Fossil Fuel Advertising and Sponsorship

16:30:00

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.

We know that we need to transition away from fossil fuels. My Climate and Nature Bill is a vital opportunity to back a joined-up, science-led approach to the climate and nature crisis, but that drive—that transition—is being undermined by advertising falsely giving the impression that business as usual is sustainable. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government must act now to ban those adverts, and that they must give the Climate and Nature Bill the debate time it deserves?

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.

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Each year, air pollution causes an estimated 43,000 premature deaths in the UK, and around 1,200 in my Greater Manchester area. Burning fossil fuel is a major cause of that, so does he agree that the Government must treat this as a public health crisis and act now to ban fossil fuel advertising and sponsorship, just as he mentioned we did to protect people from tobacco?

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.

Has my hon. Friend noted the call from the UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, for Governments to ban fossil fuel advertising to protect public health and address climate change? Does he feel that, alongside the examples that he cited, that is evidence of increasing momentum towards such a change?

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.

16:43:00

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg, I think for the first time. The petition’s demands are simple, clear and extremely compelling. In the UK, we forbid tobacco advertising because tobacco kills us, and that ban has worked to reduce the number of people dying from it. The air pollution caused directly by fossil fuels and the extreme weather caused by climate change are already killing at least as many people as smoking was before the ad ban, and they are likely to kill many more, so why the hell are we allowing fossil fuel companies to take up space in public places and on our screens to sell us products that kill us? I find that argument so compelling that I have dedicated a significant amount of my life in the past few years to trying to make a ban happen. I thank Chris Packham for initiating the petition and doing so much work to get more than 110,000 signatories, and I thank everyone who signed it. This campaign has been running for many years, and I want to highlight the groundwork done on it by grassroots organising group Adblock Bristol, of which I am a member. Adblock Bristol exists because its members think a lot of things are fundamentally wrong with advertising. Advertising often works by telling us that we are not good enough without a product or by engendering a positive emotion about a product or service that we did not previously have. It often worsens inequality. The billboards are not in the posh parts of town, and they overwhelmingly advertise products that are bad for our health, the environment or society. That is not to mention the direct environmental, social and road safety impacts of the adverts themselves. After a few years of successfully opposing applications for individual billboards in our community, Adblock Bristol set up a national organisation called Adfree Cities, where I worked for a little bit. It campaigns nationally alongside Platform, Badvertising and others to support people in their local communities all over the country to oppose the pernicious impact of advertising. In fact, the hon. Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) listed some of the communities that I supported in doing that. Many local councils have already adopted policies of not hosting adverts for high-carbon products and services, or other harmful products such as junk food, payday loans, alcohol and gambling, on billboards on council-owned land and bus stops. That is a start, but most billboards are privately owned and councils have no jurisdiction over them and no ability to control the myriad other ways that advertising intervenes, often subconsciously, in our lives. Regulation of advertising in this country is, in general, extremely light touch and, frankly, outgunned by the capacity of the companies that pay for the advertising. That is where the petition comes in. It is time for the national Government to step up where local councils do not have the power to do so. This kind of social and regulatory change often creates uproar when it is first proposed, only for it to be accepted as extremely obvious, and for the previous status quo to seem appalling, not long afterwards. We have only to look at compulsory seatbelts in cars, the indoor smoking ban and tobacco advertising. “Freedom of speech, freedom of the market, freedom of choice,” they say, yet we pretty much all agree now that advertising products that cause us serious harm should not be allowed. Let us remember that we are not talking about banning the product; we are just saying that communications that are specifically designed to increase the use of fossil fuels, through misleading claims and by crafting social norms and a social licence for their use and expansion, directly undermining the Government’s evidence-based policy, which is essential to keep us safe from the climate crisis, should not be allowed. That should be a no brainer. Does the Minister want the history books, and perhaps his children, to look back in 10 years and see that he played the modern-day version of the role of those who opposed seatbelts in cars or the smoking ban? I guess not, in which case now is the time to be brave. He will be glad he did it.

16:47:00

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier), who is sometimes mistaken for my twin, for opening the debate in a very balanced and fair-minded way. What struck me when I saw the petition was that the petitioners are hitting on something so ever-present in our lives that it is almost background noise— one of those forms of advertising that we have grown up with, and are so used to that we would almost notice it more if it were not there. Of course, many types of advertising would fit that bill, but fossil fuel company ads are probably one of the most hotly contested; fizzy pop and cars do not feel quite so controversial. It is not just the big giants, such as BP, Shell, Texaco and Total, that we see on the top of petrol station canopies; in “Toy Story”—one of my favourite films growing up—the oil giant Dinoco loomed large in Disney’s fictitious advertising space. It is important for us to acknowledge, as the petition does directly, the risks of so-called greenwashing—confuddling consumers with a wholesome-looking image of a bright, clean, green future that reality may make up only a tiny proportion of an organisation’s work, spending or plans for the future. Greenwashing is one of the things that makes me angriest—though all forms of dishonest advertising make me angry, because at their core they are designed to hoodwink the public. However, we must acknowledge that the concept of greenwashing and what constitutes fossil fuel advertising is hotly contested. In his opening speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter mentioned the very relevant example of tobacco advertising being banned many decades ago on the grounds of harm to individuals’ health and the idea of the wider societal harm that can follow on from that. We did not ban tobacco, but we did ban its promotion. That is the central point in this debate, and the central question we need to address as parliamentarians. Sometimes, too, greenwashing can be indirect and even adjacent to an organisation. I am thinking in particular of a Greenpeace campaign some 11 years ago, which targeted Lego for a partnership with Shell. Eventually, the campaign led to Lego dropping said partnership. One person’s clear line in the sand, however, is another person’s nuance. As my hon. Friend mentioned, many fossil fuel companies are investing billions in the transition to net zero—on a bigger or smaller scale, and through compulsion or choice, but they are doing that—and, let us face it, that funding will be crucial to reaching net zero. Raising awareness of such efforts is crucial, as is ensuring that the generations to come are aware of the opportunities that are open to them in the green industries of the future. Unfortunately, few renewable energy companies or environmental non-governmental organisations have the resources that fossil fuel companies have to promote those opportunities. Turning to sponsorship, I can definitely see the argument for restricting or banning fossil fuel companies’ ability to put money into things such as sport, which are ever present on our TV screens—especially at the moment, as we cheer the Lionesses on in the women’s Euros. If we are to discuss that, however, we need to think about the alternative funding streams. If we ban fossil fuel advertising, will there be alternative funding streams for sports teams, to encourage the next generation to come through and ensure that there is cash there to support them, too? In conclusion, I fully support the motive behind the petition. Greenwashing is something we absolutely need to stamp out. We need stringent regulations to ensure that companies are not able to hoodwink the public, as I said, but we also need to be fundamentally honest about the transition to net zero, the role that fossil fuel companies and the like will have to play in it, and the expectations that we should have of those companies to help to promote that future, possibly giving them the freedom to do that within certain constraints. This has been an interesting debate; thank you, Mr Twigg, for allowing me to take part in it.

16:52:00

I will begin by thanking the 568 people who live in Stroud who signed this petition and made the debate possible. I am an MP and a practising GP, and I chair the all-party health group for health and co-chair the net zero all-party parliamentary group. I therefore bring a dual perspective to this question—and, to be honest, from both positions I think the time has come: we must end all fossil fuel advertising and sponsorship. Primarily, this is a public health issue. Air pollution, driven largely by the burning of fossil fuels, is the single largest environmental threat to our health. The Royal College of Physicians has said that air pollution causes 43,000 premature deaths, as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Rusholme (Afzal Khan) mentioned—more than smoking does—and is associated with heart disease, stroke, asthma, cancer and even dementia. The Royal Society for Public Health is also strongly against the advertising of fossil fuels. In my surgery, I can see the human costs of air pollution: children living in inner-city areas struggling with asthma; adults with COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, which is much worsened by poor air quality; and elderly patients often admitted with that problem from more polluted areas. One constituent lived in London in the week and said that he was slightly inconvenienced by ULEZ, the ultra low emission zone, but it was funny that he did not need his inhalers after the legislation came in. That is a very strong sign. Advertising and sponsorship matter. The fossil fuel industry spends millions on promoting itself as green, innovative and responsible, while continuing to invest in exploration and extraction that push us further towards climate and health catastrophe. That is not just misleading, but dangerous. If they have too much money, perhaps we need an extra windfall tax to take it off them. We have been here before—as other hon. Members have mentioned—with tobacco ads on billboards; I remember when even cricket matches were sponsored by certain tobacco companies. When we stop advertising, we reduce consumption; in that way, lives were saved at that time. We are at the same crossroads now. As my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) said, it is not just us looking into this; many other countries are also doing so. Spain, for example, is looking at banning advertising for short-haul flights, as a friend in the Public Gallery pointed out to me. We need to be innovative—even if we are not going to totally ban this advertising, we need to ban the worst bits. Let us be clear: air pollution shortens an average person’s life by 1.8 years and disproportionately affects poor and deprived communities, who tend to live in much more polluted areas. Moreover, 82% of outdoor advertising is located in more deprived areas, pushing that harmful message all the time. As a doctor, I know that prevention is better than cure. Banning fossil fuel advertising is a low-cost, high-impact intervention that will save lives, reduce pressure on the NHS—and we need that—and help to build a healthy and more sustainable future for us all. We owe it to the whole country and to future generations—and I owe it to my 568 constituents—to show courage and clarity and to be bold about ending fossil fuel advertising.

16:55:00

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I thank everyone who signed this petition for securing this debate. RepRisk’s 2024 report identified 1,841 incidents of misleading communication globally in the past year; 56% of those cases involved environmental issues, and nearly a third of companies flagged for misleading communications were repeat offenders, with the oil and gas industry accounting for the most incidents. In 2024, the UN Secretary General said, “Many in the fossil fuel industry have shamelessly greenwashed, even as they have sought to delay climate action—with lobbying, legal threats, and massive ad campaigns.” A report from the New Weather Institute, an environmental think-tank, entitled “Dirty Money: How Fossil Fuel Sponsors are Polluting Sport”, analysed more than 200 sponsorship deals, and found that sport is increasingly one of the areas that oil and gas companies are using to greenwash their reputation. Football had more than 50 partnerships with fossil fuel companies, followed by motorsports, rugby and golf. Saudi Arabia’s national oil company, Aramco, was the biggest fossil fuel sponsor of sport, paying almost £1 billion across 10 active sponsorships. It has signed a partnership with FIFA, in a four-year deal that will include major tournaments such as the world cup 2026 and the women’s world cup 2027. The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) made an interesting point about how that sort of sponsorship would fit in to the definition of advertising, if we were to promote a ban. I ask hon. Members to imagine the impact that that advertising will have on people’s perception of companies and their efforts. Some 50 or 60 years ago, tobacco companies had a huge role in sponsorship promotion; that role was eroded over the years and eventually removed altogether. We must ensure that companies cannot simply use vast sums of money to buy themselves a better reputation, without actually combating the key cause of the concern—in this case, the huge environmental and ecological damage to our planet. It was interesting that in his opening speech, the hon. Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) mentioned concerns from the fossil fuel companies that a ban would somehow prevent them from promoting their green initiatives. I note that a Greenpeace report, “The Dirty Dozen: the climate greenwashing of 12 European oil companies”, found that six global fossil fuel companies and six European oil and gas companies produced only 0.3% of their energy from renewable sources in 2022, despite commitments to net zero 2050 targets. There will of course be pushback from within the industry itself; we saw that with the tobacco industry, yet we now take the restrictions and warnings for granted. We must ensure that the extra rules and regulations that govern how fossil fuel companies can act are stringent and well enforced. At the very least, we must toughen up both the Competition and Markets Authority and the Advertising Standards Authority codes to ensure that, where sponsorship does take place, it is contingent upon rules and obligations for those companies to do more than just slapping their names on billboards and football shirts. Sadly, however, thus far we have seen a severe lack of leadership from the Government. Instead of announcing new measures to tighten up the rules, they have once again sought to pass the buck solely on to the regulators, ignoring the fact that political direction and decision making is vital to underpin the work. As we heard in the opening speech, the ASA believes that it is for Parliament to legislate, not for the regulator to take action. I would appreciate it if the Minister would give some clarity on exactly what this Government want to see changed, and not just what they expect the ASA and CMA to look at. Ultimately, what matters is that we actually cut emissions, which means providing British industry with the support it needs to do that. That includes setting out a clear and stable road map to net zero, expanding the market for climate-friendly products and, importantly, ensuring that the emissions associated with products are communicated honestly and transparently to consumers. That goes way beyond advertising to making information easily accessible, so that people can understand the carbon emissions of the products they buy and can make informed choices. To conclude, we want to see action taken in this area. We are calling on the Government to secure investments to ensure that the transition away from oil and gas is a green and just one. We want the Minister to give clarity on exactly what he wants to see change.

17:00:00

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. Not being one to break consensus often, I am delighted to remind hon. Members of the value and importance of our oil and gas industry to communities in north-east Scotland such as my own, to the Exchequer, and to the United Kingdom’s energy security. I congratulate the hon. Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) on so eloquently outlining the case for the petition, and the 110,000 people who signed it on enabling it to be debated this afternoon. They make a very strong case for changing the advertising regulations as they pertain to fossil fuel companies, due to the impact of burning fossil fuels on climate change. The reasons they give are twofold: because oil and gas are damaging for the environment, and to set an example to the rest of the world. We know that burning fossil fuels emits carbon, which is leading to global warming. That is not up for debate, but if people think that shutting down the UK’s oil and gas industry or stopping it from advertising what it is doing will mean less carbon in the atmosphere, I am afraid they are sorely mistaken. First, we will need oil and gas for decades to come. Even the Climate Change Committee knows that oil and gas will remain integral to the United Kingdom’s energy mix, with fossil fuels predicted still to account for 23% of energy demand by 2050, and that is assuming we meet our climate obligations. Secondly, more carbon is emitted if liquefied natural gas is shipped in from abroad, as is happening increasingly, having been drilled or fracked in Venezuela, the USA or even Norway. Although we all accept that the use of fossil fuels is contributing to global warming, shutting down our domestic production to resolve that, or stopping companies from advertising and telling the world what they are doing, is clearly illogical, as is taxing our domestic industry into extinction, refusing new exploration licences and damaging competitiveness through advertising bans. In fact, all those things would increase global emissions. I turn to the argument about setting an example. The rhetoric of leading by example, being world leaders and winning the race on climate change is commonplace, and we are setting the pace. We slashed emissions by more than 50% compared with our 1992 levels, and we did so while the Conservatives were in government and faster than any other G7 nation, but we must look at what is happening now. The deindustrialisation of massive areas of the United Kingdom—Grangemouth, for example—has resulted in a hostile environment and sky-high green levies. The message is quite clear: do not follow where we tread. Other countries will look to the UK as an obvious example of how not to do it, because we have in no way demonstrated how to develop a sustainable energy future without undermining our industrial base or economy. That is making Britain poorer. A ban on fossil fuel advertising would be counter-productive, because unlike previous bans on tobacco or junk food advertising referenced this afternoon, banning fossil fuel advertising will not reduce demand. The UK will continue to rely on oil and gas over the coming decades. Our oil and gas industry is not antithetical to our climate commitments; it underpins them. Without gas for energy, the lights in this country would go off and industry in this country would shut up shop. Without refined oil, we would have no medicines, bike tyres, phones, plastics, wind turbines, oil to lubricate the wind turbines, solar panels or batteries for the electric cars that the Government are urging people to buy.

I appreciate the work that has gone into the shadow Minister’s speech, but when he will address the petition’s point about advertising? It seems to me that most of the speech so far has been merely an advert for the fossil fuel industry.

If the hon. Lady is patient, I will come to that—I seem to have some two and a half hours to make my remarks. I will get to the point on advertising, but my point stands: without fossil fuels, we would have none of the above. Let us look at China. It is often condemned for opening a new coal-fired power station every two weeks, but in the very next breath it is applauded for record investment in green technologies. The two are inextricably linked. Cheap, abundant energy is the only way to achieve innovation, a strong domestic manufacturing base, and industrial competitiveness. If we want the UK to drive the clean technologies of the future, we must bring down the cost of energy in the short term. The technologies and the skilled workers in the supply chain are the very technologies and the very people in the very companies—working in oil and gas right now—that are developing the cleaner energy future that we all want. Even if we drive the industry out of the UK entirely or prevent it from advertising in the UK, it will still do so. It will just do it from the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Australia, south-east Asia, South America, Mexico, the USA, Canada, Norway—in fact, anywhere that is still investing in its domestic oil and gas industry. We rely on the oil and gas industry every single day, so a ban on fossil fuel advertisements would not reduce our consumption of fossil fuels. Instead it would simply be a further signal that the UK’s energy industry is closed for business. This is personal to me, to my constituents and to the region that I have had the privilege to represent in this place for the last eight years. I saw when I was growing up, and I still see today, the immense contribution that the energy sector makes to communities and to economies. I see the value added by those high wage jobs that support families and communities. I know the individuals who make a positive contribution to the lives of their families, their home towns and our nation every day. Without them and their hard work, the lights would literally go out in this country. That is especially important as yesterday we marked 37 years since the Piper Alpha disaster, when 165 men lost their lives in the North sea while ensuring that energy still flowed into our nation. We remember the sacrifice that these individuals still make for us. The Government’s harmful policies regarding the oil and gas sector, including the ban on new licences, are already causing the contraction of businesses. The Just Transition Commission has forecast that up to 120,000 jobs in the energy sector could be lost by 2030. We absolutely need to continue developing the cleaner energy mix of the future by investing in new nuclear, carbon capture and storage, and the rest. Renowned oil and gas companies have siphoned millions of pounds of investment into offshore wind and clean power generation, and we should allow them to tell the world about that. If we are serious about reducing our carbon emissions, we must be serious about supporting the very companies with the expertise, infrastructure and capital to deliver that. The energy transition will be achieved not by demonising the oil and gas sector, but by working with it. These companies are not just part of the problem; they are essential to the solution. Equinor, Ørsted and Vattenfall are leading examples of how legacy fossil fuel firms can pivot towards clean energy—

Order. I have been very generous, but the debate has a very narrow focus on advertising. I am sure that the shadow Minister understands that and will come back to that issue.

I absolutely will. In fact, Mr Twigg, you have pre-empted exactly where I was going in my speech. Such investments are not token gestures—[Interruption.] Exactly. They are strategic investments that will shape the future of energy. Domestic supply chains, from engineering specialists to subsea infrastructure manufacturers, and from power cable component suppliers to logistics and offshore support companies, will support the transition. Again, we should allow them to tell people in this country about their work.

The hon. Gentleman will have heard earlier in the debate from the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) that some oil and gas companies advertise their work on decarbonising despite it making up only 0.3% of their business. On that basis, I could arguably edit my Wikipedia page to say that I am a professional swimmer or pub quizzer, but I do not think that would be a fair representation of what I spend most of my time doing, although it probably adds up to 0.3% of my time in some months. On that basis, would the hon. Gentleman reconsider whether he really thinks it is fair to allow oil and gas companies to advertise work that accounts for less than 0.5% of their business and use that to greenwash their image?

No, obviously that would not be fair, but as has already been pointed out, the Advertising Standards Authority has demonstrated that it possesses both the mandate and the mechanisms to hold companies to account for misleading environmental claims, and as yet it has found none to be in breach. It is important that those companies, which require the underlying profit from their traditional exploration and drilling work to support their investment in the clean technologies of the future, are allowed to tell the country and the world about that. We should be immensely proud that we have not only a world-leading oil and gas sector—the cleanest basin from which to extract oil and gas in the world right now—but one that spends billions on developing the clean technologies of the future and attracts international companies to the United Kingdom to do the same. If the issue is the accuracy of advertising, we should have confidence in the existing regulatory framework, which has proven capable of intervening where necessary. A blanket ban is neither proportionate nor necessary when robust oversight is already in place. I am afraid that the ban advocated by the petition may be purely ideological. It would damage investor confidence and be counterproductive in reducing carbon emissions. I am proud that BP, Shell, Total, Equinor and the rest invest in music, art, culture, education and sport across the UK—and let us look at what happens when they do not. Baillie Gifford, a global investment management firm that invests in some of Scotland and the UK’s biggest companies, which just happen to be oil and gas companies, was sadly forced, under pressure from environmental activists, to withdraw support for the Edinburgh international book festival. Who has had to step up at the last minute to plug the gap? It is the Scottish Government—the taxpayer—to the tune of £300,000 this year alone, at a time of tightening budgets, fiscal constraints and a difficult financial outlook for the country. When there was money already available, that is utter madness. The oil and gas industry, which is based in and around Aberdeen but has a presence across our entire island nation, is a national asset. We should be championing it and the people who work in it, not demonising them. We should be proud when we see the names of successful British companies supporting British artists, musicians and sportspeople, and when we see them investing in communities, schools and our country. We should absolutely allow them to tell the world of the globally significant investment that they are making in the clean technologies of the future, and we should not have any truck with this petition.

17:12:00

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg, for my first petitions debate, which are a great innovation in parliamentary procedure. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier), I thank everyone who signed the petition. I do not think that I have been in a Westminster Hall debate with so many people in the Public Gallery. That is fantastic to see, and I thank them for being here. I join the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), in his comments about the Piper Alpha disaster, the 37th anniversary of which was yesterday. It was the worst oil disaster in history, in terms of human lives lost, and it reminds us just how dangerous some of the work in the North sea is. It also reminds us of the importance of the culture of safety, which has changed beyond recognition since that disaster. This is a useful moment to pause and reflect on the lives that were lost. This is an important debate, and I praise my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter for his excellent introductory speech. As a Member of Parliament, it is not always easy to give a balanced speech, but he attempted to put forward both sides of the argument very strongly, and I give credit to him for doing so. I also thank other hon. Members who have contributed to the debate and raised a number of points. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) brought his extensive medical experience to the debate. He rightly spoke about the significant impact that emissions have on people’s health, and about why climate change is a public health crisis as much as an environmental one. I also thank the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) for her commitment to this issue. What she does in her spare time will now be in Hansard, so I think Wikipedia will be updated—there is no way out of that; it is on the record. I recognise the strength of feeling on this incredibly important issue; the 100,000-odd signatures on the petition that triggered the debate underline that point. Before I address the specific points in the petition, however, I want to be absolutely clear that the Government are committed to tackling climate change. In fact, the Prime Minister said recently that that is “in the DNA” of the Government. We know it is an urgent threat to life—an existential crisis for our planet—and as I have said on numerous occasions, it is no longer a theoretical future threat, but a very present reality. We do not have to look far around the world to see examples of that. Even if we did not accept all that as a huge reason to take action, we should recognise that the huge opportunity that swapping fossil fuels for clean, home-grown energy provides is much greater than just tackling the climate crisis: it can deliver our energy security in an uncertain time for our world and create tens of thousands of new jobs. It is also the industrial opportunity of the century. That is why one of the Prime Minister’s five key defining missions in government is to make this country a clean energy superpower with clean power by 2030, accelerating towards net zero. It is also why the Prime Minister has set one of the most ambitious nationally determined contribution targets in the world—to reduce all greenhouse gas emissions by at least 81% by 2035—and a few weeks ago my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out the most significant investment in home-grown clean energy in British history. Let me be clear. The Government are committed to this transition because it is the right thing to do for our energy security and to tackle the climate, but we will succeed in this mission only if we bring people with us. The moment that people start to feel that this is something being done to them, not with them, is the moment when we lose the battle. The shadow Minister rightly pointed out that we have been on this transition for a long time now. We have halved emissions since 1990 because of the consensus between Governments of different persuasions. That consensus, as many people will not have failed to notice, has now fractured, which is a great shame. For us to win the political argument, we have to bring people with us. Instead of banning and blocking, our emphasis needs to be much more on empowering people to make informed choices. As the Prime Minister said before the election, after a period in which Government seemed to tread quite heavily on all our lives, part of this Government’s mission is to deliver for the people of this country, but to tread a little lighter on people’s lives. In this space, that means ensuring that everyone has access to accurate and trustworthy information about the climate crisis and the energy they use and the options available to them to be part of the transition. In that context, I turn specifically to the petition. The UK has a robust regime in place to regulate the content and targeting of advertising through the Committee of Advertising Practice, which sets the codes that are upheld, and through the Advertising Standards Authority, which enforces the codes. The Government are not involved in the codes or in any of the investigations or enforcement delivered by the Advertising Standards Authority. In 2021, those bodies launched a climate change and environment project to respond to the ongoing climate crisis and ensure that environmental claims made in advertising are not misleading or irresponsible. Those findings have informed their updated guidance on advertising. As the Government’s response to the petition sets out, we do not currently have plans to go any further on the guidance and ban or restrict fossil fuel advertising. However, that is not to say that we do not recognise that the climate crisis, as I have already outlined, is the greatest long-term global challenge we face. To address that, we need a legal framework in place to help us reduce our emissions, which will contribute to reducing our reliance on fossil fuels.

I thank the Minister for his patience while I checked a fact. A minute or so ago, he used the phrase “informed choice” to defend why he is not planning to ban advertising for fossil fuels. Is he aware that that exact phrase, “informed choice”, was used by the tobacco companies to campaign against the ban on tobacco advertising? I am reading from a memorandum by British American Tobacco that was submitted to Parliament in 2000.

I suspect that if we go through all the words that have ever been spoken inside and outside this place, we might find two words that go side by side quite often. In answer to the hon. Lady, no, I do not think that that is the case at all. She makes a persuasive argument, but in my view it is not the argument that applies in this particular case, which I will outline if I can make just a little more progress. To come to the broader point, it is important that people have the knowledge and information before them to make informed choices on personal decisions, particularly on installing things in their own home. However, as a Government, we have a responsibility to share factual information about the state of the climate. That is why this Government frequently talk about the importance of the climate crisis; I think I have done so three times already in this speech. I am not seeking to pretend that there is not a climate crisis, and I do not think we have hidden from that fact at all. I also want to talk about the path that the UK is currently on. We need to make a broader argument to the public that goes beyond banning advertising by certain companies. Collectively, we have a responsibility to show the opportunities presented by this transition, counter to much of the misinformation and disinformation that is being put about, including by Members of this House. The latest report by the Confederation of British Industry shows that the net zero economy is growing three times faster than the wider economy, so there is an economic argument that we have to make. Since we came into government last July, more than £40 billion of private investment has come into the clean energy industries. We believe that the best way to build on that success, bring the public with us and create a convincing argument that this is the right route is by focusing on the economic and social benefits of net zero. We have therefore been working with industry to explore how we can reduce emissions from high-carbon products, including voluntary eco-labels that help consumers to make different purchasing decisions. We are continually listening to the private sector, local government, trade unions and civil society. That is why we relaunched the Net Zero Council, and we will also publish our upcoming public participation strategy. At the same time, we are doing everything we can to slash emissions while building a more secure and stable future for our country. The shadow Minister, in customary fashion, reeled off a set of political lines about why this is the wrong choice for us as a country, despite the fact that he believed in it last year when he was delivering speeches from the Government Benches. The truth is that actions speak louder than words, which is why in the past year we have not just said that we are committed to the clean energy mission and to delivering action on climate change; we have delivered. We ended the onshore wind ban within 72 hours. We set up Great British Energy, the first publicly owned energy company in 70 years. We consented enough clean power for 2 million homes by approving applications that had languished on Ministers’ desks. We kickstarted the carbon capture industry. In the past few weeks, the Chancellor has also announced a significant investment of more than £60 billion in home-grown clean energy, including new regional hydrogen networks for transport, storage, industry and power. We also published our industrial strategy, which places clean energy right at the heart of industrial renewal over the next 10 years. The wider context of climate action is important, and we want the UK to be a world leader in this space. That is why in 2008, when my right hon. Friend the Energy Secretary held the same role, we backed the Climate Change Act 2008, making the UK the first country to introduce legally binding net zero emissions targets. Since then, we have overachieved against the first, second and third carbon budgets, and we will be setting carbon budget 7 by June 2026, in line with our statutory duties.

Before the Minister winds up, I want to ensure that he tackles the question of sponsorship, which is a key part of the petition. I think that focusing only on advertising ignores the lack of choice that people have if their much-loved sports team, the gallery they want to visit or the theatre company that they support is sponsored by a fossil fuel company. The Minister needs to reflect on why so many people signed the petition, having been put in an invidious position by these sponsorship deals.

It goes back to what I said earlier. I take the hon. Lady’s point, and I take seriously the number of people who engaged with the petition. I also reflect on the number of organisations and activities across the country that rely on sponsorship. I do not think that we should discount that so easily, because we have incredibly important organisations that may well collapse without some of that sponsorship. There is a balance to be struck here. It is incumbent on Government to set the tone for what we expect in climate action. It is right and proper to hold private companies accountable where they share misleading information, but where they are supporting organisations that rely on their funding, I am afraid I struggle to say that we should simply withdraw that funding and, with it, the organisations that rely on it. As someone who has run a charitable organisation in the past, I can tell the hon. Lady that there is not an abundance of cash out there in alternatives. This is about a balance, but I take the hon. Lady’s point on board, and we keep these things under review, as do other Departments that have a closer relationship with the Advertising Standards Authority and deal with questions on such matters. As I say, this is about us treading a little lighter on people’s lives and making the case for taking collective action on the climate crisis, but not being in the business of banning things. I want to touch briefly on a point that the shadow Minister made, which is not often raised in these debates, about the just transition for the oil and gas industry. It is important to recognise that the industry has long been in transition, but there are many thousands of workers who rely on it for their livelihood and there are whole communities that depend on it for employment and investment. Although it is right that we are looking to the future of the North sea—a future that will include oil and gas for many decades to come, but will inevitably move towards other technologies, including carbon capture, hydrogen and offshore wind—we need to ensure that we are delivering the transition on the principle of fairness. Fairness for households means protecting bill payers from the volatility of fossil fuels, but in the North sea, fairness also means ensuring that workers and communities have a long-term, prosperous plan for their future. The North sea will play a critical role in Britain’s energy future. For nearly 60 years, people have worked in incredibly difficult circumstances in the North sea, with workers, businesses and communities helping to power our country with oil and gas, and they will do so for decades to come. Although oil and gas production from our own shores will play an important role, as we drive towards clean energy, the North sea gives us an opportunity to show new leadership. That is why in our consultation earlier this year we outlined the role that we want to see the North sea playing long into the future. I reiterate a point that I made at the beginning: this is an incredibly important subject and an important moment for us to say that the action needed on climate change is not just a question of banning advertising; it is about serious investment in how we push towards our clean energy transition. The Government are playing an active role in driving that forward, reducing emissions right across the country, creating good economic opportunities as part of that, demonstrating global leadership on climate action and delivering opportunities to every part of the country. We are bringing people with us on this journey, so that when those who stand up and say that the climate crisis is not a priority for us, or that we should not be moving to net zero because it might be too difficult, we can say that we are delivering the economic and industrial opportunities of the 21st century. That is how we bring people with us and deliver on our transition for everybody. It is also how we deliver the action needed to tackle the climate crisis. That is why, although this petition is an important conversation, we think there are already measures in place to tackle many of these issues. They may well need to go further, and that is for the bodies responsible to do themselves. We think that the action needed from Government is to drive forward this transition and to deliver jobs, energy security and climate leadership, and that is what we will continue to do.

17:28:00

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.

17:29:00