Post Office Board and Governance

Debate between Ian Lavery and Kevin Hollinrake

Wednesday 28th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I think on two occasions Mr Staunton lobbied for a pay increase for Mr Read. He sought to double the overall package of Mr Read on those occasions.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Yesterday’s Committee meeting was bizarre in many ways. It was five hours long and, as happens only rarely, the people in front of the inquiry had to swear on the Holy Bible. That is how bad it was. The recently dismissed former chairman revealed a number of things that were quite alarming. First, he revealed that the current chief executive is under investigation. Perhaps the Minister can explain why we were not aware of that. Secondly, he revealed that the current chief executive had threatened to resign on more than four occasions, not because of the lack of progress on any financial redress for postmasters and postmistresses, but because he said his wages were too low. The chief executive also said that he was proud that he had a hardship fund for workers in the Post Office. Can the Minister clarify whether there has been an approach by anyone on behalf of the current chief executive for a pay rise, and what the response was?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

First, may I correct the record? In response to the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), I said that the fixed sum award was £650,000; it is £600,000.

It would be wrong to disclose an investigation into somebody’s conduct before that investigation had concluded. It would be extraordinary to do that in any work context, be it in the public or private sector. I am happy to have a conversation with the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) about the hardship fund. If he is talking about the Post Office paying salaries to postmasters, most postmasters are self-employed, not paid a salary directly, and have a number of different streams of income into their business. These are businesses in their own right, of course, but there is a hardship fund for certain postmasters in certain situations.

Post Office Management Culture

Debate between Ian Lavery and Kevin Hollinrake

Thursday 8th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Today’s debate is extremely timely and important. It is harrowing to listen to cases from across the UK, and it takes time for it to sink in how the cover-up of this scandal has cost the lives of ordinary, hard-working people who only wanted to provide for their families by working for their communities in post offices. We have to think about how many of those people have been tret, not just by the Post Office but by the Government and Fujitsu. Many of them have had extreme difficulties in employment. They were not just betrayed but sent to prison for crimes that they did not commit. They knew they were innocent; more importantly, the people who sent them there knew that they were innocent as well. We need a lot of answers. More and more is coming to the fore every day with regard to this scandal.

Mention has been made of who knew about this. The Government knew about it, Fujitsu knew about it, and the Post Office knew about it; yet they still sent investigators into sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses’ post offices. They investigated people, charged people, and devastated people’s lives. They acted like the Gestapo. They turned up on the day and closed post offices down. That is the Post Office management culture, and it needs to be addressed.

I am not sure how we can compensate anybody. How can we compensate the family of a woman or man who committed suicide as a result of the pressure that they were put under by the Government, the Post Office and investigators? How do we compensate people for the death of a loved one who was the breadwinner in the family, and decided that their only option was to take their own life? It is unimaginable. We cannot put ourselves in their shoes.

What about the men and women who went to prison because they had supposedly falsified accounts and committed theft? They were imprisoned with child-killers and rapists for things they had not done. Not only did they know they had not done them; the Government and the Post Office knew it too. Fujitsu knew what was happening behind the scenes. This does not seem like the country I am very proud of—what happened with the Government behind the scenes. It is very murky and sinister. At the same time, the Government and the Post Office were prosecuting people with evidence from Fujitsu, and people were being imprisoned and taking their own lives. Frankly, it is enough to make us cry.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Gentleman is rightly making a typically impassioned speech. I have been very careful throughout the whole time I have been involved in this matter, which is over four years, as a Back-Bencher and a Front-Bencher, not to play any kind of party politics with it. I put it on the record that the issues occurred under a series of Governments: the Labour Government, the coalition Government and the current Government. It is important that we look at the matter on a cross-party basis and seek to resolve it as such. I am keen to work with him on that basis.

[Ian Lavery]

I thank the Minister for that intervention, and I agree. I have a lot of time for him. We have had conversations about this matter and many others. As he will notice if he looks in Hansard, I have not been party political. I have said “the Government”. He is correct to point out that there have been Governments of different colours throughout the period.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery]

Not only that, but Jo Hamilton had to pay £36,000 back, even though she knew she was in the right. I asked Nick Read, the chief executive of the Post Office, whether it was a possibility that the money paid back by a number of the victims would have been in a place where it could have provided bonuses for senior executives. How perverse is that? The answer from the chief executive, when I pressed him and pressed him, was that yes, it was a possibility, but he did not know where the money actually went. That in itself is so bad that it beggars belief.

Fujitsu, meanwhile, denied any knowledge of bugs or any wrongdoing, but actually knew quite the opposite, and it supplied evidence to the Post Office to prosecute individuals. How bad is that situation? This is not a spy movie—it is worse than a spy movie. They had a dark room in Fujitsu where its employees were communicating with the Horizon computer system in post offices up and down the country. Fujitsu denied it all along, saying that it was impossible it could ever happen, yet people there were changing the amounts of money openly. The Government knew. Fujitsu knew, because it had the operation in its own offices, with employees changing facts and figures in the accounts of ordinary hard-working individuals—again, spy movie stuff. It is unbelievable that that could be the case.

Is it not unreal to think that none of this would have come about if not for the ITV dramatisation, “Mr Bates vs The Post Office”? We would not be discussing it in this Chamber, because it would have been kicked into the long grass. The people would all have suffered the same—those who are in prison, the families who have been destroyed, and the kids who have been brought up with the criticism and abuse that their parents were thieves —but it would not have been unearthed.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

There is no doubt that the ITV series has rightly heightened awareness both in this House and further afield, and I welcome that, but much work was going on in this space before it aired, including on how we can overturn more convictions on a blanket basis. I was working on that with the advisory board before the series aired, so it is not right to say that we would not have got to this position without it. We probably would not have got here as quickly, but the hon. Gentleman must concede that this work has been going on for years—although I welcome the fact that it is happening more rapidly now.

[Ian Lavery]

I thank the Minister for that clarification. Forgive me, Mr Deputy Speaker, if I suggested that nothing at all had happened, because I know that the Minister, the all-party parliamentary group, the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) and others have been working on the matter assiduously. However, as the Minister said, we might not otherwise have been at this stage. We might not have got Fujitsu to say for the first time, “Yes, we are sorry,” and the Post Office might not have started to admit that it had pursued wrongful or unsafe prosecutions. But we are where we are. I would not want to mislead anyone in the debate.

I have three brief examples. These people, Minister, were heavily involved with Horizon and the Post Office, and suffered greatly. It causes me real heartbreak, to be honest. The first example is that of Janine, a lady from my constituency who has sadly passed on; no one came to see me about her case until they saw the ITV documentary. Her husband simply cried for the entire hour that I sat with him. He wanted justice for Janine, who sadly died of covid. He is hoping for some sort of justice now.

Janine was employed in a post office in a newsagents, which is a regular thing up and down the country. Her contract with the newsagents said that any shortfall in the post office finances must be made up by her. She and another person were employed by the newsagents, and then there was the sub-postmaster or mistress— I am not sure which it was on this occasion. Janine was accused of stealing £25,000, even though she had not seen that amount of money before. The Post Office investigators came to the newsagents and basically tret her like a common thief. The pressure was put on: “We are going to charge you with theft and you are going to prison.”

Janine was absolutely devastated. She pleaded guilty. Then, she sat back and realised, “Why should I be pleading guilty when I am not guilty?”. It cost her and her family a small fortune to take the case back to court and have the guilty verdict rescinded. The Post Office then said, “Okay, you can accept the lesser charge of false accounting and pay the money back.” She refused. All this cost her £15,000 in legal fees—these are just ordinary working people in the community. She was then informed that if she paid the £25,000 back, the Post Office would drop the charges. That is what happened: she paid the money back. Unfortunately, by the day she sadly passed on, she and her family had lost everything they had.

That needs scrutiny. We need to look at the management culture. What on earth was going on at the Post Office during this thing? Who directed the investigators to go to those post offices and treat people the way they were tret in the investigations? They knew at the time that the allegations were false. That is the thing that I have reiterated and will continue to reiterate: they knew that the allegations were in many ways false, unfounded, unfair. Maybe the investigators did not, but the people at the top of the Post Office certainly knew; people in government knew. That cannot be right. Janine’s husband has written and submitted a really heart-rending letter, but under the current schemes, he is unlikely to be able to claim any money. How can that be just? I will follow that up with the Minister.

The second example is that of a man who wrote to us saying: “I’ve got a massive problem. I’m like lots of other sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses. We work at the very heart of the community. It’s where people used to come to talk. We were trusted, well respected, listened to.” He was seeing mistake after mistake crop up on his computer week after week, but rather than inform the Post Office, he was putting money in week by week to balance the accounts, which had been altered by somebody at the Fujitsu head office.

This individual says that he simply could not stand the idea that anybody would think him in the slightest—in the remotest sense—a thief. He has paid tens of thousands of pounds, if we aggregate the money that he paid week by week. There is no way that he or hundreds of other employees have the opportunity or ability to claim compensation at this moment. That begs the question of whether the Post Office, together with the Government, will write to every single person who was a sub-postmaster between 1998 and now to ask them if they are aware of anyone who might have put their own money—out of their own backside pocket, out of their family’s savings—into balancing the accounts. There should be consideration of compensation for such individuals. The Post Office will have all the details of people in those roles who claimed to have used finances from their own back pocket.

I will briefly mention the last example. I have not actually seen these individuals—they are coming to see us next week—but I have been told by one of their relations that they were involved in the Horizon scandal and paid £25,000. That sum crops up time and again. They paid that just to save their name. Nothing went to court—nothing happened—but they paid the money, despite the fact that they were innocent. They thought that because they paid the money, the matter would go away, and there is very little opportunity for people like them to reclaim their money. It is unfair. Never mind them stealing money off the Post Office; the Post Office has stolen money off hard-working people. That should be recognised.

It would be helpful if the Post Office and the Government could listen to what other people have to say. This is not just about those who were convicted or prosecuted; there are more people who were not convicted or prosecuted, but who are out of pocket and have had their life destroyed as a consequence of the Post Office Horizon scandal. We need to look at how that can be addressed. Those people deserve compensation. As the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw said, this scandal is appalling. It is disgraceful, shameful, and a stain on all of us. I agree with the Minister that this is a cross-party issue. We have the opportunity to put things right, so let us do it. Let us look after the people whose only crime was going to work and looking after their family.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Debate between Ian Lavery and Kevin Hollinrake

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 22nd May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery]

My hon. Friend makes a good and valid point that the trade unions are the workers themselves. It is as simple as that.

In conclusion, will Government Members tell us why we are not having a minimum service Bill for non-strike days? In the past year or so, in particular when the paramedics and ambulance workers have gone on strike, efficiency has increased and has been first class on strike days. On non-strike days, like the 360-odd days other than those strike days, unfortunately what we see is people lying on pavements or having heart attacks who cannot get an ambulance. Let us look at a Bill for non-striking days so we can enhance the efficiency of all of the services outlined tonight. If the Minister did that, he would get our support.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank all Members, on both sides of the House, for the robust debate we have had as the legislation has passed through both Houses. It is fair to say that the discussion and debate about the legislation has pretty much divided along party political lines. Our position is that this legislation strikes a balance between the right to strike and the right of the public to go about their daily business and daily lives.

It is also fair to say that we could have chosen an option that went much further. As I said earlier, the USA, Australia and Canada have completely banned strikes in certain sectors, prohibiting them completely. Spain and Belgium have similar legislation on minimum service levels. Indeed, in France there are penalties of up to six months in jail for anyone who is under a requisition notice to return to work.

It is interesting that many Opposition Members have talked about restricting the right to strike. Well, we already restrict the right to strike for the armed forces, the police and prison officers. Will Opposition Members repeal that legislation to allow people who work in those parts of our society to strike? There are already some restrictions; we are putting in place sensible restrictions that are already in place in many other countries.

The guidance from the International Labour Organisation says:

“A minimum service may be set up in the event of a strike, the extent and duration of which might be such as to result in an acute national crisis endangering the normal living conditions of the population.”

It is clear the ILO supports the kinds of measures we are putting in place. I have heard Opposition Members say that no one wants this legislation but interestingly, when surveyed, 56% of the public say that they do, against 31% who do not.

Earlier today, the deputy Leader of the Opposition tweeted her support for the 121 politicians who have condemned the Bill. May I gently urge her to look at some of the people who signed that letter? Some of those signatories are anti-Zelensky, anti-Ukraine, anti-Israel and pro-Russia. I urge her to look at that again and withdraw her tweet.

We believe the legislation strikes the right balance between the right to strike and the rights of the public to go about their daily business and protect their livelihoods. There have been over £3 billion of costs to our economy because of these strikes, which is putting many businesses and many jobs in danger. The Bill presents a fair balance between the rights of workers and the rights of the public.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ian Lavery and Kevin Hollinrake

Tuesday 17th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

15. What steps he is taking to help ensure the effective provision of postal services.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kevin Hollinrake)]

Ofcom has a duty to ensure the provision of a financially sustainable and efficient universal postal service. Ofcom oversees Royal Mail’s contingency plans to mitigate disruption to universal postal services, and it continues to closely monitor Royal Mail’s performance.

[Ian Lavery]

Does the Minister share my deep concerns about the creeping increased shareholding in Royal Mail by Vesa Equity Investment, a company whose chief executive, Daniel Křetínský, has close ties to Russia? What guarantees can the Minister give about the future of our cherished, 500-year-old Royal Mail?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

As I say, we have no plans to change the universal service requirements of the postal service. This Government are proud of their credentials on foreign direct investment, and we encourage foreign investment into this country. I notice from the global chief executive officer survey today that the UK is third in the world in terms of the places where people want to invest, and we want to make sure that that continues. We looked at this matter from a national security perspective and we did not feel there was an issue, so we welcome that investment.

Royal Mail and the Universal Service Obligation

Debate between Ian Lavery and Kevin Hollinrake

Thursday 12th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[Kevin Hollinrake]

We will have a good opportunity to debate the Bill on Monday, so I do not want to get dragged into that right now.

[Ian Lavery]

Yes or no?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

As the Minister concerned, clearly I will vote in favour, as the hon. Gentleman would imagine, but let us have a good debate about that on Monday. I spoke to one of the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues, the Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), today, and he said he was very supportive of a minimum service level, so we should not draw battle lines on this issue simply on party political grounds. But perhaps we should have a go at debating that on Monday.

The importance of the universal postal service is a key element of today’s debate, as mentioned by many hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale, my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), and the hon. Members for Reading East (Matt Rodda), for Luton South, for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) and for Ilford South (Sam Tarry). Our objective continues to be the provision of a financially sustainable and efficient universal service that meets the needs of users, within an open and competitive postal market. That is why the six-day-a-week, one-price-goes-anywhere, universal service remains at the heart of the regulatory regime, and why Ofcom has a primary duty to secure its provision.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon asked what I am doing to make sure that Ofcom meets its responsibilities. I met the head of Ofcom and other members and pointed out very clearly its role as a regulator, and in ensuring that this service continues.

To be completely clear, the Government currently have no plans to change the statutory minimum requirements of the universal postal service, which are set out in the Postal Services Act 2011.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. I will come on to the Vesa point later, but set out in the legislation, from back in 2011, there is a clear and transparent process for how any changes to the universal postal service should be considered. That was coalition legislation. Any such change would need to be made through secondary legislation and be agreed by Parliament. We would also expect Ofcom to consult with all stakeholders. Our position has been very clear in my meetings with Royal Mail and Ofcom: we think that the six-day service should continue.

Ofcom has a monitoring regime in place to identify any risks or threats to the universal postal service. Since 2012, it has published an annual report setting out key data and trends in the postal sector, the impact of the changing market dynamics on UK postal services, and Royal Mail’s performance. Royal Mail is clearly facing some challenges, particularly given the long-term decline in letter volumes and the currently challenging economic backdrop, but I have yet to receive any convincing case for a need to change to meet users’ needs and to ensure the financial sustainability of the universal postal service.

A number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon and the hon. Member for Jarrow, raised a point about large business owners and the impact on large businesses, such as those that produce magazines and the like, and how they would be impacted. We would fully expect their needs to be taken into account, in terms of user needs’ surveys. The hon. Member for Reading East talked about the impact on small and medium-sized enterprises—something that is very important to me personally—and making sure that they can get marketing messages out to communities across their target areas.

I have made it clear to Royal Mail that it needs to make any case for change to Ofcom and that I will fully consider any advice the regulator gives me on the future scope of the universal postal service.

Hon. Members have understandably raised concerns about Royal Mail’s service delivery performance. The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon both raised that point. It is true that the business has faced increasing pressures over the last few years, not least the coronavirus pandemic and the industrial relations dispute with the Communication Workers Union. There have been impacts on the business and the users of postal services. It is regrettable to see postal services disrupted due to strike action and to see the impact that that is having on consumers, businesses and other users.

We are not involved in the negotiations, given that Royal Mail is a private company. However, we are monitoring the dispute closely and have urged Royal Mail and the CWU to reach a resolution as soon as possible. I know there are ACAS talks right now and there will be no further strikes until 20 January, until the talks have concluded. I very much hope that the talks will prove successful.

[Ian Lavery]

Before the Minister concludes, will he comment on the fact that Royal Mail is openly bragging that it has £1.7 billion in a war chest for union-busting and investing in the company?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I will come on to that important point.

Among other things, Royal Mail is required by Ofcom regulation to achieve certain performance targets in the delivery of its universal service products to ensure that consumers receive an adequate level of service. The regulator has powers to investigate and to take enforcement action, as it did when it fined Royal Mail £1.5 million in 2020 for missing its 2018-19 first class national delivery target.

Ofcom does accept that covid-19 has had a continued impact on Royal Mail’s service delivery, which is why Ofcom did not fine it for its regulatory obligations breaches last year. However, in that decision, Ofcom also noted its concerns, which should concern us all, about Royal Mail’s performance in the early part of the year, which Ofcom felt fell well short of where it should be. Ofcom believes that Royal Mail has had plenty of time to learn lessons from the pandemic, which will mean that it is unlikely to consider the factors considered for 2021-22 as exceptional and beyond its control in the future. Royal Mail has committed to restoring quality of service as soon as possible, and I expect Ofcom to keep a close eye on its performance over the remainder of this year.

Points about renationalisation were raised by the hon. Members for Glasgow East (David Linden), Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) and Glasgow South West and others. While Royal Mail undoubtedly faces challenges, the Government are clear that renationalising the business is not the answer. One of the primary reasons for the sale was to enable Royal Mail to access the capital it needs to invest. When Royal Mail was independently reviewed in 2008 for the last Labour Government, we were told that it was underfunded and had not kept pace; it was 40% less efficient than equivalents around the world.

Financial performance was raised by the hon. Member for Wansbeck and the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter). I think the hon. Member for Cynon Valley said that she had not had a response to her letter. I have asked my officials to look into that urgently, along with the letter from the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), to ensure that they get responses quickly; I apologise for that.

In terms of profitability, it is important to look at Royal Mail in isolation, rather than at IDS itself. Different figures have been bandied about. Look at profitability this year: as Members have mentioned, in the same period in the previous year it made a profit of £235 million —this year, it made a loss of £220 million. To answer hon. Members’ questions, in its regulatory notice in the Regulatory News Service—in which the information must be accurate—it blames that on the strikes, the lack of productivity improvements that were set out in the “Pathway to Change” document and the macro-economic climate.

The hon. Member for Wansbeck described the £1.7 billion invested as a war chest to fight unions; I do not think that that is an accurate statement. I saw it reported in one of the papers—I think it stated that it was £1.7 billion to invest across the businesses. That does not mean that it uses that war chest to simply fight industrial action, and I would not expect that to happen. We are keen to ensure that the dispute is resolved, and amicably.

Royal Mail has invested more than £2 billion in the UK business since privatisation, including £900 million over the last three years and £441 million in the last financial year, in areas such as electric vans, two new parcel hubs, automation and improving its poorest performing delivery offices. Importantly, that investment is transforming how Royal Mail operates, with parcel automation up from 12% in 2019 to 65% now. There is certainly room for improvement in Royal Mail’s service delivery. Ofcom’s analysis tells us that most consumers continue to be satisfied with postal services, but we should continue to challenge Royal Mail on its performance.

As I have set out, the Government remain committed to securing a financially sustainable and efficient universal postal service for users throughout the UK that is accessible and affordable. There are currently no plans to change the minimum requirements of the service.

Future of Postal Services

Debate between Ian Lavery and Kevin Hollinrake

Tuesday 10th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[Kevin Hollinrake]

We do not get involved in negotiations, as Royal Mail is clearly a private company. I welcome the fact that the CWU and Royal Mail are now sitting down with ACAS and trying to resolve the dispute. We should give that process time to reach a resolution. I understand that any strikes have been suspended until the outcome of those negotiations. As I say, the Government are not involved in negotiations because Royal Mail is a private company, but we will monitor the dispute closely, and urge Royal Mail and the Communications Workers Union to reach a resolution as soon as possible.

To ensure that consumers receive an adequate service, Royal Mail is required by Ofcom regulation to, among other things, meet certain performance targets relating to the delivery of universal service products. The regulator has the power to investigate and take enforcement action. Indeed, in 2020 it fined Royal Mail £1.5 million for missing its 2018-19 first-class national delivery targets. Ofcom investigated Royal Mail’s service quality performance in 2021-22, and in doing so considered evidence submitted by Royal Mail of

“exceptional events, beyond the company’s control”

that may explain why targets were missed. In that instance, Ofcom accepted that there had been a continued impact of covid-19 on Royal Mail service delivery, and concluded that

“it was not appropriate to find Royal Mail in breach of its regulatory obligations”.

However, Ofcom was clear that it does not expect covid-19 to have a continuing significant impact on service going forwards. It stated:

“We are concerned by the fact that Royal Mail’s performance in the early part of 2022-23 fell well short of where it should be. We believe the company has had plenty of time to learn lessons from the pandemic, and we are unlikely to consider the factors outlined above as exceptional and beyond its control in future.”

When it comes to renationalisation, we probably part company with many of those on the Opposition Benches who expressed views on the subject, including the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), the right hon. Member for Islington North, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green, who sponsored the debate, the hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith), and the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw. I do not believe that renationalisation is the answer. Although there are undoubtably challenges facing Royal Mail, the Government are clear that renationalising the business is not the answer.

One of primary reasons for the sale was to enable Royal Mail to access the capital it needed to invest in and grow the business. When Royal Mail was independently reviewed in 2008 under the last Labour Government, we were told that it was underfunded and had not kept pace with equivalents around the world, which were 40% more efficient. Compare this to the present day: Royal Mail has invested over £2 billion in the UK business since privatisation, including £900 million over the last three years and £441 million in the last financial year in areas such as electric vans, two new parcel hubs, automation and improving its poorest performing delivery offices.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green, mentioned the £576 million pounds distributed to shareholders. I point out that there are good years and poor years in terms of financial performance. In the first half of this financial year, I think Royal Mail declared a £219 million loss. That is in the marketplace, so it is not breaching any confidentiality.

[Ian Lavery]

Royal Mail made a £758 million profit, gave £567 million to shareholders and then, shortly afterwards—weeks afterwards—it said that it was making a loss of £1 million a day. The hon. Gentleman is a successful businessman. Would he not be asking questions?

Climate Change and Flooding

Debate between Ian Lavery and Kevin Hollinrake

Tuesday 15th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I absolutely agree. We need a new scheme. Owing to the demographic of our housing stock, we have some of the least energy-efficient housing stock in Europe.

We must also be pragmatic. Only 7% of our energy comes from renewables today, and fossil fuels will be part of the mix for the foreseeable future. There is an MI5 maxim that we are only four meals away from anarchy. We are probably only two dark days and nights away from anarchy, too. Natural gas is the cleanest fossil fuel, and we have to keep the lights on.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

There has to be an understanding that shale gas—natural gas—is a fossil fuel, and that if we continue to burn it in ever-increasing amounts to replace the coal-fired power stations without carbon capture and storage, we will never hit the limits that we have just agreed in Paris only a week ago.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I will come to that point shortly.

Let us look at the situation in the US, which is the second biggest emitter of carbon dioxide. According to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the US has made great progress on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and an important reason for that is its production of shale gas. Environmental campaigners such as Stephen Tindale of Climate Answers and the Labour shadow energy Minister, Baroness Worthington, have expressed support for fracking as a way to reduce carbon emissions but, crucially, only in conjunction with investment in carbon capture and storage and low-carbon energy generation, storage and distribution.

There is a shale gas application in my constituency. Having heard both sides of the debate over many months, I decided to visit Pennsylvania, where fracking has happened, to see whether it is possible to do it safely and in a way that does not industrialise the countryside. I believe that that is possible, but we need to paint a picture for local people to show them that. At the moment, we are losing the PR war with those who are simply against fossil fuels per se. Fossil fuels are going to remain part of the mix.

Our regulations are strong—they are certainly much stronger than those in the United States—but I believe that we need a lead agency and independent supervision of the regulations. I also believe that we need a local plan, so that residents can see how their area will change or, as I believe, not change. In my constituency, there are already 10 conventional gas well sites, and most of the residents do not even know where they are. The local producers say they will need another 10 more sites and, crucially, 950 wells. That scares people, but 10 more sites are relatively easy to screen. In my constituency, there are hundreds of pig and poultry farms whose visual impact is much greater than that of a fracked well site.

We must win the argument publicly, so that people can see that fracking will not change the nature of their countryside and that it can be done safely. We must proceed cautiously. We must produce the evidence, and ensure that the public have full access to that evidence, if we are to win the argument. We are in an age of wonderful technology and we can paint a picture through computer-generated images and time-lapse photography to show people how it is possible to move towards a much cleaner source of fossil fuels and to provide an important bridge to a carbon-free future.