Jacob Collier
MP for Burton and Uttoxeter · Labour · United Kingdom
“I thank my hon. Friend for her advocacy for the sector. She will know that I have Uttoxeter racecourse in my constituency. For over 60 years the horserace betting levy has helped courses such as ours, but some of that levy does not go to racecourses such as Uttoxeter in the same way that similar levies in European countries go to their ra…”
“I thank my hon. Friend for her tireless campaigning on this issue. We are joined in the Public Gallery by GMB glassmakers—I declare an interest as a GMB member—who are at risk of losing their jobs if the measure goes ahead in its current form. Will my hon.”
“Street Whyze was set up by Danny Mondesir after the tragic stabbing of Oliver Freckleton in 2021. It undertakes targeted work with young people to prevent knife crime, knife carrying and youth offending.”
“Dr David Martin, who has decades of experience as an expert witness in animal abuse cases, stressed to me that the collaboration between the police and the RSPCA is very effective in England, Scotland and Wales. Local teams know who to call when they have a query or come across animal abuse in their day-to-day activities.”
“I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I was shocked by some of the evidence I heard while preparing for this debate about the link between domestic violence and animal abuse. As the Government consider the next steps, that must be key to their thinking.”
“The Government should look at that loophole, but the Minister did not mention it in his speech. I am always keen to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury)—particularly when he makes insightful points and people think it is me making them.”
The complete record
Every one of 286 lines we hold for Jacob Collier, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 6.
“The Trades Union Congress, representing over 5 million workers, warns that the current system entrenches inequality by excluding many women, the self-employed and those in insecure work.”
“The hon. Member can hear from the Chamber that there is support for that position. I am sure the Minister has heard that. Trade unions have welcomed the Government’s review—I declare an interest here, as a proud Unison and GMB member. The GMB says that it is pleased that the Government are listening, and calls for 12 months’ maternity pay, stronger protection against discrimination and fairer rights for fathers and partners, including six weeks’ paternity leave on equal pay. The union’s model parental leave agreement also advocates paid emergency bereavement leave and carer’s leave, recognising that decent parental pay and leave boosts retention and wellbeing.”
“I do agree. I think the Government will look at those international comparisons and where Britain is in the league tables. The TUC seeks day one rights, individual entitlements to paid leave and higher pay rates so that all families can benefit, including single kinship, adoptive and surrogate parents and those in atypical roles.”
“She believes that that would not have happened if her husband had been at home longer. Neya from London told us about the aftermath of her traumatic birth and its impact. She slept on the floor for weeks and was unable to function. She said that she could barely think about how she would have coped if her husband had not been around. Another parent, who wanted to remain anonymous, shared a reflection that captures the long-term cost of the current system: “I’m struggling to see how we can possibly have a second child because of all of this. I’m very happy, grateful and content with one but it feels like the choice is starting to be taken out of our hands.””
“Yes; the hon. Lady highlights a stark inequality that the Government need to address. Behind every statistic is a story. The recent campaign by Pregnant Then Screwed gathered testimony from families across the UK who face the brutal consequences of the current, inadequate system. Laura from the west midlands had to return to work just 11 weeks after giving birth because she could not afford the mortgage repayments on her low maternity pay. She said that she had been “overwhelmed with guilt over the limited bonding time” that she had had in those early months due to returning to work, and it had greatly impacted her mental health. Izzy from Chester, recovering from an emergency caesarean section, was left alone in pain, unable to feed herself and her baby. Her wound later ruptured and became infected.”
“I agree, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who is a long-time campaigner on these issues. I know that that is something that the Government have heard him say and will continue to hear him say. We know there are huge costs involved. A nursery place for an older child at this time can cost up to £1,200 a month for three days a week, while the average mortgage is between £800 and £1,000 a month. Add in household bills, food bills and transport costs, and it becomes painfully clear how impossible it is to survive on the statutory maternity pay of £4.99 an hour.”
“I do agree, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work in this area. Every change must be responsible with public money and it must be manageable for employers. The evidence suggests that that can be achieved. Changes can be phased in over time, so that payroll systems and budgets can adjust. However, it is crucial that the cost of this reform is not simply passed on to employers, who are already facing rising costs. As the petitioner has argued, this change should be about Government investment, recognising the economic and social value of supporting families, just as we do with other forms of social security.”
“I agree. It is quite stark that lots of parties are represented here today, but apart from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), there is not one Member of the official Opposition here. Ultimately, this issue is about the country that we choose to be. The first months of a child’s life are not a private indulgence; they are a public good. When parents are able to be present, children flourish, mothers recover, fathers bond and families become the firm foundation of a stronger, healthier society. When that support is absent, we all pay the price—not immediately, but inevitably. This issue is not merely a question of fairness; it is a matter of foresight and basic national good.”
“Absolutely. I know that my hon. Friend has a lot of experience in his own family to bring to this debate, and I wonder if his daughter is watching it. A parental leave system that works for every family, for employers and freelancers, and for single parents and kinship carers alike is not a cost to be endured but an investment in our shared future. It is in that spirit that I look forward to hearing the rest of the debate tonight.”
“The Government’s parental review is the very first of its kind, and while it shows that the Minister and the Department are willing to listen, it must lead to real action with clear milestones for reform so that we do not see millions of families falling into poverty. I welcome the Minister saying that he will draw on the evidence he heard today, as well as submissions from unions, employers and families. No parent should have to face poverty in bringing up their newborn. If we get this right, we can strengthen family life, improve equity and give every child a fairer start. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered e-petition 715292 relating to statutory maternity and paternity pay.”
“I start by wishing a very happy second birthday to William, the son of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Alex McIntyre). Perhaps he is at a soft play centre in Walthamstow. I thank hon. Members for sharing their experiences and those of their constituents, which has powerfully showed the need for change in this area. I also thank the Minister for setting out the criteria of the review. I know that he cares passionately about these issues. Despite what the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) said, there is a real need for change, as we have heard throughout the debate.”
“I thank the Transport Secretary for her statement and recognise the national importance of this project. As she said, we must ensure that the whole of the United Kingdom benefits from the project, should it go ahead, and I am particularly keen that firms across Staffordshire and the midlands are involved. If she approves the scheme, how will British firms play their part in this nationally significant project?”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There will be a £24 million benefit to Stoke-on-Trent, a £30 million boost to Uttoxeter and east Staffordshire, and an £11 million benefit to Newcastle-under-Lyme, which demonstrates the importance of investing in this corridor.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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?”
“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?”
“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?”
“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?”
“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?”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”