A divisionDivision No. 26 · Tuesday, 29 October 2024· Commons· Energy

Great British Energy Bill Report Stage: Amendment 8

115Ayes
361Noes
Defeated · majority 246 · Government won
172 did not vote
Aye116No362DID NOT VOTE · 172

648 Members · Aye 115 · No 361 · DNV 172 · grey dots in centre are abstentions

Analysis
Commons

Parliament voted on 29 October 2024 on Amendment 8 to the Great British Energy Bill during its Report stage (the detailed scrutiny stage in the Commons). The amendment, tabled by the Conservatives, sought to require the government to demonstrate that Great British Energy would deliver on specific pre-election promises: cutting household energy bills by £300 and creating 650,000 jobs. The amendment was defeated by 361 votes to 115. The result means no numerical accountability targets for the £300 bill reduction or 650,000 jobs figure will be written into the Bill. Great British Energy will instead operate under the statutory objects already set out in the legislation, covering clean energy production, energy efficiency, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and securing energy supply, without being legally required to meet the specific figures the Labour Party cited before the general election. Households and workers in the energy sector are the groups most directly affected by whether those targets are eventually met, though the vote settles only the question of whether they are enshrined in law, not whether they will be pursued. The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 316 voting Labour MPs and all 36 voting Labour and Co-operative MPs opposed the amendment. All 100 voting Conservatives supported it, joined by all six voting Reform UK MPs, all five voting Democratic Unionist Party MPs, and a handful of independents. No Labour rebels voted with the Conservatives. The amendment sits within a broader Conservative effort at this stage of the Bill to attach measurable commitments to the government's flagship energy company, and the debate formed part of a wider political argument about pre-election promises made during the 2024 campaign.

Voting Aye meant
Support holding the government to its specific pre-election energy promises by requiring measurable accountability for the £300 bill reduction and 650,000 jobs targets within the Great British Energy framework.
Voting No meant
Oppose adding prescriptive delivery requirements to the Bill, trusting that GBE's statutory objectives and strategic priorities are sufficient to deliver lower bills and clean energy jobs without rigid numerical mandates.
§ 01Who voted how.476 voting Members · 172 absent

Each row is one party. The stacked bar gives the within-party split of Aye / No / Absent; the columns on the right give the raw counts. The whip column shows the published party position — “Free vote” means the whip was formally removed for this division.

Party
Whip
Aye / No / Abs
Aye
No
Abs
Labour Party
Whipped No
0
316
45
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
100
0
16
Liberal Democrats
0
0
71
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped No
0
36
6
Independent
3
6
5
Scottish National Party
0
0
9
Reform UK
Whipped Aye
6
0
1
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
5
0
0
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped No
0
3
1
Plaid Cymru
0
0
4
Social Democratic and Labour Party
0
0
2
Your Party
0
1
1
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
0
0
1
Restore Britain
1
0
0
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
0
0
1
Ulster Unionist Party
1
0
0

Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed

§ 02From the debate.6 principal speakers
Victoria CollinsSupportiveHarpenden and Berkhamsted
Supports expanding Bill scope to retail, manufacturing, local government, elections and political parties; calls for digital sovereignty strategy to reduce reliance on US cloud providers and prioritise British tech procurement.Liberal Democrats · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (5,465 words)
Dame Chi OnwurahSupportiveNewcastle upon Tyne Central and West
Backs selective expansion to large retail businesses (£12bn+ revenue threshold) and calls for review of foreign state-owned cellular IoT providers; concerned about public sector lock-in to AWS and Microsoft.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (2,828 words)
Sir Iain Duncan SmithSupportiveChingford and Woodford Green
Supports the Bill but champions Amendment 3 to prohibit data-sharing with countries lacking fair trial guarantees; warns against treating totalitarian states as normal commercial actors.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (2,958 words)
Matt WesternSupportiveWarwick and Leamington
Agrees with concerns on Jimmy Lai, Jagtar Singh Johal, and IoT kill switches in critical infrastructure; supports human rights safeguards in data-sharing.Labour · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (1,686 words)
Peter FortuneQuestioningBromley and Biggin Hill
Questions practical feasibility of digital sovereignty strategy given prevalence of Taiwanese chips in tech supply chains.Unknown · Voted aye · Read full speech (32 words)
Jim ShannonSupportiveStrangford
Urges integration of Belfast's cyber-security sector (2,750 employees, £258m GVA) into national cyber strategy and calls for use of British tech firms by government.Unknown · Voted aye · Read full speech (103 words)
§ 03Related divisions.Same topic · recent
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0