Jacob Collier MP: speeches

Speeches

• 20 Oct 2025 · A50/A500 Corridor · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree. My hon. Friend has been a great champion for improvements alongside me. Congestion around Uttoxeter, Blythe Bridge and Sudbury undermines productivity and growth and turns commutes into nightmares. Queues stretch for miles at peak hours, average speeds fall below 20 mph and local roads bear the pressure of diverted traffic. My constituents experience that on a daily basis.

• 20 Oct 2025 · A50/A500 Corridor · Hansard source

  More

  I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the important issue of the A50/A500 corridor, a route that is vital to our industry and people in both Staffordshire and the wider midlands. May I welcome the new Minister to his portfolio? I hope he has not already got earache from the amount of times I have mentioned this road to him already. The previous Roads Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), saw the chaos of the road for herself, and the same pleasure awaits him if he wishes to visit. This corridor is more than a road; it connects our communities, links our manufacturers to markets and sustains thousands of jobs across the midlands. Every day, more than 60,000 vehicles travel along it, moving people, goods and opportunity between Derby, Uttoxeter, Stoke-on-Trent and the M1 and M6. It is a route that serves some of Britain’s best-known businesses, including JCB, Toyota and Rolls-Royce, leading universities and tourist attractions such as Alton Towers.

• 20 Oct 2025 · A50/A500 Corridor · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely, and if we see that investment, we can create even more jobs. Midlands Connect’s long-term vision goes further by predicting 17,000 new jobs and £12 billion of added economic output for the region over the next 60 years. That investment will also support the delivery of 30,000 new homes. The corridor plays a vital strategic role in linking the east midlands freeport to the rest of the country, and with the expansion of junction 24 of the M1—which is being championed by east midlands mayor Claire Ward and east midlands Labour MPs—we can turbocharge that growth. However, this is not just about economics; it is also about safety. At the McDonald’s roundabout in Uttoxeter —a location that thousands of my constituents use every day—there has been a series of tragic and fatal accidents. Only recently, we saw another serious collision during the morning rush hour that caused chaos across the town. Each incident is a reminder that we must act with urgency. The current pedestrian crossing on the Uttoxeter roundabout forces pedestrians to cross multiple busy lanes of fast-moving traffic. It is unsafe and unsustainable. Safety improvements must sit alongside wider upgrades to the corridor. Every serious accident leads to delays for hauliers, lost hours for commuters, and disruption for the emergency services. Safer design will save lives, as well as keep us moving. While many MPs might be lobbying the Department for road upgrades after decades of under-investment, few will have a stronger case than the A50/500. If we want to deliver economic growth, make commutes easier, create thousands of jobs, back business to succeed, build more houses and better connect our communities, we should invest in the A50/500. These upgrades are backed cross-party, cross-county and cross-region, because we can all see the benefits. The spending review has provided the cash, the analysis has provided the evidence, and our communities have made their case—what we now need is the political will to deliver. I therefore urge the Minister to confirm that the A50/500 corridor will be considered a key priority in the preparation of RIS3 and that work will now begin on that detailed business case. The midlands has been held back for too long. This Government are already reversing that decline, but we can go further. My constituents and our businesses were first promised these upgrades in 2008 by a bloke called George Osborne, when he was shadow Chancellor. The Tories never delivered, and we are still waiting. This Labour Government can be the difference.

• 20 Oct 2025 · A50/A500 Corridor · Hansard source

  More

  I was not sure whether the people of Northern Ireland use the A50, but I am grateful for that intervention. I am going to come on to safety concerns, which are a key part of this debate. We have the full backing of 50 local business leaders and the Staffordshire chambers of commerce, who wrote with me to the Chancellor to urge investment in this vital corridor. That is a clear demonstration of the support we have from the business community.

• 20 Oct 2025 · A50/A500 Corridor · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend has made the case that this investment would benefit not just the people of Staffordshire, but the people of east Staffordshire and the wider midlands. I hope that the Government will commit to the A50/A500 being part of the next road investment strategy in March 2026. The Treasury has already set aside £24 billion of capital funding for that programme, and my purpose this evening is clear: to ensure that the A50/A500 is placed within that document, and that the Department for Transport commits to funding the next stage of upgrades through RIS3. Midlands Connect, which has led the technical work on this route, has produced powerful evidence of what those upgrades could achieve. Its latest assessment shows that by 2031, improvements along the A50 could create more than 2,000 jobs across Staffordshire and generate £116 million for the local economy.

• 20 Oct 2025 · Post-16 Education and Skills Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  In my constituency, major employers offer excellent apprenticeships, but the number of places is limited. They have told me that they would welcome the ability to share unsuccessful applications with similar employers, such as small and medium-sized enterprises in their supply chains, rather than their being lost to the system. What can the Education Secretary do to encourage such collaboration between employers to boost the take-up of high-quality apprenticeships?

• 14 Oct 2025 · Great British Energy: Public Sector Renewable Energy Use · Hansard source

  More

  11. What steps Great British Energy is taking to help public services use more renewable energy.

• 14 Oct 2025 · Great British Energy: Public Sector Renewable Energy Use · Hansard source

  More

  Thanks to Great British Energy and this Government, Queen’s hospital in Burton will get solar panels, which will save the trust money that can be ploughed directly into the frontline and be spent on patients. Does the Secretary of State agree that there is significant opportunity to expand that programme to other public buildings, and is he exploring that with his Department?

• 11 Sept 2025 · Suicide Prevention · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher), and I congratulate my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett), on her powerful speech. I welcome the conversation that we, as a country, are having about mental health, because every community has a story where lives have been lost, and my constituency is no different. Helena Markey went to my school, de Ferrers, and was in the year below me. I still remember her smile, which would light up any room. On 10 September 2015, she passed away after jumping into the path of a vehicle. She was just 17. It shocked our school community. It shocked our local community. A young life with so much potential and so much to give to the world was taken away from us. Weeks before Helena died, she received her exam feedback and was considering her options for year 13. She became very distressed about the results and would later go on to take her own life. Helena’s parents were completely unaware of just how upset she had become. I have been working with Helena’s incredible parents, Glen and Sharron Markey, since my election, and have been supporting them on their Smile4Helena campaign, which aims to change the Department for Education’s guidance to schools to ensure that they notify parents if a pupil becomes distressed during their results feedback. Glen and Sharron believe that just a simple phone call to them about Helena’s distress would have meant that they could have gone and picked her up from school, and that would have saved her life; they could have talked her through that situation and got through it together. We are seeking a meeting with the new Schools Minister to ensure that what happened to Helena does not happen to any other young person. I would be grateful if the Minister could use his good offices to assist with that. The key to mental health support is talking and being open with each other about the challenges that we all face. It is about not just the investment that we need in mental health crisis services, but front-loading that into preventive support. That is why I believe that the Government’s plan for mental health hubs, and the increase in the number of mental health counsellors, are so important. Locally, there are so many people who support others to open up about their mental health, including the Sexual Abuse Rape Advice Centre or Sarac, Burton YMCA, Burton and District Mind, BAC O’Connor and those, like Andy’s Man Club, that are looking to set up in Burton and Uttoxeter. I pay tribute to all those organisations; they save lives every single day, even if they do not know it. We owe it to Helena, her family and every young person in this country to do better—to create a culture where no one suffers in silence, where families are kept informed and where the right support is there at the right time. I ask the Minister to reaffirm our shared commitment to building a system that catches young people before they fall, because behind every statistic is a life, a family and a future. If by making changes we can prevent just one more family from experiencing the heartbreak that happened to the Markeys, then it will be worth it.

• 10 Sept 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  The shadow Minister talks a lot about price, but he is defending a system in which my constituents must get three buses or more to get to their destination, and pay individual fares on those buses. Under the integrated system proposed in the Bill, we could have a price cap, like the one here in London. Why does he not support that principle?

• 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.