Read our 2023 report into Offshore Energies UK’s lobbying against the windfall tax:
How shadowy groups and privileged access enabled the fossil fuel industry to derail the windfall tax
Explore our Asks in detail:
Fossil fuels run thick and fast through Parliament. The fossil fuel industry pursues privileged access to our decision-makers. This happens subtly, through donations, side-jobs, secretive meetings, and swanky receptions. These all help to maintain the industry’s political approval and influence.
However, no one can say the exact extent to which Parliament is “fossil fuelled”. Our government’s processes are not transparent. This makes it impossible to know just how much access the fossil fuel industry has to our politics. This is particularly bad for lobbying meetings beside ministers and senior civil servants.
At Fossil Free Parliament, we expose as much of the problem as we can. We know there is a conflict of interest in the fossil fuel industry’s involvement in our politics. Our work with partner organisations and researchers unveils these injustices.
Our core work is to map the relationships between Parliament and the fossil fuel industry. We will address the issues head on.
How did we develop our five Asks?
We conducted an investigation. We looked at the fossil fuel industry’s main channels of influence in our politics. We used publicly-available sources, such as:
- the Register of Members’ Financial Interests;
- Transparency International’s Open Access UK database which compiles Government transparency data; and
- existing research published by investigative journalism platforms like DeSmog and openDemocracy.
Key Terms:
Decision-makers are considered to be MPs, Peers, and parties.
The fossil fuel industry is defined as companies generating more than 10% of their revenue from the exploration, production, refining or processing of coal, oil and fossil gas.
Organisations representing fossil fuel industry interests may include lobbyists who are paid a fee to represent their interests or fossil fuel industry networks, pressure groups, or trade associations such as Offshore Energies UK (OEUK). We are working on drawing up a list of such organisations for ease of identification.
Affiliates may include companies, individuals, or organisations representing the interests of the fossil fuel industry such as sector agencies or affiliated think tanks or pressure groups.
Our Asks: the details
BLOCK THE MONEY PIPELINE
Decision-makers must refuse benefits from the fossil fuel industry or its affiliates. These include donations, gifts, sponsorship deals, and any other benefits.
Why?
Donations are a key method used to seek influence over our decision-makers. It is a conflict of interest for decision-makers to accept donations from the fossil fuel industry or its affiliates.
The fossil fuel industry has a dangerous disregard for its role in accelerating the climate crisis. When decision-makers accept their funds, they are implicitly condoning this disregard. They also open themselves up to further influence in favour of the industry’s interests.
In the year before the government’s North Sea Transition Deal in March 2021, the Conservative Party received £419,900 in donations. These donations came from companies and individuals involved in the North Sea oil and gas industry. When published, the deal made no mention of an end-date for fossil fuel extraction in the North Sea. It also included grounds approving new drilling licences, against International Energy Agency advice.
Ending these donations is necessary for decision-makers to make impartial decisions – especially on phasing out the fossil fuel industry.
REJECT THE INVITATIONS
Decision-makers must reject invitations to host or attend events run by the fossil fuel industry. This also includes events promoting the fossil fuel industry’s interests. They must also ban fossil fuel industry events in parliament and at party conferences.
Why?
The fossil fuel industry’s dominance and social licence depends on public relations strategies. Fossil fuel industry events are a key way the industry spreads misinformation. At these events, they exaggerate green credentials and underplays continued investment.
When decision makers host, speak at or attend such events, the social licence of the industry grows stronger. It also perpetuates an inaccurate image of the industry as a necessary part of our long term future.
Fossil fuel companies also use political connections to host events in parliament itself. This provides an opportunity to look favourable to politicians without public criticism.
In April 2022, two MPs hosted a BP event on parliamentary premises. The event promised a chance to hear about the company’s plans to ‘help the world get to Net Zero’*.
The fossil fuel industry’s dominant position ensures that they can host such events. Their opponents, such as the renewable energy industry, don’t get the same privileges. This creates an undemocratic imbalance in access to decision-makers. Fossil fuel companies should not have this kind of private and privileged access.
*Source: private correspondence.
REMOVE THE SEAT AT THE TABLE
Decision-makers must end lobbying meetings with the industry and its affiliates. The only acceptable meetings are to discuss fossil fuel phase out. Public bodies must also exclude fossil fuel industry presence.
Why?
The fossil fuel industry’s lobbying is secretive, extensive and damaging to both our democracy and the climate. It is disproportionate to the industry’s actual contribution to the economy.
The fossil fuel industry has a vested interest in delaying efforts to phase out fossil fuels. To prevent them from watering down government policy, their lobbying must be regulated. This is no different from tobacco firms being excluded from public health policy-making.
The fossil fuel industry’s easy access to our decision-makers is troubling. Between July 2019 and March 2021, UK government ministers met with polluters over sixty times. This is nine times more often than they met with renewable energy companies. These meetings are private. The public is unaware of decisions being made and information being provided to decision makers.
Beyond private meetings, ministers also attended hundreds of larger group meetings on energy. Fossil fuel companies were present at these meetings five times as often as renewable energy producers.
Public bodies such as All-Party Parliamentary Groups (APPGs) can also offer lobbyists access to politicians. One APPG successfully lobbied the government to introduce a controversial ‘greener’ petrol called E10. This happened after the APPG took donations from one of the sector’s leading firms. The same company helped to write the APPG’s report to government, which contained disputed claims about the benefits of E10.
We must curtail the fossil fuel industry’s lobbying and increase transparency around meetings. This will ensure that the fossil fuel industry has very little influence over climate change policy.
DIVEST THE PENSION FUND
Decision-makers must phase out the Parliament Contributory Pension Fund’s investments in fossil fuel companies and exclude them from future investment. Re-invest this money in ethical alternatives.
Why?
When our decision makers’ pensions are invested in fossil fuel companies that are driving climate breakdown, it means that their own money is directly funding the causes of climate change while their private finances are entangled with the financial value of industries that they need to manage the phasing out of. The fact that the parliamentary pension fund does not explicitly exclude fossil fuel investments also sends out a regressive message that fossil fuel investments are still morally right and financially wise.
There are strong financial reasons to divest from fossil fuels. The Pension Fund Trustees admit that ‘climate change represents a material financial risk to the Fund with the potential to disrupt economic, financial and social systems’. Research has shown that the cost of renewable energy has fallen exponentially and it is now much cheaper than gas. Investing in green energy of the future, such as energy storage, wind, and solar, represents a more secure long-term option to protect pensions and the planet. Around the world, over 1550 institutions have already committed to divest $40.5 trillion, including the Welsh Parliament and one of the world’s biggest pension funds, the ABP, which is selling its 15 billion Euros’ worth of holdings in fossil fuels. Ending this personal link between decision-maker finances and fossil fuels is an important step towards parliament’s independence from the industry.
BREAK THE REVOLVING DOOR
Decision-makers must not take on paid work for the fossil fuel industry during their time in Parliament, and they must put in place measures to restrict movement between jobs in parliament and in the fossil fuel industry.
Why?
Jobs in the fossil fuel industry present a conflict of interest for decision-makers who need to institute climate change policies that will necessarily involve the phasing out of the fossil fuel industry. If decision-makers are paid by the fossil fuel industry, it affects their ability to make these decisions and distorts their judgement. Work for these industries also adds unhelpful social licence and respectability for companies that are engaging in climate change delay and denial.
There are currently a number of sitting MPs earning substantial incomes from paid work for the fossil fuel industry on top of their parliamentary salary. These jobs are poorly regulated and often involve a substantial income for only a few hours work, acting as an effective bribe. This kind of work means that MPs also become representatives of the fossil fuel industry themselves, acting as lobbyists from within.
Senior figures, including ex-prime minister Liz Truss, Amber Rudd and William Hague, have worked for the fossil fuel industry prior to or following on from their parliamentary career. Although ministers must seek permission when taking on jobs after leaving parliament, the committee that oversees this process has okayed numerous fossil fuel industry jobs and only has the power to refuse appointments for up to two years after someone has finished their job in parliament. This creates significant scope for a revolving door, where individuals are able to bring their personal contacts and political influence with them when taking on work that advances the interests of the fossil fuel industry.