Fossil Fuel Advertising and Sponsorship

Siân Berry Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

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.

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

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.

[Andrew Bowie]

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—

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Shanks]

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.

[Siân Berry]

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.

[Michael Shanks]

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.

Great British Energy Bill

Siân Berry Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 29th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

I am pleased to speak in this debate, and the Green group of MPs is pleased to back this Bill. I will be speaking in support of new clauses 2 and 3, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay), which are designed to make the Bill even stronger. The new clauses would create a new nature recovery duty for Great British Energy and prevent investments that increase climate emissions.

I thank the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) for her statement of support for my hon. Friend’s work and for making the Bill better for nature recovery. I also thank her for her proposals on insulation and community energy, which we support. All those things are vital for the Bill’s success.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

If nature recovery is to be important in the Government’s present drive, does the hon. Member accept that renewable energy has been destructive of nature? Some 17 million trees have been cut down in Scotland to facilitate windmills. Now, there are studies indicating that offshore wind is leading to dead porpoises, dead dolphins and dead whales being washed up on beaches because of the effects of drilling.

[Siân Berry]

I do not agree with all the assertions that the right hon. Member makes, but the duty is intended precisely to ensure that every single project would have a positive impact on nature. Under new clause 3, they would all be renewable projects.

The nature recovery duty under new clause 2 would help GB Energy invest only in projects that deliver significant biodiversity benefits and meet targets under the Environment Act 2021, by building nature-friendly design features into renewable energy projects and creating and restoring habitats on development sites in and around clean energy infrastructure.

The Bill Committee heard from Shaun Spiers of Green Alliance, who made a strong case for a nature recovery duty being created for GB Energy. The ensuing discussion saw the Crown Estate used as an example for how a public body could deliver for nature without having a statutory duty to do so. However, the Crown Estate is a highly relevant case study that demonstrates why non-statutory duties are not enough. The Crown Estate’s lack of a statutory duty to consider nature in its own decision making has led to its involvement in a number of environmentally damaging schemes.

For example, let us consider mining proposals in the Sperrin mountains area of outstanding natural beauty in Northern Ireland. The Crown Estate entered into an initial mineral extraction agreement with a mining company there in 2016, leading to proposals for goldmining. That has provoked significant environmental concern about harmful chemicals and waste from mining operations polluting nearby rivers and degrading the surrounding AONB. An application was submitted in 2017 and is now subject to a public inquiry, following nearly 40,000 objections from local people. So an abundance of warm words about protecting and conserving the environment, and about the Crown Estate’s status as a public body, did not inhibit it from playing a role in a project that threatens nature.

[Sammy Wilson]

The hon. Lady mentioned Northern Ireland and particularly the Sperrin mountains, which is an area of great natural beauty. It has many features, including wildlife and wild uplands, but it has been industrialised. I took a motorbike journey around the area three weeks ago, and there are hundreds of huge wind turbines. The peat has been dug up, the landscape has been destroyed and thousands of birds are killed every year. What has happened in the Sperrin mountains is hardly a good example of renewable energy being nature-friendly.

[Siân Berry]

I am sure we can have those debates in the context of a statutory duty. These are important questions to consider.

I want to give some other examples of public bodies damaging nature, because they abound—from the granting of new oil and gas licences in marine protected areas by the North Sea Transition Authority, to Highways England pursuing damaging road construction projects on the edges of national parks. Without legal backing, nature considerations can be and are brushed aside.

There is no reason to think that Great British Energy, without a duty to consider nature recovery, will be any different. A statutory duty to deliver for nature’s recovery would be complementary to GB Energy’s other objectives around clean energy, energy efficiency and energy security. It would also reflect the Government’s manifesto commitment to tackle the interconnected nature and climate crises together. I hope the Government will carefully consider those arguments.

New clause 3, which was also tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney Valley, is vital to guarantee that our energy investments are not only financially responsible but aligned with the legal requirement to reach net zero by 2050. As legislators, we have a duty to hold GB Energy accountable, preventing investments that will lock us into high-carbon energy pathways and undermine our net zero commitments. The new clause mandates environmental impact assessments before any investments are made, ensuring that each decision is grounded in evidence. It forces us to ask, “Will this investment push us at speed towards, or risk pulling us away from, our climate goals?” Publishing those assessments opens the process to public scrutiny—an essential principle in democracy. The public deserve to know exactly how their tax money is being used, particularly when it comes to funding projects that may exacerbate the climate crisis.

The new clause would also bar public money from being spent on fossil fuel and unsustainable high-carbon projects such as biomass. We cannot ignore the facts: Drax, the largest biomass-burning plant in the UK, emitted over 11 million tonnes of CO₂ in 2023. Worse still, it receives nearly £900 million in Government subsidies a year. If we allow investments in projects such as Drax or new fossil fuel infrastructure, we risk undermining the very goals we are trying to achieve. The new clause would close the door on such contradictions.

When we talk about greenhouse gas emissions, it is crucial to acknowledge that carbon dioxide is not the only danger. Methane is a greenhouse gas with over 80 times the warming potential of CO₂ over a 20-year period. Methane emissions, often associated with fossil fuel extraction and agriculture, must be tightly controlled to ensure that the UK meets its climate commitments. The new clause would ensure that all climate emissions, including methane, are thoroughly assessed before any public investment is made. If we do not account for methane and other greenhouse gases, we risk underestimating the climate impact of certain energy projects, and particularly those related to natural gas production and transport.

Fossil fuel infrastructure does not just burn carbon; it locks us into long-term dependence on dirty energy. Every pound spent on high-carbon infrastructure makes it harder and more expensive to transition away from fossil fuels in the time that we have. This amendment ensures that we avoid that trap, by making it impossible for Great British Energy to invest in projects that would limit our ability to end our reliance on carbon-emitting technologies.

Great British Energy should also be a true trailblazer in the global transition to clean energy. The amendment strengthens that mission by making clear that only projects contributing to emissions reductions should receive investment. With countries around the world watching, we have a unique opportunity to lead by example. A failure to act boldly now will leave us behind in the global race for climate leadership.

We are in a climate and nature emergency, and we cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of the past by further locking ourselves into harmful high-carbon infrastructure. These amendments reflect that. The stakes could not be higher. These decisions are about securing a liveable planet for future generations. I hope the Government will listen.

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

Let me begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson) on his maiden speech. I am delighted that he gave us a lesson on how to say his constituency name. How can I say “Erewash” to further confuse Hansard? I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet), who is no longer in her place, but I think everyone in this House felt the passion in her speech. I look forward to hearing more from her on a number of issues.

I will focus my remarks on how to ensure that GB Energy delivers effectively for Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. To do that, it must generate investment that delivers tangible results and brings jobs and economic growth, along with the energy security that we all want. In Committee, witnesses said that one of the challenges for GB Energy will be finding a balance between accelerating renewable energy delivery and ensuring a return on investment, while supporting less mature technologies. I agree that it will be a difficult balance to strike, but we are more likely to succeed in our investments if they are encouraged in areas where there is likely to be a warm welcome and strong understanding of electricity generation, and where the foundational skills and engineering heritage already exist. They include former coalfields across Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, including in west Fife in my constituency.

Although the mines closed decades ago, the heritage of electricity generation lived on in the Longannet power station near Kincardine, on the banks of the River Forth. Constructed in the 1960s, Longannet was once Europe’s biggest coal-fired power station and one of the largest carbon emitters on the continent, before shutting down in 2016. Having represented that community as a councillor, I know that people across west Fife accept that coal had to go and things had to move on, but they want something to replace it. Like so much of our past energy infrastructure, and like in so many industries, Longannet was closed down with little or no consideration for what might replace it or how the thousands of jobs lost could be replaced and the skills maintained, particularly in the rural villages of west Fife, where losing even a few families or employees can put their whole sustainability at risk.

I believe that GB Energy and the investment opportunities that it presents is a chance to change that. The site is currently being safely demolished by ScottishPower, but there are still no clear plans for the future of the site. Longannet is perfectly situated to play its part once again in helping to provide electricity for our country and leverage some of the £60 billion possible investment that could be available via GB Energy. The site is designated for major employment, and due to its location right on the coast it is likely to be suitable for major industrial use only. It has the potential to bring jobs and investment to the coalfield villages of west Fife and the whole of central Scotland, securing opportunities for those communities to fulfil the aspirations of the people living there.

Despite being listed as a strategic priority site by the Scottish Government, they have had no plans for it, and from what is available in the public domain, it seems they have not prioritised any action at all in recent years. Promises made of train manufacturing being brought to the site came to nothing, and the decision by that company to withdraw from an agreement came to light only because of a freedom of information request I made back in 2022. Nothing was discussed publicly at all. Indeed, some people in that community still talk about when the train manufacturer is coming. Similarly, both Fife council and Scottish Enterprise have struggled to engage with ScottishPower about the future of the site, although I have a meeting with ScottishPower this week, and I hope to gain more clarity after that. Will the Minister, in winding up, agree to meet me and other stakeholders to ensure that sites such as Longannet, once a symbol of Scottish and UK electricity generation and the skills that come with it, are priorities for GB Energy? How will it work with the industry to create the right plans to bring investment to the area?

We know the wreckage that the Conservative party made of UK and Scottish industry over the past decades: change without a plan. GB Energy offers an opportunity not only to have a plan for our low-carbon secure energy future, but to fix yet another part of the mess left for us by the deliberate actions of the Conservatives and the incompetence of the SNP in Scotland. The Bill is a huge opportunity for Scotland. We must ensure that it is passed today, so it can get on with its work as quickly as possible.