Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill Committee: Amendment 1
161Ayes
272Noes
Defeated · majority 111 · Government won211 did not vote
644 Members · Aye 161 · No 272 · DNV 211 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
Parliament defeated Amendment 1 to the Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill on 23 February 2026, by 272 votes to 161. The amendment, tabled by Sir Iain Duncan Smith, would have prohibited UK Export Finance from making any financial commitments in support of exports where the Secretary of State had reason to believe that modern slavery or human trafficking was likely to be present in the supply chain of the recipient business, in effect capping that support at zero in such cases. The vote matters because the Bill nearly doubles UK Export Finance's statutory commitment limit from approximately £84 billion to £160 billion, substantially expanding the public money available to back British exports. Had the amendment passed, that expanded capacity would have been unavailable for any export deal linked to a supply chain the Secretary of State suspected of involving forced labour. Supporters argued this would have aligned UKEF with anti-slavery protections already applied to other public bodies, including the National Health Service procurement rules under the Health and Care Act 2022 and provisions in the Great British Energy Act 2025. Opponents, including the government, voted it down, preferring to keep the Bill narrow and address supply chain standards separately. The vote divided almost entirely on party lines. All 246 Labour MPs and 26 Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted opposed the amendment. Every Conservative, Liberal Democrat, SNP, Reform UK, Democratic Unionist Party, Plaid Cymru, and Green MP who voted supported it, along with four independents. One Labour MP voted for the amendment. The government's position held, but the cross-party breadth of support for the amendment, drawn from both left and right of the House, reflects a recurring pattern in this parliamentary session of backbench pressure to attach ethical conditions to the expansion of public financial powers.
Voting Aye meant
Support barring government-backed export finance from benefiting businesses whose supply chains involve modern slavery or human trafficking, on ethical grounds that taxpayers should not underwrite exploitation.
Voting No meant
Oppose the amendment, likely on the grounds that existing safeguards are sufficient or that embedding a hard zero-cap in statute is unworkable, preferring to keep the Bill narrow and address supply chain standards separately.
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
1
246
114
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
78
0
38
Liberal Democrats
Whipped Aye
52
0
19
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped No
0
26
16
Independent
—
4
3
6
Scottish National Party
Whipped Aye
6
0
3
Reform UK
Whipped Aye
5
0
3
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
5
0
0
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped Aye
4
0
0
Plaid Cymru
Whipped Aye
4
0
0
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
0
0
2
Your Party
—
2
0
0
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
—
0
0
1
Restore Britain
—
0
0
1
Speaker
—
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
—
1
0
0
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
Supports the Bill to increase financial assistance limits and backs UK Export Finance's existing human rights and environmental oversight; rejects amendments as duplicative of current safeguards but commits to ongoing responsible business conduct review.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (2,569 words) →
Supports the Bill's principles but proposes amendments to prevent export finance where goods may be re-exported to sanctioned destinations and to require annual steel industry impact reporting for transparency and accountability.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,692 words) →
Strongly advocates for amendments to prohibit UKEF support for businesses with modern slavery or human trafficking in supply chains, citing past failures where UKEF funded sanctioned Chinese entities and calling for zero-tolerance legislative approach.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,344 words) →
Argues Northern Ireland faces unequal treatment under Windsor Framework EU state aid rules and proposes new clause for annual transparency reporting showing how financial assistance is distributed across UK nations.DUP · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,468 words) →
Supports the Bill but advocates for amendments on annual reporting of impact on GDP, SMEs and EU trade; expresses concern that UKEF's eligibility criteria lock out first-time exporters and that structural barriers to EU trade remain unaddressed.Liberal Democrat · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,477 words) →
Supports the Bill but raises practical concerns about SME access to trade finance, downstream steel processors being overlooked, and defence exporters' access to finance amid ESG-related restrictions.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (280 words) →
Supports new clause 1 for transparency, arguing Northern Ireland faces economic disadvantage due to Windsor Framework constraints and Irish Sea border, requiring equal access to state aid as rest of UK.DUP · Voted aye · Read full speech (932 words) →
Supports amendments on modern slavery safeguards, noting inconsistency with protections already established in health and energy sectors; calls for alignment across government.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (298 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0