an “ethical organ transplant system”, and we cannot get to the supply chains, which are state-invented, state-imposed and disguised. I urge the Minister to give a commitment that he will listen to the argument in these two amendments.

[Michael Shanks]

I understand the argument that my hon. Friend is making, but the issues she rightly highlights, as other Members have, go much wider than Great British Energy, which the Bill sets up as a publicly owned energy company. Those issues are about the wider economy and investment across our supply chains.

[Sammy Wilson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Michael Shanks]

I need to close. I am sorry.

In part, we are setting up Great British Energy because we want to deliver home-grown supply chains and an industrial strategy, in spite of the Conservative party having completely failed to deliver that for 14 years—in fact, it had a complete ignorance of how to build supply chains. Had it delivered on some of the supply chains in this country, we might not have to import so much. [Interruption.] Opposition Members can shout all they want; they know that they failed on this matter, and we are picking up the pieces.

For those Members who were in the debate, I want to respond to the points raised, in particular in the powerful speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion). On her point about how widespread the problem of forced labour is, that underlines why a piecemeal approach, legislating on individual companies here and there, is not the right one. We need to work across Government to tackle the problem throughout the economy. She asked for clarity on some of the points made. She is right to reiterate the point that I intend to pull together Ministers from across Government, including the Foreign Office, the Home Office, the Department for Business and Trade and my Department, to look at how we can collectively tackle the issue. There will be a designated leader within Great British Energy to drive this work forward. We will utilise the debarment list.

More broadly, we fully expect Great British Energy to do everything in its power under the relevant guidance and legislation to remove any instances of forced labour from supply chains. GBE must not approve the use of products from companies that may be linked to forced labour.

This is an important debate on a Bill that was in our manifesto. It delivers the first new national publicly-owned energy generation company in 75 years. It is backed by the British public, and it will deliver jobs and investment all over the country. It will deliver the deployment of clean power. We will tackle the supply chains to ensure that jobs come to this country and that we tackle the scourge of modern slavery, not just through GBE but across the economy. That is our commitment. I urge Members to support the Government’s position. In the 15 seconds I have left, I reiterate the point I made earlier: I am willing to work with Members across the House to tackle this fundamental issue, which is of extreme importance across the Government.

18:24

One hour having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on the Lords amendments, the proceedings were interrupted (Programme Order, this day).

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83F).

Lords Amendment 1 agreed to.

Clause 4

Financial assistance

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 2.—(Michael Shanks.)

18:24

Division 150

Ayes: 314

Noes: 198

Lords amendment 2 disagreed to.

Lords amendments 3 to 12 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived in respect of Lords amendment 11.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83H(2)), That a Committee be appointed to draw up a Reason to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing with their amendment 2;

That Michael Shanks, Anna Turley, Chris McDonald, Luke Myer, Luke Murphy, Andrew Bowie and Susan Murray be members of the Committee;

That Michael Shanks be the Chair of the Committee;

That three be the quorum of the Committee.

That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Gen Kitchen.)

Question agreed to.

Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 14 October 2024 (Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill: Programme):

Consideration of Lords Amendments

(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

Subsequent stages

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

(3) 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.—(Gen Kitchen.)

Question agreed to.