Jacob Collier MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 10 Sept 2025 · Russian Drones: Violation of Polish Airspace · Hansard source

  More

  I join the Minister in his condemnation of this clear escalation against our Polish allies. He will know that my constituency has a large Polish diaspora, who are extremely concerned about their country and fearful of further Russian attacks. What assurances can he give the Polish community in my constituency and across the country, and what work will he do across Government to support the Polish community at this difficult time?

• 9 Sept 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  If the deal is harming our strategic interests, why is it backed by our allies, the United States and NATO?

• 9 Sept 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

• 4 Sept 2025 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  And a very good one at that.

• 1 Sept 2025 · Borders and Asylum · Hansard source

  More

  Much has been said about the role of the European convention on human rights, and it appears that the party of Churchill is seeking to abandon his legacy in its lurch towards the right, just as there is a growing consensus among European nations that we need to modernise it for today’s times. Does the Home Secretary agree that Britain should be part of leading that change, rather than leaving and turning us into Belarus or Russia?

• 16 Jul 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 16 July.

• 16 Jul 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Families in Burton and Uttoxeter are watching their smart meters like hawks, and dreading the moment when their energy bill lands on the doormat. I therefore welcome Labour’s warm home discount, which will mean £150 off energy bills for millions of people across this country, providing meaningful support in these difficult times. Will the Prime Minister set out how that will help support families in my constituency and across the country?

• 14 Jul 2025 · State of Climate and Nature · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and the fact that my local hospital will have solar panels on it thanks to this Labour Government, saving thousands of pounds that can go directly back into frontline services. What more can he do to ensure that public buildings like hospitals and prisons have solar panels fitted so that we can lower costs and contribute to our climate goals?

• 14 Jul 2025 · UK-France Migration: Co-operation · Hansard source

  More

  Under the Tories, we had Liz Truss question whether France was actually an ally, so it was nice to hear in President Macron’s words last week that Britain has friends once again. In the 340 weeks that the Conservative party was in charge of the small boats crisis, it sent no one back to France and just four people to Rwanda with cash stuffed in their pockets. Does the Home Secretary agree that the way we get results is by working with international partners, not berating them?

• 8 Jul 2025 · Road and Rail Projects · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the improvements to the A38 and the midlands rail hub, which will mean 300 extra trains through Burton every week. The Secretary of State will know that I have been campaigning for the A50/A500 corridor, which is essential for local people and businesses; the Roads Minister will remember the time when she visited my constituency and got stuck in traffic on the A50. What progress might we hear on this vital corridor upgrade?

• 7 Jul 2025 · Fossil Fuel Advertising and Sponsorship · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is right, and I will come on to some examples from around the world that could act as a marker for us. At the time, the tobacco firms argued for nuance—they were exploring reduced-risk products, sponsoring arts initiatives, funding schools in developing countries—and yet we drew the line. Today, fossil fuel air pollution kills more people than smoking. It accounts for one in five deaths globally. The BMJ confirmed that in 2021. Yet fossil fuel adverts still run on our buses, on our television screens, in sports stadiums and increasingly on social media, where the targeting is opaque and the influence invisible. If tobacco’s harm justified a ban, how can we not at least ask the same of an industry whose products now threaten life on earth as we know it? We are not alone. In France, a law passed in 2022 bans fossil fuel advertising, with exemptions only for low-carbon gas, and Amsterdam, The Hague and Sydney have introduced their own versions. The Hague’s policy was challenged in court, but the court ruled in favour of the city’s right to act in the public interest, affirming that the freedom of advertising does not override the responsibility to prevent harm.

• 7 Jul 2025 · Fossil Fuel Advertising and Sponsorship · Hansard source

  More

  When I spoke to Chris Packham ahead of this debate, I think he was quite disappointed that last week’s debate about banning grouse shooting had gone a particular way. This one probably went a bit more in his favour. I hope that, watching on, he will be happy with how it has gone. I thank all the organisations that have spent their time and expertise helping me to prepare my opening remarks, from the Advertising Standards Authority to The Globe Foundation, Badvertising, Adfree Cities and of course Chris Packham; he said that this would just be the start, so I imagine that he will continue to apply pressure in this place. I thank everyone who has participated in the debate, I thank the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) for taking time out of her swimming schedule to be here, and I thank everybody who signed the petition. I know that this is a debate that will continue. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered e-petition 700024 relating to fossil fuel advertising and sponsorship.

• 7 Jul 2025 · Fossil Fuel Advertising and Sponsorship · Hansard source

  More

  I will come on to some of those arguments, but I recognise what the hon. Lady says. It is important to note that fossil fuel companies will be key to the transition. Many are, in fact, investing heavily in renewable energy, alternative fuels and low-carbon technologies. The Advertising Standards Authority, which I met ahead of the debate, made it clear that it has no official position on a ban and that it is for Parliament to decide. It is cautious about stepping into territory where it might be seen to regulate brand image rather than specific advertising claims. Frankly, it has a point, because there is a fine line between stopping misleading adverts and telling a company that it cannot speak at all. The ASA also noted that when companies are genuinely diversifying—investing in wind, solar and hydrogen—they should be allowed to share that progress; otherwise, how do we know if they are making any? Then there is the issue of capacity. As Badvertising and others have noted, the ASA is already stretched. It often takes months to investigate ads, by which time the advert in question has already run its course, its messages have been absorbed and its impressions have been made, so we are left with a reactive system chasing after a rapidly moving industry. Some critics make the slippery slope argument: “If we ban fossil fuel ads, will cars be next? What about flights, steaks and leather shoes? Where do we draw the line before we are banning Sunday roasts and petrol lawnmowers?” Let me be clear that those are not trivial objections—they speak to the real tensions between climate emergency, free enterprise and democratic openness—but now I want to turn to the other side of the debate. While all speech may be free, speech is not without consequence, and fossil fuel advertising is not just a matter of a few billboards here and there; it is increasingly a co-ordinated strategy to build trust, shape culture and delay structural change. Groups such as Badvertising and the New Weather Institute have made that clear in both their research and their rhetoric. As was revealed by internal BP advertising memos, fossil fuel companies seek to reinforce their social licence and influence consumer behaviour by associating themselves with progress, positivity and public good. The issue is not just what they say, but where and how they say it. A 2022 report by DeSmog revealed that over 240 fossil fuel campaigns ran across the Transport for London network in six years. Fossil fuel ads appear in Westminster station, for example, not because consumers need urgent advice about offshore drilling, but because that is where we, the policymakers, walk. We must also talk about greenwashing, which is no longer just a fringe concern; it is now central to the conversation about advertising ethics and consumer trust. Yes, the ASA has taken action—in 2023, it banned Shell, Repsol and Petronas ads that were misleading in their environmental claims, chiefly by omitting the fact that their business remains overwhelmingly dependent on fossil fuel production—but companies are evolving. In 2025, Shell released a new advert that on the surface was still greenwashing, but this time included qualifying language in the small print about its continuing investments in oil and gas and, as a result, technically met the rules. We are in an era of compliant deception: an ad can be accurate but also misleading. A message can be truthful in parts but dishonest in tone. It is a bit like a politician claiming that they never technically lied but conveniently forgetting that they answered a different question altogether—I am not naming any names. Beyond formal adverts, we must confront the world of sponsorship, where the relationship is less about information and more about association. Fossil fuel companies sponsor not just events, but sports, music, festivals, education initiatives and even museum exhibits. Why? Because we do not remember the product; we remember the feeling, and if the logo has an association with the feeling, the brand has woven itself into the cultural fabric of our society. The New Weather Institute’s “Dirty Money” report found that oil and gas companies are now spending over $5.6 billion across 205 active global sports sponsorships. This is not just a side hustle; it is a strategy. This is where it gets complicated. We had the British grand prix this weekend. That industry is still heavily reliant on fossil fuels, albeit Formula 1 is on track to be net zero by 2030 and some teams, such as McLaren, are already carbon neutral. Are we to say that a fossil fuel company should not sponsor a sport that at present is a big polluter? There is a key precedent: in 2002, we passed the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act to ban tobacco ads and sponsorships, not because cigarettes had changed or become healthier, but because the science had clarified that the social harm was overwhelming.

• 7 Jul 2025 · Fossil Fuel Advertising and Sponsorship · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered e-petition 700024 relating to fossil fuel advertising and sponsorship. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. Let me begin by thanking the 110,519 people across the United Kingdom who signed the petition and welcoming those in the Public Gallery. In particular, I acknowledge the work of Chris Packham, the petition’s creator, who is known to many as a passionate and persistent voice for nature and environmental justice. Another petition of his was debated in Westminster Hall just last week; he likes to keep us in the Petitions Committee on our toes. Chris has used his platform and credibility to bring this issue to national attention, and I am grateful for the opportunity to open this important debate. I thank all those who spoke to me while I was preparing my opening remarks, particularly Kate Copeland-Rhodes of The Globe Foundation in Uttoxeter in my constituency. We have had a lot of engagement from climate groups and campaigners, but not so much from fossil fuel companies. I cannot possibly think why, but I will do my very best to represent their arguments. The question before us today is simple to ask, but difficult to answer: should fossil fuel companies be allowed to advertise and sponsor content, events and spaces in the United Kingdom? In truth, it is a question of what kind of future we want to build, what kind of public discourse we want to cultivate and what role, if any, we believe advertising should play in shaping our societal values. Those who oppose a ban on fossil fuel advertising typically begin with a defence of freedom of expression, not just for individuals, but for businesses. In a pluralistic society, they argue, even controversial companies have a right to communicate. After all, debate is healthy and the public are not stupid; they can make up their own minds.

• 7 Jul 2025 · Fossil Fuel Advertising and Sponsorship · Hansard source

  More

  I think my hon. Friend has read my speech, because I was just coming to the UN Secretary-General’s comments. She may also know that there are similar bans on fossil fuel company advertising in Edinburgh, Sheffield, Cambridgeshire, Liverpool, Norwich and North Somerset. Even advertising agencies themselves are stepping back, with many refusing to take work from fossil fuel clients. The momentum is not marginal; it is building. The Government’s official response to the petition was issued on 18 December. It stated that although the UK is “committed to reducing emissions”, there “are currently no plans to restrict fossil fuel advertising.” Instead, the focus is on voluntary eco-labelling schemes and better enforcement of existing rules. Voluntary schemes are important, but they do not curb the underlying issue that advertising has become a tool for delay, distraction and reputation laundering. Banning fossil fuel advertising is not about censorship; it is about recognising that certain messages, delivered by certain actors in certain contexts, can cause harm. As my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) said, the UN Secretary-General called for a global ban on fossil fuel advertising earlier this year. He was not being radical; he was being proportionate. We ban tobacco ads not to silence smokers, but to protect children. We restrict junk food advertising during children’s programming not because we do not like Big Macs, but because the power to persuade can do real harm if left unchecked. We are not asking fossil fuel companies to shut down tomorrow; we are asking them not to mislead the public today. We are not asking them to abandon all communications; we are asking them not to dominate our public spaces with ads that obscure reality. In a world that is now averaging 1.63°C above pre-industrial levels, the question is not whether we can afford to act, but whether we can afford not to. This debate is about balancing the freedom of expression and free enterprise with the real need to take action to prevent a worsening climate emergency. The advertising regulator has said that it is down to this place to act, if it so chooses. In that spirit, I look forward to the debate and to contributions from other hon. Members.

• 23 Jun 2025 · UK Modern Industrial Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  My constituency boasts some of the nation’s most energy-intensive industries, from manufacturing to being the home of UK brewing. As such, I welcome the news that there will be energy subsidies for energy-intensive industries, which will support those industries and local jobs in my constituency. Can the Secretary of State say more about how he will work across Government to ensure that manufacturers and brewers will not be paying champagne prices for power?

• 23 Jun 2025 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for his level-headed approach in calling for de-escalation. He has spoken about the threat of further escalation with the closure of the strait of Hormuz, through which—as he knows—a large proportion of the world’s oil supply flows. Can he say more about how he will protect UK householders and businesses from a potential rise in oil prices?

• 18 Jun 2025 · HS2 Reset · Hansard source

  More

  The Transport Secretary will know that my constituents have endured years of disruption, and of drawn-out and poorly managed roadworks, as they drive past Lichfield on the A38. Given that billions of pounds were squandered by the previous Government and the disruption continues, can she say more about how she will get a grip on this project to ensure that we have vigorous oversight, and that it is delivered effectively and on time for our constituents?

• 18 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak in strong support of new clause 122, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor). I am proud to be the first signatory to it, as I believe it represents a vital step forward in the protection of some of the most marginalised people in our society. New clause 122 would amend the Crime and Policing Bill to create aggravated offences where the underlying crime is motivated by hostility because of a person’s sexual orientation, transgender identity, disability or perceived identity. It would align the legal treatment of those forms of hate with the framework that already exists for racially and religiously aggravated offences. It delivers on a promise, a promise that we in the Labour party made in our manifesto to the British people: that we would act to close the gap in our hate crime laws and provide equal protection to LGBT+ people and disabled people in the criminal justice system. It is about living up to our values. Labour is the party of equality, fairness before the law and standing with those whose voices have too often been ignored. That is why I joined the Labour party and this amendment is rooted in that tradition. It is also fitting that we are tabling this new clause in Pride Month and in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling which has caused so much anguish among the trans community. We know the scale of the problem. Hate crimes based on sexual orientation have risen by 112% over the last five years. Against trans people, that figure is 186%. The charity Galop, which supports LGBT+ victims of abuse, saw a 60% increase in referrals in the last year alone. In the year ending March 2024, 11,719 disability hate crime incidents were reported. Shamefully, just 1% of that hate crime involving violence resulted in a charge. And yet, still, the majority of incidents go unreported. Too many victims still believe the system is not on their side. New clause 122 gives us the opportunity to change that. It would give police and prosecutors a clearer route to charge and convict offenders in a way that truly reflects the nature of these crimes. I know what it means to think twice about how you walk down a street, to pause before holding someone’s hand, and to wonder whether that shout from across the road is something that you can ignore or that you cannot afford to ignore. And I know I am not alone in that. I have spoken to my constituents and to people from far beyond, who tell me they do not feel safe reporting hate when it happens. They do not believe they will be taken seriously. There is a profound failure of trust, one that we in this House have a duty to repair. This is also about dignity. It is about recognising that, whether you are a trans teenager being punched in a park, a gay couple being spat at on the tube, or a disabled man being harassed on his way to work, all people deserve the full protection of the law. They deserve to know that this country is on their side, and that if they are targeted for who they are, justice will not look the other way. New clause 122 would provide vital protection for disabled people, who remain far too invisible in the public conversation around hate crime despite facing damaging harassment, violence and abuse every single day. This change is recommended by the Law Commission and supported by Stonewall, Galop and Disability Rights UK. I am proud that it is backed by 104 right hon. and hon. Members across the House. People are simply asking to live their lives in peace and have the right support when things go wrong. I hope we can take a step forward in advancing LGBT+ rights and disability rights today.

• 11 Jun 2025 · Spending Review 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I, too, warmly welcome the investment in the midlands rail hub, which will mean 150 extra trains a week through Burton, and the investment in Rolls-Royce, which will produce small modular reactors and nuclear subs that will benefit my constituency and local jobs. The Chancellor also announced a huge package around transport. She will know that I have been pushing for improvements on the A50/A500 and in the infrastructure around Branston bridge. Can she say more about when we can expect an announcement on the road investment strategy?

• 9 Jun 2025 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Government’s decision, and thank them for listening to Members on both sides of the House. Many of my older constituents live in houses that are not energy-efficient, which results in higher bills, so can the Minister say more about what the Government are doing to increase energy efficiency in homes to keep them warmer and bring down bills?

• 5 Jun 2025 · Free School Meals · Hansard source

  More

  In my constituency 5,730 children will benefit from this announcement. It means a hot meal every day and real, practical support for families who are struggling with the cost of living crisis. Does the Minister agree that while we expect the Conservative party to block this support, as they have for many years, Reform MPs could not even be bothered to turn up today? They talk about supporting families, but they are nowhere to be seen when it matters.

• 4 Jun 2025 · Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister referred to the joint statement with France and Canada on 20 May. Things have got worse since that point. Food distribution has been blocked entirely, hunger is being used as a weapon and innocent Palestinians are paying the price. If that statement is to hold up, will the Minister say what action he will be taking with France and Canada?

• 19 May 2025 · Gender Self-identification · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady has made a comprehensive opening statement on behalf of the Petitions Committee, so I thank her for that. Does she agree that trans voices are often left out when we talk about these issues and have this debate? We need to remember that there are humans on the other side of this, and we need to listen to our trans community when we make decisions that directly impact their lives.

• 14 May 2025 · Glass Packaging: Extended Producer Responsibility · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for securing this important debate. As the MP for Burton and Uttoxeter, I am proud to represent my hometown and the home of British brewing. As I have said many times in this house, Burton’s brewery heritage stretches back centuries, and our iconic breweries are known the world over not just for the quality of their beer, which I sample very regularly, but for the communities that they support and the skilled jobs that they sustain. Brewing is in our blood; it shapes our local economy, our identity and indeed the very character of our communities. When policies come forward that could affect the future of this proud industry, we must pay close attention. Extended producer responsibility is one such policy. The ambition behind it is good—we want to see more recycling, less waste and a greener future—but the way this policy is being introduced risks real harm to businesses that are already working very hard to do the right thing.