Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill Committee: New Clause 2
156Ayes
273Noes
Defeated · majority 117 · Government won215 did not vote
644 Members · Aye 156 · No 273 · DNV 215 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
MPs voted on New Clause 2 to the Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill on 23 February 2026, during a Committee of the whole House. The new clause, linked to Amendments 1 and 2, would have barred UK Export Finance from supporting exports where the Secretary of State had reason to believe modern slavery or human trafficking were present in the supply chain of the business receiving the exported goods, capping any financial commitment in such cases at zero. It was defeated by 273 votes to 156. The Bill's main purpose is to raise statutory financial caps: it lifts UK Export Finance's commitment limit from roughly £84 billion to £160 billion, and increases the industrial assistance aggregate cap from £12 billion to £20 billion. New Clause 2 would have placed an ethical condition on that expanded capacity, preventing taxpayer-backed export finance from underwriting businesses whose supply chains involve forced labour or trafficking. Supporters framed it as a straightforward ethical boundary; opponents, including the government, preferred existing safeguards over a legislative zero-cap written into this Bill. The vote divided almost entirely along government versus opposition lines. All 247 Labour MPs and all 26 Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted backed the No lobby. Against them, 78 Conservatives, 52 Liberal Democrats, 6 SNP, 5 Reform UK, 5 DUP, 4 Plaid Cymru, and 4 independents voted Aye, with one Labour MP also voting Aye. The amendment was tabled by Sir Iain Duncan Smith, a Conservative, who drew cross-party support from the Liberal Democrats, smaller parties, and the MP for St Helens South and Whiston. An earlier related division on Amendment 1 on the same day produced a similar result: 161 Ayes to 272 Noes.
Voting Aye meant
Support banning government-backed export finance where supply chains involve modern slavery or human trafficking, ensuring taxpayers do not underwrite exploitation.
Voting No meant
Oppose writing the modern slavery restriction into this Bill, preferring existing safeguards or separate legislation rather than a zero-cap on export finance commitments.
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
247
113
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
—
0
0
4
Plaid Cymru
Whipped Aye
4
0
0
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
0
0
2
Your Party
—
1
0
1
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