House of Lords
30.04.25
My Lords, I beg to move Motion A1, as an amendment to Motion A, at end insert “leave out from “propose” to end and insert “Amendment 2C in lieu” as printed on the marshalled list”
I rise to express my gratitude to the Government, and especially the Noble Lord the Minister – Lord Hunt of Kings Heath – for acting to address concerns regarding forced labour in the renewables supply chain.
I have now had the pleasure of working with the Noble Lord on human rights issues in China before and during his time in government. I commend him and his Bill Team for the sincere and constructive way in which they have sought to grapple with this problem – and I am delighted with the announcement that he has made about the role which the redoubtable Baroness O’Grady will be given .
The government amendment before us today stands testament to parliamentary engagement the way it should be, and I thank them for the progress made – and I particularly thank those members of both Houses who have been key to the amendment’s progress – and especially the Front Benches of the Opposition parties.
The commitment announced following our debates on the Great British Energy Bill represents a significant and welcome shift in ensuring that the United Kingdom’s green transition is not built on the broken backs of slaves.
When I tabled my amendment, seeking to prevent goods made with forced labour from entering our renewable energy supply chains, it was with a heavy heart.
As many colleagues know, mounting evidence — including from Professor Laura Murphy of the Helena Kennedy Centre, as well as detailed investigations reported by The Guardian, BBC and others — shows that forced labour, particularly of the Uyghur people in Xinjiang – but also child labour in the DRC – is embedded in the production of key green technologies.
The BBC’s recent report underscores the gravity: at least 35% of the world’s solar-grade polysilicon comes from Xinjiang, a region where state-imposed labour transfer schemes and human rights violations are widespread. Sheffield Hallam University’s research, along with other corroborative studies, has revealed that supply chains are often deeply compromised.
We cannot, my Lords, in good conscience, drive our green transition by trampling over human rights. To do so would be to substitute one form of environmental degradation with another form of human degradation.
It is therefore a matter of great personal satisfaction — and a tribute to this House and the other place — that the Government have agreed to legislate to introduce new measures to cleanse our supply chains of modern slavery. I would be remiss not to pay tribute here to Luke de Pulford and IPAC’s work, together with the support of UNISON, the Anti-Slavery Commissioner, Anti-Slavery International, and Unseen.
This move must, however, be seen as a beginning, not an end.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights is close to completing an Inquiry which is likely to call for a comprehensive overhaul of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. We have had over 800 pages of written evidence – and moving oral evidence from witnesses such as Rahima Mahmut of the World Uyghur Congress.
As I have often pointed out, Section 54, requiring mere transparency statements from companies, has proved toothless.
We should now look seriously at the model set by the United States’ Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, which introduces a rebuttable presumption that goods linked to Xinjiang are the product of forced labour, unless clear and convincing evidence can be shown to the contrary. With forced labour endemic throughout the region, and the Leviathan-like Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps – an entity sanctioned by the United States – controlling so much of the commerce, it is hard to see how else we can manage the huge exposure to forced labour.
Embedding a similar presumption into UK law would shift the burden away from vulnerable victims and place it firmly on those who profit. It would close loopholes that have allowed exploitation to flourish unchecked.
Additionally, my Lords, we must not overlook the underutilised power of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Following the World Uyghur Congress v National Crime Agency judgment in 2024, it is now clear that goods made through gross human rights abuses constitute criminal property. Yet to date, enforcement has been patchy at best. A more systematic use of POCA powers to seize tainted goods would deter bad actors and use our purchasing power to raise the bar together. To that end, I cite evidence last week to the JCHR by the National Crime Agency and Border Force. It is an issue which the JCHR raised again today with the Lord Chancellor, the Rt.Hon Shabana Mahmood MP, during her appearance before the Committee.
The creation of Great British Energy offers a vital opportunity to anchor resilience into the heart of our energy transition.
Its chair, Jürgen Maier CBE, said to me in a conversation yesterday, that GBE is “entirely comfortable” with this amendment and “will put measures in place to prevent slavery. We are a publicly owned company, and we have to live up to that. So we are comfortable and committed to this amendment. We will have to allocate resources and will do so”
I was also deeply encouraged by his determination to bring technology to the UK which, for instance, will enable battery manufacture which is not dependent on lithium or rare earth minerals.
As the Noble Lord the Minister and others have rightly said, this new entity can champion not only decarbonisation but also sovereignty, supply chain integrity, and British manufacturing. GBE should not be divorced from the rest of UK industry.
By investing in British steel, British solar, and British renewables, we can build a secure future — free from dependence on authoritarian regimes and the iniquities of forced labour. We need resilience not dependency – a point often made by Lord Blencathra and myself.
There is no contradiction between pursuing environmental sustainability and standing for human dignity. On the contrary, the two are indivisible. Our new green economy must be not only carbon-free but also cruelty-free.
And those taking to the airwaves to argue that we cannot pursue a greener economy without compromising on fundamental rights are simply wrong: if 35% is from Xinjiang, 65% is not. There are alternative markets and we need to use the purchasing power of GBE to shore up clean supply – they have already announced a £300 million supply chain fund the whole purpose of which will be to bring clean and ethically sourced energy to the UK..
The Minister would think it passing strange if I did not try to extract a commitment before I sit down.
The Government amendment seems well constructed to me, but I would value his reassurance that GBE would be failing in its duty to “ensure that no slavery or trafficking is taking place in its business or supply chain” if it relied upon criminal convictions for those offences in China or elsewhere.
Such convictions are improbable, and would render the amendment useless. I would welcome the opportunity to consult with his department, together with experts, on what meaningful measures the government could employ to achieve their laudable aim. I also share with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the importance of engaging with like minded nations in ensuring a comprehensive approach to combatting slavery in our supply chains and using technology, a point made last week by Lord Rooker, to assist in exposing origins of commodities.
Perhaps I could also ask the Minister to confirm that the Government will think very carefully before giving the Solar Stewardship Initiative a role in determining the integrity of GBE supply chains. This is in light of the Solar Stewardship Initiative giving JA Solar a clean Bill of health, following the sanctioning of the company by the US government. It will soon be reported that JA solar is continuing to source from Xinjiang, and on the basis, the SSI has serious questions to answer about its ability to verify human rights standards.
In closing, my Lords, I again thank the Government for their willingness to engage, to listen, and ultimately to act. I thank the many colleagues across both Houses who have made common cause in defence of those who have no voice.
Together, we have begun to lay the foundations for a green future that is truly just.
