The British Parliament has once again debated the GB Energy Bill, a key piece of legislation aimed at establishing a publicly-owned energy company. While much of the discussion focused on the broader objectives of GB Energy, a significant point of contention was a Lords amendment seeking to prevent the new company from using solar panels and other energy components linked to forced labour. Despite support from across the political spectrum, the House of Commons ultimately rejected the amendment in a vote of 314 to 198.
A Clash Over Ethical Energy Sourcing
Lords amendment 2, tabled by Lord Alton of Liverpool, proposed barring the Secretary of State from providing financial assistance to GB Energy if credible evidence emerged of modern slavery in its supply chains. This amendment was directly aimed at ensuring that taxpayer money would not support industries implicated in human rights abuses, particularly forced labour in China’s Xinjiang region, a known hub for polysilicon production used in solar panels.
The Government opposed the amendment, arguing that existing measures, such as the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and the Procurement Act 2023, already provided safeguards against forced labour. Energy Minister Michael Shanks stated that GB Energy would be required to prepare a slavery and human trafficking statement and that it would use a modern slavery assessment tool to vet its supply chains.
Critics, however, including Sir Iain Duncan Smith and Sarah Champion, countered that these measures were insufficient. Duncan Smith pointed out that the Procurement Act could only act after a conviction under the Modern Slavery Act—something highly unlikely to occur given the geopolitical realities of prosecuting forced labour in China.
Parliamentary Debate: Ethics vs. Pragmatism
Throughout the debate, MPs from both major parties expressed concerns about the ethical implications of relying on potentially tainted supply chains while pursuing the UK’s net-zero goals.
- Andrew Bowie (Conservative, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) accused the Government of turning a blind eye to modern slavery to meet its ambitious clean power by 2030 target. He argued that “public funds should not be—must not be—funding imports tainted by modern slavery and slave labour.”
- Sarah Champion (Labour, Rotherham) proposed an alternative amendment requiring GB Energy to prove that its supply chains were free from forced labour before receiving funding. This would shift the burden of proof onto businesses, rather than requiring the Government to identify and act against forced labour post facto.
- Alex Sobel (Labour, Leeds Central and Headingley) introduced another amendment that sought to define “credible evidence” of forced labour through the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, ensuring a clearer legal threshold.
Despite the cross-party support for stronger measures, the Government held firm in its opposition, arguing that the amendment would effectively force GB Energy to halt all activities if even one supplier was found to have links to forced labour—something ministers saw as overly restrictive.
Government’s Counterproposal: A Cross-Departmental Approach
While rejecting the Lords amendment, Minister Shanks attempted to assure MPs that the Government remained committed to addressing modern slavery. He announced plans for a cross-ministerial taskforce, involving the Department for Business and Trade, the Home Office, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero.
The Government also pledged that:
- GB Energy would appoint a senior official responsible for ethical supply chains.
- A formal statement of strategic priorities would reinforce GB Energy’s obligation to lead on combating forced labour.
- Letters would be sent to all FTSE 100 companies, urging them to improve their supply chain oversight.
These commitments, however, failed to convince some MPs, who questioned whether they would translate into concrete action.
The Political Fallout
For many Labour MPs, the rejection of the Lords amendment posed an uncomfortable dilemma. The party campaigned on social justice, yet its Government opposed a measure seen as strengthening ethical business practices. Conservative MPs, including Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan), criticised what they saw as Labour’s prioritisation of net-zero targets over moral imperatives.
Meanwhile, Liberal Democrat spokesperson Pippa Heylings argued that the UK risked lagging behind the US and EU in tackling forced labour in supply chains. She pointed to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act in the US, which presumes that goods from Xinjiang are made with forced labour unless proven otherwise—a legal approach absent in UK legislation.
What Happens Next?
With the rejection of the Lords amendment, the GB Energy Bill will proceed without explicit restrictions on forced labour-linked supply chains. However, the issue is unlikely to disappear. The Government’s cross-departmental working group and GB Energy’s future procurement practices will be closely scrutinised, particularly by MPs who see forced labour in solar supply chains as a national security and ethical issue.
As the UK transitions to a publicly-owned energy system, this debate highlights the tensions between climate ambition, national security, and human rights. A study from 2023 suggests the solar industry faces significant risks of forced labour in its supply chains, but stronger regulations, improved transparency, and ethical sourcing efforts can help mitigate, though not easily eliminate, these risks. For now, GB Energy has the green light to operate freely, but with a warning from Parliament that its supply chains will be under watch.
Source
Great British Energy Bill, Hansard; House of Commons, 2025-03-25
Update: 4 weeks later, GB Energy was forbidden from using slave-made solar panels.
Boˆreal 