😕 Great British Energy Bill

• The session focused on the Great British Energy Bill, discussing amendments proposed by the House of Lords.

• Michael Shanks, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, moved to agree with Lords amendment 1 and addressed other amendments, particularly highlighting progress on Great British Energy (GBE).

• GBE has appointed five start-up, non-executive directors and an interim CEO, Dan McGrail, and held its first board meeting in Aberdeen.

• GBE has announced partnerships and investments, including solar power projects for schools and hospitals in England and funding for projects across Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.

• Lords amendment 2, aimed at preventing financial assistance to GBE if credible evidence of modern slavery is found in its supply chains, was a significant topic. Shanks affirmed the government’s commitment to tackling modern slavery but disagreed with the amendment’s approach.

• Concerns were raised about the effectiveness of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and the Procurement Act 2023 in addressing forced labor in supply chains, with some arguing that these laws needed strengthening.

• Amendment (a) to Lords amendment 2 proposed a cross-ministerial taskforce to ensure GBE’s supply chains are free of forced labor. Although considered, the amendment was not pressed to a vote based on assurances from the Minister.

• Amendment (b) to Lords amendment 2 suggested the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner define “credible evidence” of modern slavery, but this was resisted as it went beyond the commissioner’s current powers.

• Lords amendment 1 was agreed upon, incorporating community energy into the bill, emphasizing community involvement in the energy transition.

• Lords amendments 3 to 12 were also accepted, including setting strategic priorities for GBE within six months, collaboration with devolved governments, and ensuring GBE’s impact on sustainable development is reviewed.

• The House voted to disagree with Lords amendment 2, reflecting the government’s stance that the amendment could hinder GBE’s ability to address supply chain issues directly.

• A committee was appointed to draft a reason for disagreeing with Lords amendment 2 and communicate it to the Lords.

• The session also briefly touched on scheduling for the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill.

The session reflects a moderate level of disagreement, primarily focused on the issue of modern slavery in supply chains associated with the Great British Energy Bill. The disagreements stem from a Lords amendment that sought to prevent financial assistance to Great British Energy in cases where credible evidence of modern slavery exists in the supply chains. The following points illustrate the nature and examples of the disagreements observed during the session:

1. Disagreement on the Efficacy of the Procurement Act: There was a significant disagreement over whether the Procurement Act 2023 adequately addresses modern slavery, as noted in the debate between Michael Shanks and Sir Iain Duncan Smith. Duncan Smith argued that the Act does not offer protection against modern slavery because it requires a conviction under the Modern Slavery Act, which is impractical with foreign suppliers like those in China.

   Example: “Sir Iain Duncan Smith: That is not altogether correct. The Minister will know full well that the Procurement Act can only be enacted once a supplier has had a conviction under section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act.”

2. Disagreement on Lords Amendment 2: The government’s decision to disagree with Lords amendment 2 led to contention, particularly from Conservative MPs who accused the government of prioritizing net zero ambitions over human rights concerns. This was expressed by Andrew Bowie and Harriet Cross, who criticized the government’s stance as being morally questionable.

   Example: “Andrew Bowie: Therefore, what we are seeing today is not simply the offshoring of our emissions… Today we are seeing the offshoring of the Labour party’s moral compass…”

3. Debate on the Definition of ‘Credible Evidence’: Alex Sobel’s amendment (b) sought to refine Lords amendment 2 by empowering the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner to define ‘credible evidence’ of modern slavery in supply chains. This proposal was resisted by the government, leading to a debate on the feasibility and implications of such a measure.

   Example: “Alex Sobel: My amendment takes into account some of the arguments made by the Government in the Lords, and seeks to refine the Lords amendment by providing a mechanism for determining ‘credible evidence’.”

4. Commitment to Ethical Supply Chains: While there was general agreement on the need to address modern slavery, the government argued that such measures should extend beyond Great British Energy to the entire economy. This broader approach was considered insufficient by some MPs who wanted more immediate and targeted actions related to the Bill.

   Example: “Michael Shanks: On her point about how widespread the problem of forced labour is, that underlines why a piecemeal approach, legislating on individual companies here and there, is not the right one.”

5. Concerns Over Renewable Energy Sourcing: Several MPs raised issues about the ethical sourcing of materials for renewable energy, particularly solar panels linked to forced labor in China. The debate highlighted the tension between accelerating the transition to clean energy and ensuring that this transition does not perpetuate human rights abuses.

   Example: “Sarah Champion: Without proper safeguards in place, our transition to net zero will be carried through on the backs of those in slavery.”

Given these points, the disagreement level is rated as a 3 due to the substantive debates and differing perspectives on how to address modern slavery within the scope of the Great British Energy Bill. While there were clear oppositions, particularly around Lords amendment 2, there was also a willingness from the government to engage with these issues in broader contexts and to work across departments to address them.