Great British Energy Bill

Commons Reason

16:34:00

Motion A

Moved by

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. I turn to the amendments. Amendment 2B, tabled in my name, relates to Clause 3 and makes clear that addressing forced labour in Great British Energy’s supply chains is within the scope of the objects of the company. I recognise the breadth of concern across Parliament on this issue—I pay tribute in particular to the outstanding work of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, in this area—particularly on how Great British Energy will tackle forced labour in its own supply chains. That is why the amendment has been tabled. It makes clear that Great British Energy is committed to adopting measures so that it can act on any evidence of forced labour in its supply chains, as we would expect of any responsible company. The amendment will strengthen our existing framework and demonstrate the commitment of both Great British Energy and the Government to maintaining supply chains that are free from forced labour. To ensure the effectiveness of this approach, GBE will respond to and take action on any identified issues or concerns that arise relating to forced labour, including any raised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The amendment is in addition to the expectation that Great British Energy is to be a sector leader in tackling forced labour, as will be outlined in the statement of strategic priorities. These measures will ensure that Great British Energy can and will prioritise doing everything in its power to remove instances of forced labour from its supply chains. I turn to Amendment 2C, to which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, will speak in a moment. I thank him for taking the time and effort to develop and table his amendment and for the continued engagement I have been able to have with him over the weeks since this Bill left your Lordships’ House. The Government wholeheartedly agree on the importance of tackling modern slavery in energy supply chains and are committed to tackling the issue. I recognise the drafting skill of the noble Lord in bringing the original amendment, the wording of which is remarkably familiar to me. I think the amendments are very much in the same frame, but the reason we have come forward with our own wording is that officials looking at the language of his amendment have identified one or two issues. First, the language suggesting “the eradication of goods and services” is unsuitable as it may be interpreted as the physical destruction of goods or services. We think the focus should be on ensuring that Great British Energy takes all reasonable measures to develop energy supply chains free from forced labour. I can assure the House that following positive discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, we accept that Great British Energy’s role in tackling forced labour in its supply chains could be made explicit in the Bill’s objectives, and that is exactly why I have tabled my own amendment. In conclusion, I am very grateful to noble Lords who have taken part on this issue. Again, I particularly acknowledge the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell. We have listened very carefully to what noble Lords have said. I believe the amendment I have brought accords with the principle of the debates that we have had in your Lordships’ House, and I beg to move. Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)

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. It is therefore a matter of great personal satisfaction and a tribute to your Lordships’ House and the other place that the Government have agreed to legislate to introduce new measures to cleanse our supply chains of modern slavery. It would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to Luke de Pulford and IPAC’s work, together with the support of UNISON, the anti-slavery commissioner, Anti-Slavery International and Unseen.

16:45:00

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.

The Minister would think it passing strange if I did not try to extract a commitment before I sat down. The government amendment seems well constructed, but I would value his reassurance that GBE would be failing in its duty to ensure that, as the amendment says,

“slavery and human trafficking is not taking place in its business or supply chains”

if it relied on criminal convictions for those offences in China or elsewhere. Such convictions are improbable and would render the amendment useless. I would welcome the opportunity to consult his department, together with experts, on what meaningful measures the Government could employ to achieve their laudable aim. I have been in touch with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and share his view on the importance of engaging with like-minded nations to ensure a comprehensive approach to combating slavery in our supply chains and using technology—a point made only last week by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who is in his place—to assist in exposing the origins of commodities.

I thank the Minister and ask him to confirm that the Government will think carefully before giving the Solar Stewardship Initiative a role in determining the integrity of GBE supply chains. This is in the light of the Solar Stewardship Initiative giving JA Solar a clean bill of health following the sanctioning of that company by the US Government—it will soon be reported that JA Solar is continuing to source from Xinjiang—and on the basis that the SSI has serious questions to answer about its ability to verify human rights standards.

I again thank the Government for their willingness to engage, listen and ultimately act. I thank the many colleagues across both Houses who have made common cause in defence of those who have no voice. Together, we have begun to lay the foundations for a green future that is truly just for people as well as for the planet. With that, I assure the House that I will not seek a Division on my amendment. Although I beg to move, I will not seek to test the opinion of the House when the appropriate moment comes but will simply support the Government in the admirable amendment laid by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.

My Lords, I support the government amendment that has been negotiated and agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Alton. The Liberal Democrats very much welcome the step by the Government to ban solar panels linked to Chinese slave labour from Great British Energy’s supply chains. It is a decision born of pressure from members of all political parties and the sheer strength of feeling across both Houses. I am thankful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for bringing these issues, and to the Minister and his Bill team for taking the time to meet me and others. I am thankful for their careful consideration and determination to find a way forward. Compromise in politics is not a weakness; it is essential and a strength, and it makes for better legislation. Rightly, this amendment has been widely welcomed in the industry. On these Benches, we are clear that our net-zero ambitions cannot and must not be built on the back of slave labour. We have always argued that GB Energy needs to lead by example, as a state-supported company. Equally, we do not wish to see GB Energy operating at a disadvantage compared with other companies that are also in receipt of government funds in the form of contracts for difference. Last week, the UK Government hosted the International Energy Agency summit on energy security, in a world that has changed literally since we last met, with tariffs, soaring electrical demand, restrictions on the trade of rare earth minerals, cyberattacks, and physical attacks on energy infrastructure. Our energy security is our national security, and our policies and understanding of what energy security means in practice have not been fully adequate. As the head of the International Energy Agency rightly said last week, green technology “should really be produced in a socially and environmentally acceptable way”. It should not be built on the backs of slave labour and exploitation. For far too long, we have allowed our supply chains to be tainted by credible evidence of modern slavery. Yes, this has radically reduced the prices of solar panels, but at what human cost? This amendment, to my mind, marks a real turning point, and one of significance. It forces a difficult balance between the need to speed towards our net-zero ambitions and the ethical imperative to avoid complicity in human rights abuses. We believe that the ethical choice—the choice to stand against modern slavery—must prevail. We must engage and co-operate where we can with China but, equally, we must start from a position of strength and from clear moral grounds. Great British Energy will now be a sector leader in developing ethical supply chains, and I welcome its recent appointments in this regard. However, we must ensure that this ban does not unfairly disadvantage GB Energy in comparison with other operators. Can the Government continue to look at this disparity? We must work to ensure this does not damage the rollout of community energy programmes. Critically, the real, long-term solution is not simply in policing imports; it is in developing our own capacity. We need a real, concerted effort to develop and grow our fledgling domestic solar panel manufacturing capacity. How can GB Energy help with that? We must also work with our European allies to build manufacturing capacity and resilient and ethical supply chains. We urge the Government to bring forward a comprehensive plan detailing how they will support domestic manufacturing and foster international collaboration to reduce our reliance on potentially tainted imports. Could the Minister outline in more detail what the relaunched Solar Taskforce will do to identify and develop these resilient and sustainable supply chains, free from forced labour? Crucially, when can the House expect more detailed plans from the Government on how this diversification and domestic supply development will be achieved? This amendment is a vital step, but it must be the beginning and not the end of our efforts. We must ensure that our clean energy future is built on a foundation of ethical sourcing, strong domestic industry and international co-operation.

My Lords, we welcome the Government’s decision to listen to the constructive challenge from this House and improve the Bill by ensuring that Great British Energy supply chains are not associated with modern slavery in China. I give my thanks and gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool. Without his careful consideration and persistence in raising this issue, we would not have achieved such a positive change to this legislation. The amendment to the Bill serves as a simple yet essential safeguard. It ensures that public funds will not support companies tainted by modern slavery in their energy supply chains. The UK has stood against forced labour and exploitation for many years. If this Government are serious about their transition to clean energy, which they refer to as being just, we must ensure that Great British Energy, as a publicly backed entity, operates to the highest moral and legal standards. There is clear precedent for this approach. The Modern Slavery Act 2015 requires companies to take responsibility for their supply chains. Yet we know that modern slavery remains a serious issue in the global energy sector, particularly in sourcing solar panels, batteries and raw materials such as lithium and cobalt. If there is credible evidence of modern slavery in a supply chain, public funding must not flow to that company. This is a basic ethical standard. It is also a matter of economic resilience, because reliance on unethical supply chains creates risks for businesses, investors and the public. Therefore, this amendment strengthens the integrity of our energy policy. It aligns our economic ambition with our moral obligations, and it sends a clear message that Britain’s clean energy future must be built on ethical foundations. To conclude, I once again thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, and the many other noble Lords who supported him in securing this powerful victory. This positive change to the Bill serves as a testament to the integral role of this House in scrutinising and ultimately improving legislation.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Offord, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I totally agree with the point that we have reached what I call a strong consensus around this issue. I am grateful to noble Lords for supporting the process of reaching agreement across the House and in the other place. I will reconfirm what the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has said: he has met the chair of Great British Energy, Jürgen Maier, who has stated that, as a publicly owned company, it is only right that GB Energy is an exemplar of ethical and moral supply chain practices. That must be the answer to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, when he pondered whether we were putting GBE at a disadvantage. I understand the point that he is making, but I prefer to see this in a positive light: that GBE will be an exemplar and, I believe, will influence the market to the good. I am therefore confident that we will not have the potential problem that he has rightly identified.

17:00:00

I pay tribute to the previous Government for the passage of the Modern Slavery Act. It was a very important piece of legislation. Obviously, the landscape has changed since then. We are committed to improving our response to modern slavery and are looking at the options at the moment, both legislative and non-legislative, to strengthen transparency requirements. We will set out our conclusions and next steps in due course, but we understand the importance of moving on from the foundational legislation that we had.

We understand the point that noble Lords have made about developing a UK supply chain. We are already fast-tracking investment in domestic offshore wind supply chains and are looking at other opportunities as well. Of course I take that point from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, about criminal convictions being taken as the only evidence of modern slavery. The point is that we expect UK businesses to do everything in their power to remove any instances of forced labour from their supply chain, which does not need to rely solely on convictions as evidence. New measures in the Procurement Act strengthen the rules on disregarding bids and excluding suppliers where there is evidence of modern slavery. This would apply even in circumstances where there has not yet been a conviction or breach of an international treaty.

The Solar Stewardship Initiative has the power to deny certification to businesses whose supply chains have credible evidence of links to forced labour and can revoke a company’s membership if they do not implement changes. In the light of what the noble Lord said, I give the assurance that we will identify where further action is needed. I am obviously happy to look into the specifics of the case that he mentioned.

On working with international partners, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, raised, we will absolutely continue to work with them to build up diverse and robust energy supply chains around the world.

In conclusion, I thank noble Lords for their support for the approach that we are taking. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton.

My Lords, I do not need to say anything further than that I withdraw the amendment I tabled. I thank the Minister for the response that he has given to the House. I commend the Government’s amendment to the House.

Motion A1 withdrawn.

Motion A agreed.