Constitutional Law

Iain McKenzie Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to speak in this debate as the chair of the Labour Campaign for Electoral Reform, the organisation within the Labour movement that speaks and campaigns for political and constitutional reform. Labour can trace the origins of its commitment to these great causes back to Keir Hardie more than a century ago. It was he who first called for an elected second Chamber and for a powerful home rule Scottish Parliament through strong devolution. I regret we cannot honour the third of his commitments—his strong desire to see the cause of temperance furthered across the UK—but we will honour every element of his commitment to political reform in this modern Labour movement.

Rarely in this House do debates on statutory instruments range beyond the specific matters they address, but this debate signifies two wider forces shaping the future of these islands. First, devolution and good governance across these islands will be strengthened by the delivery, as promised, of the Smith agreement, of which this draft order is the first legislative stage. Secondly, the rights of citizens across the UK demand a new political and constitutional settlement, including: votes at 16; the replacement of the unelected other place by an elected second Chamber; substantial further devolution within England; and making devolution and human rights protection permanent within our constitutional arrangement. It is increasingly clear that the order must be the first stage in generating a codified constitution for the UK to put all these changes beyond the day-to-day conflict of partisan politics. I shall address each point in turn.

The strength of the devolution settlement, originating in the devolution referendum of 1997 and the original Scotland Act 1998, is clear in this evening’s debate. An agreement between five of Scotland’s political parties on transferring powers in connection with the franchise in Scottish parliamentary and local government elections, resulting in the devolution of those powers in law within a matter of weeks, will ensure that 16 and 17-year-olds can vote in next May’s Scottish Parliament elections and in the council elections in Scotland the year after. We are achieving together the progressive cause of extending the right to vote in these elections to tens of thousands of young people in Scotland. This stands as a further testament to the work of the late Donald Dewar in crafting a devolution settlement capable of evolving and meeting popular demand in Scotland, and we will see much more evidence of that in the weeks following the general election this May.

The incredible enthusiasm and level of engagement by 16 and 17-year-olds in last year’s referendum proved all the doubters wrong, so with this draft order today, the Scottish Parliament will have the power—the full powers—to make full post-16 voting rights a reality in devolved elections. I recall speaking to a young man on the doorstep in Riddrie in my constituency on referendum polling day. He expressed with remarkable insight and knowledge the evidence and beliefs that had motivated him to participate at the age of 17 in his first democratic election. How many more young people will become active in their communities and in wider society and stand for elected office themselves because of their experience in the referendum campaign last year?

[Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)]

Many hon. Members, regardless of political party, have made much of continuing that engagement with young people and getting access to our schools in order to discuss with our young people who are about to be 16 the relevance of politics to their lives. We have seen an awakening among young people, so I encourage each and every Member to carry on with that. I am about to meet 100 young people from Inverclyde schools to discuss such matters on Friday.

[Mr Bain]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and he is a champion of engagement in his own constituency. I hope that will be remembered in Inverclyde in just a few weeks’ time.

All the evidence from Demos and the Electoral Reform Society demonstrates that the earlier young people participate in democracy, the more likely they are to remain voters in the future. Sixteen and 17-year-olds can pay taxes, get married, join the armed forces and act as company directors. It is an absurdity that they have been denied the right to be full members of our vital democratic processes for so long.

This debate reminds us that we have a duty to make it easier for young people to be able to vote, and it is a warning about the effects of the botched introduction of individual voter registration being presided over by this Government. In its present form, it could have the effect of removing the right to vote for thousands of young people in Scotland and across the United Kingdom.

This is indeed a good day for democracy, but not a perfect one. I hope that most right hon. and hon. Members will not rest until votes at 16 are introduced for elections to this House and for the elected Chamber that must replace the unelected other place. I hope leaders at EU level will show boldness in extending the franchise at European parliamentary elections to 16 and 17-year-olds too, offering hope to those currently suffering the most from low wages and high unemployment due to the problems in the eurozone economy.

The order demonstrates that grass-roots campaigns for political reform can bring change in this House and to our country as a whole. Just as the Chartists campaigned for democratic rights, trade unions campaigned for the enfranchisement of working class people and the suffragettes campaigned for the enfranchisement of women, so today’s order is the further realisation of their ambitions for a society where everyone can participate, and where government, at whatever level, is more responsive and accountable to all the people of this country as a result. The British Youth Council has campaigned tirelessly for votes at 16 for years, and today is the first recognition of the justice of its campaign in parliamentary and local government elections. It will not be the last.

The debate on this order shows that the governance of the British state is changing and that the pace of that change must increase in the coming years, so we must see a constitutional convention to produce a coherent plan for devolution in England, recommend proposals for an elected senate, consider how the role of human rights protection can be strengthened within our constitution and explore how all our governance arrangements can be made permanent in a single constitution, binding us all as citizens of the United Kingdom.

These are changes worth fighting for: a modern democratic constitutional settlement that can reflect our common links, but also our diversity across these islands. Today marks the first element of that change, but it also shows us the potential to see what can be if we have the boldness and courage to act early in the next Parliament.

North Sea Oil and Gas (Employment)

Iain McKenzie Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Doran]

I think there is a case for what the hon. Lady says, but I disagree with her. We will have a Budget in two months’ time, and announcements will be made then. In the meantime, we know that the Treasury is working on the position. As she will see from the rest of my contribution, I am more concerned about how the tax cuts are made, rather than that tax cuts are made. I want focused and targeted tax cuts, not just a chop off the supplementary charge that was introduced in 2011.

It is important to look at the responses that should be made to the current situation. In the 1980s, there was virtually no Government response. There may have been one behind the scenes, but it was not visible to those of us who were involved at that time and were concerned about what was happening in the industry. We have the opportunity to mitigate substantially the impact of the collapse in the oil price. Members would expect me to say this, but I was pleased when Councillor Jenny Laing, the leader of Aberdeen city council, announced in December her plan to host a summit in Aberdeen to consider the challenges facing the industry. That summit will be held on 2 February. It is supported by Oil & Gas UK and will be attended by the UK and Scottish Governments, as well as by industry experts. That announcement caused the various other bodies with an interest to consider their reaction. Since then, Government Ministers and MPs have been queuing up to visit Aberdeen. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (Margaret Curran) has made her trip there. The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change was there last week. The issue is being taken much more seriously than it was in the 1980s.

To go back to the question from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford), tax reliefs are back on the table. The Chancellor has made it clear that they are being considered, which suits the oil industry, because it has been asking for them. Since the collapse in the oil price, industry representatives and others have insisted that there needs to be a tax cut. Oil companies are still angry about the increase in the supplementary charge made in the 2011 Budget, and they would like to see it removed completely. The Chancellor has met them a small part of the way by introducing tax reliefs for brownfield sites and for high-temperature and high-pressure fields, and after his much hailed tax review last year the mouse of a 2% reduction in supplementary charge was announced.

Regardless of the 2011 increases, both field reliefs are important and have resulted in extra activity from the industry, even in these difficult times. The lesson from that is that it is in the interest of the industry and the taxpayer that any tax reliefs that are given should be focused and not random. There are many areas where more targeted and focused tax reliefs would create a win-win situation for all sides. For example, an investment allowance would encourage more activity and create more income and thus more tax revenues. Investment in research and development has slowed significantly in the industry, yet that is crucial in the search to find and produce oil and gas, whether by enhanced recovery techniques, better infrastructure to improve recovery or whatever other area that could improve the industry. The Government should also consider targeted reliefs to protect jobs and skills. Health and safety is a major issue for me. For many years, I have been heavily involved in that issue offshore. It must remain a priority. The Government should consider a specific targeted relief to support the continuing maintenance of infrastructure and the improvement of health and safety systems and equipment.

The consequences of the 1980s downturn were not only job losses. All projects that were in progress were stopped. The platforms that were producing oil and gas carried on producing, but many costs were cut to the bone. In particular, areas vital to safety, such as fire safety equipment, deluge systems and others, received little or no maintenance. The consequences of that approach were not immediately apparent, but on the night of 6 July 1988 they were there for the whole world to see. The Piper Alpha platform exploded with 167 deaths. It is still the most serious loss of life from any incident anywhere in the offshore oil and gas industry. If there is slippage in maintenance through the downturn, the dangers for offshore workers will increase significantly.

[Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. On safety, is he as alarmed as I was to hear from a constituent who runs a business in my area and who came to my surgery on Friday—he offers safety courses to oil firms operating in the North sea—that he has seen a significant reduction in the number of people that firms are placing on those courses and on refresher courses for safety?

[Mr Doran]

I think my hon. Friend is talking about the sort of work on offshore that I mentioned at the beginning of my speech. Those who are self-employed—probably with their own companies where they are often the sole employee—are the first to be removed. I am concerned to hear that people operating in safety are part of that process, and we should all be concerned by that.

For offshore oil workers, working on offshore platforms is dangerous, but the dangers do not stop on the platform. The only realistic form of transport offshore, because of the distances involved, the difficulty of access to platforms and the hostile weather conditions, is by helicopter. In the UK sector of the North sea, there have been 13 helicopter-related incidents, in which 118 people have died. The most recent one, just 17 months ago, saw four deaths. For most of the history of the North sea oil and gas industry, helicopter transport companies have been treated in exactly the same way as other contractors and subjected to often severe cuts in contract costs. That might suit the oil industry accountants, but it makes no sense to companies that have to keep helicopters flying safely. I hope that the oil industry is taking a much more cautious and sensible approach this time round, and that the Government and the regulators will strictly monitor how health and safety standards are maintained on both sides of the industry.

There are difficult times ahead, but they need not be as damaging as the downturn in the 1980s. The industry has allowed costs to spiral out of control and needs to address the problems it has created. Everyone—the industry and the UK and Scottish Governments—should be focused on maintaining employment, jobs and skills. The economic climate will change, and it is important that the oil and gas industry is capable of getting into gear as quickly and safely as possible when that happens. A key player will be the Chancellor, and I urge him to consider seriously further tax reliefs, which, in the interests of the taxpayer and the industry, should be focused on maintaining employment, training in skills, research and development and investment that will ensure the future success of the industry.

Oral Answers to Questions

Iain McKenzie Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Carmichael]

I have learned over the years not to expect too much when working with the Scottish Government, but I am hopeful that that will be the case. One way or the other, however, we shall deliver on the undertakings that were given.

[Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)]

12. The Smith commission agreement contained a strong desire to see devolution extend to local government. Will the Secretary of State impress upon the SNP Government the need to embrace that desire, release their iron grip on power and devolve to local government?

[Mr Carmichael]

Indeed. This is something we hear from communities across the country in Scotland. Power in Scotland has been sucked up, particularly from local councils, and exercised at the centre by the Scottish Government. That was not how devolution was ever intended to work, and they need to change their approach.

Scotland within the UK

Iain McKenzie Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Carmichael]

I have already made it clear that I am something of an enthusiast for that process, having been through it north of the border. I have always thought that there were applicable lessons for the rest of the United Kingdom, but I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that I do not see us resolving that issue this side of the general election.

[Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)]

I do not think that it is lost on the Secretary of State, or on any of the hon. Members in this House who took part in the referendum campaign, that there are now deep divisions among the Scottish people. Does he agree that, if those divisions are to be healed to allow people to come together, a good starting point would be for the leadership of the Scottish National party to acknowledge that the question of Scottish independence is now dead for decades?

[Mr Carmichael]

I have already made it clear that I expect the leadership of the Scottish National party—in whatever shape or form it eventually emerges—to give that commitment to the Scottish people. That was what the party signed up to in the Edinburgh agreement and that was what it was saying in the week before the referendum. I see no reason why it should not stick to that position.

Scotland and North-east England Post-2014

Iain McKenzie Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2014 Westminster Hall

[Phil Wilson]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point yet again. Over time, employment regulations may not be an incentive for people to cross the border, a factor that in itself might disrupt economic development in both the north-east of England and Scotland.

I do not understand why the SNP wants to put up barriers between Scotland and the north-east of England. By putting up such barriers, Scotland will potentially lose out on—

[Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Phil Wilson]

I will just make this very important point, because I will now boast about the north-east of England, as it has a lot to offer.

The north-east is the only region in the country with a positive balance of trade in the export market, exporting £14 billion-worth of goods every year; its manufacturing industry is worth £7.5 billion; we have a strong and successful advanced engineering sector, leading the way in low-carbon technology and sustainable energy solutions; we have world-class research and engineering capabilities in wind, wave, tidal and solar power; we are home to successful knowledge-based economies, with 40,000 skilled individuals employed in the supply chain and more than 65,000 people working in the oil and gas sector; and more than 70% of the oil and gas platforms operating in the North sea are built in the north-east of England. On top of all that, a third of the north-east is designated as an area of outstanding natural beauty or is part of a national park. Why does the SNP want to put an international border between itself and an area as fantastic as the north-east?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Weir. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) on securing this important debate.

As a Scot, I believe that separation from the rest of the UK would present business on both sides of the border with an unnecessary barrier. In Scotland, there would be a barrier to trading with our biggest market—the UK—and to our long-established trading with the north-east of England, and that makes no sense at all. No one wants a barrier to our trade and connections with north- east England, except those who promote independence for Scotland.

[Mr MacNeil]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr McKenzie]

I will not give way at the moment.

We are all aware that the open border between Scotland and the north-east brings significant economic, trade and employment opportunities. We are also aware that, should Scotland vote yes in September, the border will be closed, with the new Scottish state being outside EU membership. Scotland’s languishing in a long line for EU membership would mean its being outside the EU and having a closed border—absolutely guaranteed—bringing about significant trade difficulties. We would lose our shared opportunities, despite the fact that we all agree that we need as many opportunities as we can get these days.

Cross-border private and public sector trading can do without this obstacle being put in the way of ease of doing business. Clearly, Scotland has an important economic relationship with north-east England and the UK as a whole. The facts speak for themselves: Scottish business buys and sells more products and services from the UK than any other country in the world. This enables the Scottish people to be part of a larger and more successful economy, and to trade and share easily with our neighbours in north-east England. Some 70% of Scotland’s exported goods went to other parts of the UK, and 70% of imports came from the UK, clearly demonstrating that Scotland’s economic performance is stronger because it is part of a larger integrated UK economy. Exit the UK and our border becomes a barrier that will impede and restrict ease of trade.

Even where free trade agreements exist alongside controlled borders, neighbouring countries with similar economies are affected by the presence of that border. As we have heard, we know this to be true. Hon. Members need only look at the US and Canada: their trade is thought to be some 44% lower than it could be—a result of that controlled border between them.

[Mr MacNeil]

I am listening to the hon. Gentleman carefully and wonder whether his argument is that Canada would be better giving up its independence and becoming part of the United States of America. That seems his logical position.

[Mr McKenzie]

The comparison I am making is between a closed border and an open border. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, it is not only business that will be disadvantaged. Labour migration between Scotland and the rest of the UK is estimated to be as much as 75% higher within an integrated UK. More than ever, we need to share skills and knowledge, so that both sides of the border can prosper. Without doubt, Scotland’s leaving the UK would create an unnecessary barrier to trade with our close neighbours in north-east England. More unites us than divides us. Common goals and common bonds have been built over generations, which is why I believe in a vision of working across an open border and a continuation of the ease in our trading relationship that we have come to expect and enjoy.

We remember and value our close association with those with whom we share a border, but it is a border in name only. The border is not a symbol of division, but a link spanned by friendship and a common understanding of the challenges that we face together. Scotland’s relationship with north-east England should be a constructive collaboration, not a destructive competition, as would undoubtedly transpire after Scotland’s separation from the UK. The SNP is always arguing both ways, telling its supporters that everything will change while telling people on both sides of the border that nothing will change.

If all that independence is about is getting away from a Government for whom Scotland did not vote, I would ask Members to join me in seeking independence for Inverclyde. We have never voted for an SNP Government. We have a Labour MP, a Labour MSP and a Labour-controlled council, yet twice we have had to suffer under an SNP Government. The difference is that we understand and accept democracy. I have visited north-east England many times, and I have always believed that the future of Scotland and of north-east England lie together in one country—the UK.

Scotland’s Place in the UK

Iain McKenzie Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Graeme Morrice]

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention and fully understand that there are major cultural links between the people of Scotland and the people of Northern Ireland. Indeed, I have many friends and relatives from Northern Ireland.

The single market within the UK affords significant economic, trade and employment opportunities to people on both sides of the border, and our membership of the European Union, through the United Kingdom, provides a vast marketplace for Scottish exporters. Together, we have a place at the top table of the European Council of Ministers, we are one of the G8 forum of the world’s largest economies and we are a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, all of which allows us to wield unprecedented influence on the European and global stages. As a member of NATO, we have collectively benefited since the war from international security and defence co-operation on a grand scale.

When it comes to the economy, Scotland has a very important relationship with the rest of the United Kingdom. Scotland benefits from access to a market comprising tens of millions of people within a single jurisdiction. Scots are employed by firms based in the rest of the UK, and people in the rest of the UK benefit from employment opportunities with Scottish-based companies. Indeed, Scotland’s exports to the rest of the UK are worth double its exports to the rest of the world.

[Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that upon independence the border would become a barrier to business with the rest of the UK?

[Graeme Morrice]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. On day one of independence, were Scots to vote for it, the rest of the United Kingdom would remain within the European Union but Scotland would not, so it clearly would not benefit from the EU single market, to the great detriment of Scottish business and Scotland overall.

Mr Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] Welcome, Madam Deputy Speaker; it is great to see a Scot in the Chair this afternoon. [Interruption.] And a woman, my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell) reminds me.

In addition to the shared opportunities, the pooling of resources across the UK allows risk as well as reward to be spread, as seen most notably in the bail-out of the Scottish-based banks during the financial crisis, when the UK, led by a Scot, injected an amount of capital into the banks well in excess of the Scottish Government’s total budget. The pooling of resources also allows for distribution on the basis of social need across the welfare state. Were Scotland outwith the UK, that would place a major question mark over its ability to continue to fund benefits at current levels and to meet state and public sector pension commitments.

Of course, Scotland has its own devolved Parliament, with significantly more powers to come as a result of the Calman commission and the Scotland Act 2012. It can therefore be argued that Scotland has the best of both worlds: local decision making, but under the financial umbrella of the UK Barnett formula, giving Scots more funding per capita than anywhere else in the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)]

I will endeavour to be as brief as possible, because I know that other Members are still waiting to contribute to the debate.

I believe that Scotland’s place in the UK is about being part of one of the largest economies in Europe and the sixth largest in the world. I believe that separation from the rest of the UK would give Scottish businesses an unnecessary barrier to trading with our biggest market. We know, without doubt, that the rest of the UK is Scotland’s biggest market. Independence would turn our border into a barrier for existing and future trade. What sense would that make? The open border between Scotland and the UK brings significant economic, trade and employment opportunities. As part of the UK, Scotland has access to a single market of approximately 70 million people.

In addition to shared opportunities, the pooling of resources across the UK allows risk to be shared, something seen most recently by the bail-out of the banks by the UK Treasury. The UK Treasury used £37 billion to bail out Scottish-based banks during the world financial crisis, saving more than 400 RBS jobs in Inverclyde. The evidence is that, economically and socially, the Scottish people are better off being part of a Union that pools risks and rewards. There is, of course, also significant UK public sector employment in Scotland. Two thirds of all civil servants in Scotland work for the UK Government. UK defence contracts are also essential to Scottish industry. The Ministry of Defence has some 700 direct contracts in Scotland, supporting thousands of jobs. We also have cross-border private sector trading. Ease of doing business and contract tendering are essential for bringing success to Scottish firms in a wider UK market. Clearly, Scotland has an important economic relationship with the rest of the UK, benefiting from access to a single market comprising tens of millions of people.

The facts speak for themselves: Scottish business buys and sells more products and services within the UK than any other country in the world. In 2010, 70% of Scotland’s exported goods went to other parts of the UK and 70% of imports are estimated to have come from the UK. That clearly demonstrates that Scotland’s economic performance is stronger because it is part of a larger integrated UK economy. Exit the UK and our border becomes a barrier: a barrier that will impede and restrict ease of trade.

Even where free trade agreements exist alongside controlled borders, neighbouring countries with similar economies are affected by the presence of that border. Analysis finds, for example, that trade between the US and Canada is thought to be 44% lower than it could be as a result of the border between them. It is not just business that will be disadvantaged. Labour migration between Scotland and the rest of the UK is also estimated to be as much as 75% higher in an integrated UK, allowing the sharing of skills and knowledge. Leave the UK, and we create an unnecessary barrier to trade with the rest of the UK. That is why Labour’s vision for Scotland is about working across borders. Our vision for Scotland is being part of bigger, not what independence offers—part of smaller.

Helicopter Crash (Glasgow)

Iain McKenzie Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Carmichael]

I was privileged to meet the owner of the bar in Glasgow city chambers today, by happenstance as much as anything else, and he described to me the quite magnificent bar that I have heard described by others, which was famous in the city for being friendly and welcoming and for providing some great music and other sorts of entertainment. In fact, that is what was happening at the point when disaster struck. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would have been an adornment to it, and, like him, I want to see it resurrected.

[Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)]

Naturally, our thoughts and prayers extend to the people of Glasgow at this time, including those who have lost loved ones or whose loved ones are injured in hospital. Inverclyde is sharing in Glasgow’s grief because we too have lost a member of our community. I speak of PC Kirsty Nelis, who lived in Inverkip in my constituency. Kirsty served with distinction as an officer in my constituency, and she had been commended for her bravery. Her family must be feeling a tremendous loss, and the community is grieving for her loss. She was well respected and a very good officer.

[Mr Carmichael]

When I was at the command centre this morning, I briefly met Sir Stephen House, the chief constable of Police Scotland, who had come directly from meeting members of the families of the two officers who were killed. He was clearly very affected by that meeting, and it struck me that the police exist very much as a family. That is why I thought it appropriate to make reference in my statement to the fact that the police in Glasgow are dealing not only with the loss suffered by members of the public, but with the loss of members of their own community and family. For that reason, their response, at a professional and an emotional level, deserves recognition. I am sure that they will get all the support they need from their chief constable and other senior officers in coming to terms with their loss.

Piper Alpha Disaster

Iain McKenzie Excerpts

Thursday 11th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) on securing this important debate.

As we have heard, 25 years ago 167 men lost their lives 120 miles off the coast of Aberdeen. My constituency of Inverclyde lost five men that night. They were fathers, sons, brothers, uncles, husbands and partners. It is said that my constituency is just one big village, so each and every community knew someone from Inverclyde who was lost on that dreadful night.

We can all recall where we were and what we were doing when we first heard the news of the disaster—it is one of those moments in time. I remember being on holiday back in July 1988 and finding myself frozen in front of the TV as I watched the unbelievable pictures on the screen. I knew then that men who had taken their skills into an industry whose business was extracting oil and gas in one of the most demanding of environments had paid for that with their lives.

The dangers could only be imagined at that time, but they came horribly true that night as the safety errors began to stack up. For the men lost that night who had families, those families will now be grown up and have families of their own, but each and every day they remember those who never returned from work. For these families, I dare say that 25 years has not passed quickly or easily, and for those who survived, the events of that night feel as if they happened yesterday.

If any Member missed the BBC 2 documentary on Tuesday evening, I encourage them to view it. It described the true terror and horror that night in the words of survivors. Even after 25 years, men were reduced to tears when recalling their escape and those they knew who had not escaped.

Each time we turn on our heating or ignite the gas to prepare our meals, I wonder if we ever give a moment’s thought to those who work in these extremely challenging environments. I wonder if we ever consider the level of risk under which these people, who apply their skills in cutting-edge exploration to find and retrieve oil and gas to meet our ever-increasing demand, are working.

So what went wrong that night? The causes of that terrible disaster are complex, yet they involve failure in some of the simplest procedures. Even though the initial explosion and fire were large, they should not have resulted in the total loss of the platform.

There seem to be two important reasons for the severe escalation in the events of that night. First, the Tartan and Claymore platforms continued to feed oil and gas to Piper in spite of the fact that they could see Piper was on fire. They did not stop the oil and gas flow because the communications systems had been destroyed in the explosion and

“no one told them to stop.”

The second reason for the severe escalation was that the pumps where the initial explosion occurred were not protected by a blast wall. Piper Alpha had originally been built in 1976 as an oil platform and was later converted to handle gas. The original structure had only firewalls. With the addition of gas, these should have been replaced with blast walls. Like so many disasters before, it would be an accumulation of errors that would bring about the Piper Alpha disaster.

What came out of the investigation afterwards were over 100 recommendations on safety improvements. Even basic health and safety procedures were scrutinised and found wanting. The men of Piper Alpha had paid a terrible price to emphasise yet again the need always to prioritise health and safety.

Twenty-five years have passed and we can be thankful that we have seen no other disasters of this scale in our offshore oil industry. However, complacency on safety in the environments we now look to explore could again exact a terrible price if we do not remember Piper Alpha. We have seen again evidence of concern with the BP environmental disaster in the deep waters of the gulf of Mexico, which reminds us that we are pushing the boundaries of oil and gas exploration and retrieval. The men of Piper Alpha should never be forgotten as those who paid the ultimate price; they were pioneers prepared to work in one of the most dangerous environments, so that we can enjoy an uninterrupted supply in our energy demand. The lasting legacy of Piper Alpha should be a legacy of dedication to good health and safety practices. We rightly remember the men of Piper Alpha in this Chamber today, but let us also remember the families who lost a loved one. May they continue to have strength and courage each day to bear their loss.

Oral Answers to Questions

Iain McKenzie Excerpts

Wednesday 13th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)]

Q14. We all remember the Prime Minister’s promise last October that he would legislate to force energy companies to put customers on the lowest tariff. Will he explain why his Energy Bill contains no such commitment and why he has broken that promise?

[The Prime Minister]

I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that he is completely wrong. The Energy Bill does exactly what I said in the House; it is about legislating to force companies to give people the lowest tariff.

Food Banks (Scotland)

Iain McKenzie Excerpts

Wednesday 19th December 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes (Lindsay Roy) on securing this important debate.

Put bluntly, food poverty across the UK is a national disgrace. The statistics are shocking and heart-rending. In Britain today, 13 million people live below the poverty line. In 2011-12, food banks fed more than 128,000 people nationwide—100% more than in the previous year. That has been driven by the rising cost of food and fuel, combined with static income, high unemployment and changes to benefits made by the Tory-led coalition Government. Those things are causing more and more people to go to food banks for help.

In Scotland, the number of families needing food banks has also risen by 100%, with nearly 3,000 people receiving food parcels since April this year. One charity alone has fed 6,000 people across Scotland. We now have a Dickensian situation, with many people in low-paid jobs, and people who rely on benefits, being forced to use food banks to feed their children and themselves regularly. The fact that 50% of those going to food banks are working is quite shocking, and it underlines the employment position across Scotland.

I want to focus on my constituency, where a new food bank opened less than three months ago for families falling below the poverty line. It is coming to the aid of local people who are struggling to find enough money to pay for food. It is working in partnership with the Elim church in the east end of Greenock. Those who know that area will know that it is not one of the most wealthy areas in my constituency, but it is certainly one of the most giving. I commend the church’s caring response to the hardship that is unfolding in and around its congregation.

I was delighted to assist members of the church with their fundraising the other week. I was also delighted to assist them outside supermarkets, asking for donations for those who are finding it difficult to feed themselves and their families. I have visited the church’s i58 food bank in Inverclyde, and for those not familiar with the Book of Isaiah and Isaiah 58, I should add that it deals with fasting and hunger. Staff at the food bank told me that more than 300 families had visited it in its first three months. They were worried because referrals to it had increased day by day, with more than 50 families visiting on just one day last week. Clearly, the situation is getting worse, as evidenced by the fact that demand is increasing so dramatically as we approach Christmas.

We have a Government in London who seemingly just do not care. Unfortunately, we have a Government in Edinburgh who are blind to everything except their obsession with the constitution. The ever-growing demand for food banks is a shocking sight in 21st-century Britain, and it shows what it truly means to live in Cameron’s Britain and Salmond’s Scotland at present. Neither Government has a credible plan to tackle the dreadful poverty that afflicts our nation.

The UK of the 21st century has people choosing between eating and heating, and for some there is no choice at all, because they can afford to do neither. There should be a national outcry, and tackling this issue should be at the heart of any Government’s programme. No child should go hungry in the UK, and no child, adult or pensioner should go hungry on Christmas day or any other day. Our Governments need to do more to eliminate the scandal of food banks.

[Dr Whiteford]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr McKenzie]

I have just finished.