Great British Energy Bill: Motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 2
314Ayes
198Noes
Carried · majority 116 · Government won135 did not vote
647 Members · Aye 314 · No 198 · DNV 135 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
MPs voted 314 to 198 on 25 March 2025 to reject Lords Amendment 2 to the Great British Energy Bill, which would have required Great British Energy to ensure its supply chains were free from forced labour. The government motion to disagree with the Lords passed, meaning the statutory supply-chain requirement was removed from the Bill before it received Royal Assent. The amendment had sought to prevent GBE's planned £8.3 billion of public investment from financing products, particularly solar panels and wind turbine steel, made using forced labour, with particular concern focused on Uyghur workers in Xinjiang, China. By voting to reject it, MPs confirmed that GBE will not face a specific statutory duty on forced-labour supply chains; the government argued that existing modern slavery legislation and updated Home Office guidance published the previous day were sufficient protections. Labour MPs voted almost unanimously in favour of rejecting the Lords amendment, with only one dissenting vote recorded. Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, the SNP, Reform UK, the DUP, Plaid Cymru and the Greens all voted against the government. The vote reflects a broader tension in the Bill's passage between the government's determination to establish GBE quickly to meet its clean power targets and cross-party concern, also raised by Labour MPs Sarah Champion and Alex Sobel through their own proposed amendments, that the renewable energy transition risks relying on supply chains tainted by human rights abuses.
Voting Aye meant
Support the government rejecting the Lords amendment, arguing existing modern slavery legislation and new Home Office guidance adequately address forced labour in supply chains without creating additional statutory burdens on GBE.
Voting No meant
Support the Lords amendment requiring GBE to exclude forced-labour supply chains, arguing warm ministerial words are insufficient and that billions of public funds must not finance products — particularly solar panels and wind turbine steel — made using Uyghur forced labour in China.
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 Aye
284
1
76
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
101
15
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
62
9
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
27
0
15
Independent
—
2
6
5
Scottish National Party
Whipped No
0
8
1
Reform UK
Whipped No
0
5
2
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
5
0
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped No
0
4
0
Plaid Cymru
Whipped No
0
4
0
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
0
0
2
Your Party
—
0
2
0
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
—
0
0
1
Restore Britain
—
0
0
1
Speaker
—
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
—
0
1
0
Ulster Unionist Party
—
0
1
0
Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed
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