Great British Energy Bill: Motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 2
314
Ayes
—
198
Noes
Passed · Government won
135 did not vote
Analysis
Commons
Commons
**What happened** On 25 March 2025, the House of Commons voted 314 to 198 to disagree with Lords Amendment 2 to the Great British Energy Bill. This motion rejected a change inserted by the House of Lords that would have prevented the Secretary of State from providing financial assistance to any company designated as Great British Energy if there was credible evidence of modern slavery in its supply chains. By passing this motion, the Commons returned the Bill to the Lords without that amendment, advancing the legislation broadly as the Government intended. **Why it matters** The vote keeps Great British Energy on track to be established as a state-owned clean energy company without a statutory restriction on funding tied to modern slavery findings in supply chains. In practical terms, this means Great British Energy will not face an automatic funding cutoff when credible evidence of forced labour is identified among its suppliers. Critics argued this leaves a moral gap, particularly given that a significant proportion of solar panels and components used in renewable energy infrastructure rely on polysilicon produced in Xinjiang, China, where forced labour involving Uyghurs is widely documented. Supporters of the Government's position argued that the Lords amendment was too blunt an instrument, as it would have halted all of Great British Energy's activities rather than targeting specific supply chain relationships, and that existing tools such as the Procurement Act 2023 and a solar taskforce already address these concerns. **The politics** The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs voted overwhelmingly in favour of rejecting the Lords amendment, providing the Government's majority of 314. All 101 voting Conservative MPs, all 63 voting Liberal Democrats, all eight voting Scottish National Party MPs, all five voting Reform UK MPs, all five Democratic Unionist Party MPs, all four voting Plaid Cymru MPs, and all four voting Green Party MPs voted against the Government's motion, supporting the Lords amendment. Two Labour backbenchers, Sarah Champion (Rotherham) and Alex Sobel, tabled their own amendments to Lords Amendment 2 seeking to refine rather than simply reject it, reflecting genuine unease on the Labour benches about the modern slavery issue, though the Government ultimately pressed ahead with straightforward disagreement. The Bill represents a central Labour manifesto commitment, and this vote forms part of the ping-pong process between the two chambers as the legislation moves toward Royal Assent.
Voting Aye meant
Support the government rejecting the Lords forced labour supply chain amendment, trusting existing procurement rules and the Modern Slavery Act to address the issue without adding new statutory duties to Great British Energy
Voting No meant
Support the Lords amendment requiring Great British Energy to actively ensure its supply chains are free from forced labour, particularly given concerns about Chinese solar panel manufacturing relying on Uyghur slave labour
512 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 135 who did not vote.
Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped Aye
285
1
76
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
101
15
Liberal DemocratsWhipped No
0
63
9
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye
27
0
15
Independent
1
6
6
Scottish National PartyWhipped No
0
8
1
Reform UKWhipped No
0
5
2
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
5
—
Green Party of England and WalesWhipped No
0
4
—
Plaid CymruWhipped No
0
4
—
Social Democratic and Labour Party
0
0
2
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
0
0
1
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
0
1
—
Ulster Unionist Party
0
1
—
Your Party
0
1
—
Supports tackling modern slavery but opposes Lords amendment 2 as too narrow; proposes government-wide coordination, a designated leader in GBE, debarment lists, and strategic priorities instead of a blanket funding ban.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (3,949 words) →
Strongly opposed to GBE relying on Chinese technology and solar panels tainted by Uyghur forced labour; backs Lords amendment 2 and criticises Labour for trading moral principles for net-zero targets.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (1,048 words) →
Tabled amendment (a) to create a cross-ministerial taskforce to prove supply chains are free of forced labour; accepts government commitments and withdraws amendment but demands accountability mechanisms.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (850 words) →
Argues the Procurement Act lacks teeth because it requires conviction under Modern Slavery Act, which cannot happen when Chinese government operates forced labour; backs Lords amendment 2 and calls for burden-of-proof reversal like the US.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (1,025 words) →
Tabled amendment (b) empowering the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner to define 'credible evidence'; supports Lords amendment 2 in principle and requests government work on robust debarment mechanisms.Labour · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (214 words) →
Welcomes community energy amendments but criticises government for voting down modern slavery restrictions; notes solar industry heavily relies on Xinjiang polysilicon and calls for Magnitsky-style sanctions.Liberal Democrat · Voted no · Read full speech (955 words) →
Supports GBE's energy projects but argues government must ensure clean energy is not built on exploitation; asks for reassurance that GBE will not contribute to sustaining atrocities.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (870 words) →
Condemns government refusal to support Lords amendment 2 as showing net-zero absolutism trumps human rights; accuses government of condoning forced labour.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (445 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0