Tuesday 6th October 2020

(3 years, 7 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Asked by
Baroness Boycott Portrait Baroness Boycott
- Hansard - -

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made towards identifying sponsors for COP 26; and what criteria are used in the appointment of any such sponsors.

Lord Callanan Portrait The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, the Government have set strict sponsorship criteria for COP 26 to partner with companies committed to fighting climate change and running their businesses in a sustainable manner. The Government have published an online form for companies to register their interest in sponsorship and are already in discussion with a number of companies. We are looking for companies committed to reaching net zero by 2050 with a credible short-term action plan to achieve this.

Baroness Boycott Portrait Baroness Boycott (CB) [V]
- Hansard - -

I thank the Minister for his reply. I am very glad to hear that we are setting standards; I have indeed read the form. However, I want to press a little further. I understand that conversations have taken place between some leading oil companies and the team funding COP 26. Governments around the world are, as we know, still subsidising the fossil fuel industry, and even if many of them are developing alternative energy streams, these are still an actual fraction of their output. While this remains a fact, allowing any fossil fuel company to sponsor the climate talks seems to me not dissimilar to allowing a tobacco company that produced vaping products to sponsor something like the Olympics. Can the Government guarantee to the House that the process of sponsorship of this critical meeting will not allow any greenwashing on behalf of any company? Will the Government further agree that all the sponsorships will be very clear and transparent, and if not open to full public scrutiny, open to scrutiny by the House?