Offshore Safety
The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-07521, in the name of Richard Baker, on the safety of offshore oil and gas workers. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament offers its condolences to the families of those who lost their lives in the Super Puma helicopter crash off Shetland on 23 August 2013; considers that the impact of this tragedy will be felt across the oil and gas industry and by the thousands of workers in the North Sea; believes that this event has been a sad reminder of the crucial importance of health and safety in the industry; recognises the concerns that have arisen as this is the fifth incident in four years involving a Super Puma helicopter; believes that the fact that a fatal accident inquiry has still to commence into the Super Puma crash that took place in 2009 in which 16 people lost their lives shows the need for new legislation to overhaul the current fatal accident inquiry system, and notes that a draft member’s bill that would include provision for such action to be taken is currently out for consultation.
12:33
The tragic helicopter crash on 23 August, 2 miles west of Sumburgh, in which four people lost their lives, has brought the issue of offshore safety to the fore once more. On 4 September, Parliament heard a statement from the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth in which he spoke for all of us when he expressed our deepest sympathy and condolences for the families, friends and colleagues who had lost loved ones that day.
Following the statement, members across the chamber focused on the need to ensure that all necessary action is taken so that the safety of the helicopter fleet can meet the highest standards for the future and to instil confidence among the workforce in the helicopter fleet, which had been shattered in the aftermath of the tragedy.
I thank those members who signed my motion to allow this debate to take place today. The motion follows that most recent tragedy, but it also reflects on the sad and deeply concerning fact that this incident was the fifth in four years in which a Super Puma helicopter had ditched.
That raises many questions about how we improve helicopter safety in the future. Members will, I am sure, reflect on a number of important and different aspects of how we should achieve that, but at the heart of the motion is an issue that is highlighted by events since the tragedy that took place in 2009—which we all remember all too well—when 16 people lost their lives. Today, four years after that crash, a fatal accident inquiry has still not taken place.
I lodged the motion as a result of the campaign that my trade union, Unite, has taken forward on behalf of its members, and offshore representatives of Unite join us from Aberdeen today. They are calling for the Scottish Government to support the proposals that my colleague Patricia Ferguson has made in her proposed inquiries into deaths (Scotland) bill. A key aspect of that bill is to make the process of fatal accident inquiries quicker and more transparent.
Speaking in the days after the fatal crash this August, Unite’s Scottish secretary, Pat Rafferty, said:
“Friday’s horrific events should now compel the Scottish Government to ensure the safe passage through Parliament of Patricia Ferguson’s FAI reforms. On Thursday we vented our anger over the current FAI process and the ridiculous delays in starting the FAI into the 2009 Super Puma crash, the agony this is causing victims’ families, and the fact that we do not have legally enforceable outcomes from the process.”
That last comment from Pat Rafferty gets to the nub of the issue. Ensuring that the FAI process is not so protracted in the future is vital for those who have lost loved ones. It is also vital for offshore workers today, who need to have confidence that any lessons that need to be learned from previous accidents have been learned and that action has been taken as a result so that they can be as safe as possible when travelling to their work offshore.
All of us in the chamber want to have a helicopter fleet in the North Sea that has the best possible safety standards and in which offshore workers have confidence. However, the fact that in addition to having had this number of incidents in the past few years we have had such an on-going delay in the FAI into the 2009 crash has only undermined that confidence further. It is not only Unite that has these concerns, as is evidenced by the briefing that members had from the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers ahead of the debate.
Last week in The Press and Journal, the Lord Advocate stated that he did not wish to see a delay to an FAI into the fatal crash in August. That is a welcome statement. However, the question must be, without legislation, how will that ambition be achieved? When I questioned the cabinet secretary on that issue after his statement, he pointed to the fact that the inquiries by the Air Accidents Investigation Branch have taken two and a half years. Of course that is an important aspect and investigations can be complex, but that does not in itself account for a delay of four years or indeed for a year’s delay from the decision last January by Crown counsel that there would be no criminal charges into the 2009 crash to the point where we expect the inquiry to be held next January.
A number of steps require to be taken in light of these accidents. Of course, action within the industry is vital and I know that the helicopter safety steering group is working assiduously to address those issues. The recent announcement of a review of seating arrangements in the aircraft is welcome—although some people would say that it is not before time—as is the Civil Aviation Authority review, in collaboration with its Norwegian counterpart. That is welcome because, as Nanette Milne pointed out after the ministerial statement on the tragedy, the record of safety in Norway is good and perhaps we can learn lessons from Norway. However, it remains important, given the number of incidents, that there is now a full, independent inquiry—in the same way that the Cullen inquiry took place after the Piper Alpha tragedy. Therefore I hope that ministers will support the call from my colleague Frank Doran MP for the United Kingdom Government to instigate such a review.
The key thing for us in this Parliament is to take what action we can to promote safety and this Parliament can act to ensure that there are no longer any unnecessarily protracted waits for FAIs—waits that prolong the suffering for families seeking answers and potentially delay action that requires to be taken to improve safety for the future. I hope that ministers and other members will give serious consideration to the campaign that is being taken forward by Unite and the bill that is being brought forward by Patricia Ferguson, because we believe that this is a crucial issue if we are to put first the goal that Unite and its members and workers have identified: to protect and serve the interests of the industry’s most important resource—its people.
12:40
I apologise because I might not be able to remain in the chamber until the end of the debate. I have constituents visiting Parliament today and the arrangements were made well in advance of me knowing that this members’ business debate would take place.
I congratulate Richard Baker on securing the debate. I will focus on helicopter safety, although I will refer to his comments about the fatal accident inquiry.
The heliport and helicopter operators are based in Dyce in my constituency. Having grown up in Dyce, I am very familiar with the movements of helicopters and helicopter noise. Indeed, I have developed something of an immunity to the noise that helicopters make. However, it was interesting to hear the stark silence that pervaded the area when the helicopter flights were grounded, and the lack of helicopter movements around the community was noticeable.
Many of my constituents, family and friends are directly or indirectly involved in the offshore industry and the flights. I have heard many tales of family members such as partners and children being deeply concerned for the safety of those whom they love having to be transported by helicopter to the rigs. I have spoken to a number of individuals who have said that, although we obviously have to look at the overall safety record of the helicopters, they are concerned about the number of incidents that have taken place during a fairly short period of time.
In my question to the cabinet secretary following his statement, I mentioned that I had attended school with one of the victims of the 2009 fatal accident. Stuart Wood was in the year below me at Dyce academy, and I notice that his mother has recently commented in the press about the delays to the fatal accident inquiry. We all wish to place on the record our desire to see that fatal accident inquiry take place as soon as possible to ensure that some of the questions that the victims’ families have can be addressed.
We need to look at the context of what is happening with helicopter safety. I am sure that this week’s announcements were not prompted by Richard Baker’s members’ business debate today, but they have taken precedence during the past few days. Announcements have been made about the CAA review, and I welcome the fact that the Norwegian Civil Aviation Authority will be involved in that review because, as we understand it, the Norwegian safety record is somewhat better than that of the UK. It is very welcome that the Norwegian CAA’s head of helicopter safety will be working very closely with us on that review.
There have been recent reports that the seating configuration on Super Puma helicopters will be looked at. That issue was raised during meetings that I and other MSPs had with Eurocopter and it, too, needs to be factored into the review. Yesterday’s announcement from three other operators that they are to launch their own reviews and are calling for other helicopter operators to become involved in that review bears witness to the fact that a lot of work is being done at the moment.
I am not necessarily 100 per cent in agreement with Richard Baker, because the landscape of review and inquiry could become cluttered. There is a point at which we must ask where we step back and allow some of the work that is being done to take place so that the lessons from that work can be applied to any future inquiry or review, rather than running parallel inquiries and running the risk of missing some of those lessons. That is the area in which I would say that I am not necessarily 100 per cent in agreement with Mr Baker.
12:44
I, too, congratulate Richard Baker on bringing the debate to the Parliament, and I also congratulate Patricia Ferguson on preparing a bill to reform fatal accident inquiries.
Twenty-five years ago, after the Piper Alpha disaster, survivors and bereaved families demanded change in the culture and regulation of safety offshore. Trade unions such as the Transport and General Workers Union and the Offshore Industry Liaison Committee campaigned for workers to have the right to elect safety representatives offshore, while members of Parliament such as Frank Doran called for the regulation of offshore safety to be separated from the functions of the energy department.
It is therefore fitting that offshore safety reps are in the public gallery for our debate; that unions such as Unite and the RMT are again campaigning for change, along with the British Airline Pilots Association; and that there is a growing demand for an independent public inquiry into helicopter transport in the North Sea. That inquiry must be UK wide, because the issues affect the whole UK sector and because regulation of civil aviation is the responsibility of the UK Department for Transport. However, the Scottish ministers are responsible for inquiries into the causes of fatal accidents in Scottish waters, so they can act on that. I hope that, as Richard Baker said, we will have FAIs in the coming months not just on the 2009 disaster but on this year’s fatal accident.
A number of inquiries have been announced. The House of Commons Transport Committee, the Civil Aviation Authority and the helicopter operating companies have all said that they will undertake inquiries or reviews of one sort or another. Those are all welcome, but they will not of themselves answer all the questions that the families, survivors and those who work offshore are asking. Workers in the UK sector know that Norway has a better recent record on helicopter safety, but they will want to know why that is. Is it because of the hours that pilots fly, the maintenance regimes that are in place or the regulatory regimes within which helicopter companies operate?
As Richard Baker and Mark McDonald said, those people welcome this week’s announcement that Eurocopter will look at reconfiguring the seats on helicopters to improve safety, but they ask whether there should be fewer seats or emergency lighting at doors or windows to help people to escape in the dark. FAIs and an independent inquiry can help us to understand those things and to answer other questions such as whether helicopter operating companies should be empowered to set standards for the equipment that is issued to their passengers by third parties; whether helicopters should fly at all when the waves are so high that fast rescue craft cannot be launched; and whether safety reps offshore have enough time to carry out their duties in full and enough confidence to raise concerns before things go wrong.
Following Lord Cullen’s public inquiry into the Piper Alpha disaster, he recommended many changes, which were endorsed by all concerned and which have made a real difference to the culture of safety offshore. Many years later, the same Lord Cullen recommended changes to the system of fatal accident inquiries, but those recommendations have not yet been implemented.
Today, the North Sea is a mature oil province and much of the offshore infrastructure is nearing the end of its design life. From now on, making profits will demand much higher rates of investment, so the need for effective maintenance is increasing just as the financial rewards become harder to obtain. That is why this is a good time for a comprehensive review of safety in the North Sea, starting with the journey to and from work. Early and effective fatal accident inquiries can help to set a new benchmark for the next 40 years, and I urge ministers to help make that happen.
I call Maureen Watt, to be followed by Alex Johnstone. I must keep members tightly to their time.
12:48
I, too, thank Richard Baker for the opportunity to record our horror at the recent Super Puma crash and the tragic loss of life, which highlights the risks that offshore workers take every day in securing our oil and gas supplies. It also gives us the opportunity to express again our condolences to the families and our thanks to all the rescue services that were involved.
I am always amazed that people manage to escape from helicopter crashes. I have done the helicopter evacuation training several times and, even in a swimming pool, it is pretty scary. If you do not get it right, you end up in a human washing machine. Although in the recent crash the helicopter landed without turning over, I welcome the industry’s consideration of the reconfiguration of seating, because it is miraculous when people escape in a sea situation rather than in a swimming pool. I am amazed by how calmness and the training kick in.
I am old enough to remember when Chinooks provided helicopter journeys to the North Sea installations. I must admit that I was very glad when they were withdrawn, because I found them particularly scary. However, it should be remembered that helicopters are a vital method of transportation to the offshore rigs and platforms, because there are also great risks involved in ship transfer to the installations.
I hope that all members here and other members will come to the next meeting of the cross-party group on oil and gas—on 8 October in room P1.02—which will discuss the helicopter accidents. I welcome the inquiries that are taking place and I note that one of them involves all the helicopter operators coming together to review their operations and share best practice. However, I am saddened that BALPA has said that the investigations are “too little, too late”. I hope that BALPA will fully engage in the investigations.
I am glad that the CAA announced yesterday that its investigation will be done, as others have mentioned, in conjunction with the Norwegian Civil Aviation Authority and the European Aviation Safety Agency. The investigation will take in all the Super Puma accidents in the past four years and operators’ decision making; internal management; protection of passengers; crew and pilot training and performance; and helicopter airworthiness. I look forward to hearing the results of that.
We should mention, too, the boots on for safety campaign, in which all the oil operators are engaging with all employees—offshore and onshore—and reassuring them about safety and that people who have real concerns about travelling offshore and who do not want to will be handled with sympathy and consideration. I hope that the trade unions will keep an eye on that, because I would hate for anyone to lose their job just because of the particularly high anxiety that exists at the moment.
It is important to wait for the outcome of the inquiries rather than rush to find any particular answer regarding the crashes, and I hope that that will happen.
12:52
I thank Richard Baker for bringing this issue back to the chamber. Less than a month ago, we were able to listen to a ministerial statement and respond to it, but it is extremely important to keep the issue on the parliamentary agenda.
The fact is that the journey to and from work is a frustration for many and an annoyance to some, but for those who make that journey to and from the installations in the North Sea it is a significant and important duty that we should never underestimate. The number of accidents that have happened in the North Sea has served only to make the frustration greater. It is important that we realise that one of our primary responsibilities is to ensure that the confidence of those who use helicopters in the North Sea is increased wherever possible. That is why it is so important that many of the things that are already happening continue and deliver in the longer term.
I pay tribute to the work of the helicopter safety steering group and its role at the initial phase of the process, when confidence in the helicopters was undermined overnight but returned fairly quickly after discussion and reports. It is important that there is an inclusive group, and the role of bringing the industry together with trade unions and other interested parties in the grouping is vital for the level of confidence that is delivered when an accident happens. I congratulate the group on its work.
Since then, of course, we have had the announcement that there will be a CAA review into the broader issues of helicopter safety in the North Sea. That is an important step forward, which I welcome. The fact that the review will also take into account what is happening in the Norwegian sector and perhaps give us the opportunity to draw comparisons between safety records and what is being done to achieve them will be something that will deliver in the long term.
The key element in the motion is the issue of fatal accident inquiries and the fact that there was no FAI into the worst of the fatal accidents, which happened in 2009 and left 16 dead. I am no expert in this interesting area, but I think that the motion brings an extra dimension to Patricia Ferguson’s proposal that, given the changed context, the Conservatives will seriously consider. I look forward to speaking to Patricia Ferguson and others to ensure that we take this opportunity to do the right thing.
Solidarity will be not only vital in ensuring that the industry is strong and able to withstand these pressures, but important in the chamber to ensure that we go forward united in a well-thought-out direction that allows us to deliver the improved safety standards and confidence that are vital to the industry’s future. I undertake to do all that I can to ensure that we have cross-chamber solidarity.
12:55
I, too, congratulate Richard Baker on bringing this issue back to the chamber for debate. Given the time constraints, I will not go over the ground that other members have already covered about the work of the CAA and the on-going inquiries.
I cannot for one moment put myself in the place of workers who travel to and from oil rigs, but I am sure that at the moment their confidence is not at a level that we would wish it to be at. Lewis Macdonald mentioned that this year marks 25 years since Piper Alpha; when I attended the memorial service at Hazlehead in Aberdeen, I spoke to families who had lost loved ones in that absolutely dreadful tragedy. I remember at the time asking myself, “What rig are my father-in-law and stepfather on?”—I had no idea. In that fleeting moment, one tends to think, “My goodness—I sincerely hope that it’s not one of my relatives” on the understanding that it will be someone else’s.
Each death, each incident, each accident in the North Sea brings us back to tragedies such as Piper Alpha. One of my constituents was fortunate to be a survivor in one of the recent helicopter incidents, but I cannot imagine the trauma that he must have gone through while trying to escape. Maureen Watt suggested that we understand the feelings and anxieties of workers who might not wish to go offshore until confidence is restored in the industry, and I hope that the industry, with the support of the trade unions, will do everything it can to support them.
Of course, we should also bear in mind not just the workers who go out into the North Sea to keep the oil and gas flowing but the support staff who are out there and their families at home, who must be feeling a great deal of pressure and anxiety. We must respect those who feel such anxiety. There is no doubt that the industry seeks profits and needs to keep the oil and gas flowing but that should never come at the cost of the health and safety of its workers. Much has been done over the years to protect the workers and health and safety have improved immensely, and I sincerely hope that they continue to improve to ensure that we have no more fatal tragedies in the North Sea.
Given the number of members who still wish to speak in the debate, I am minded to accept a motion under rule 8.14.3, to extend the debate by up to 30 minutes.
Motion moved,
That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes.—[Richard Baker.]
Motion agreed to.
12:59
I reflected on Richard Baker’s motion for this debate when I flew out of Sumburgh on Tuesday, and accordingly I paid more attention than normal to the safety briefing. I agree with Maureen Watt’s observations about how different the helicopter emergency training that some of us have been through is from the reality of what happened when the Super Puma went down on that summer evening, 23 August, 2 miles off Sumburgh Head—in fact there was not much of a swell, relative to the normal swell there. I put on record my gratitude to all of those who were involved in dealing with that accident, onshore and offshore, and I congratulate the members of the emergency services on their professionalism. Indeed, I will meet some of the staff when I go to Sumburgh tonight, and I will thank them personally for what they did.
We need to separate the two points that Richard Baker brought to Parliament’s attention today. The first point is his absolutely understandable request that we examine the fatal accident inquiry system. That has to be reformed. It is nothing short of outrageous that four years has gone by since the accident in 2009 and the loved ones and families of those who died then still do not have a definitive account of what went wrong. The system is clearly not working and, therefore, measures that come forward from any party to address that should be supported and actively considered.
The second issue that Richard Baker and others raised is that there are now four inquiries under way. I am not convinced that there should be four separate inquiries. I think that that makes Lewis Macdonald’s point. We should be having one definitive public inquiry, led by an appropriate judge or another figure, rather than four separate inquiries. Arguably, having all of those separate inquiries gives not only the trade unions and the workforce, who are desperate for certain knowledge about what happened, but everyone else who has a deep and long-term commitment to the industry a degree of doubt about when all the inquiries will report, how they will interact and what they will mean. I urge the industry and the Governments in London and Edinburgh to think quickly about whether it is advisable to have four separate inquiries going on instead of pulling them all into one, which is what I think should happen.
I am not convinced that the CAA inquiry is all that others believe it to be. The CAA has a central role in investigation and a central role in regulation. Therefore, I am not quite sure how the CAA can also investigate incidents such as the one that happened off Sumburgh on 23 August.
I absolutely take the point that Maureen Watt and others made about the expertise of the Norwegians. That is an entirely relevant point. However, surely that should be addressed by an independent public inquiry rather than by having one of the bodies, the CAA, which should be giving evidence to an independent public inquiry, acting as the master of the terms of reference for further work. I do not doubt the CAA’s commitment, expertise or ability to bring strong recommendations to the table, but it is part of the system, so I do not see quite how it can undertake that work.
The situation is similar with regard to the oil industry’s work. I will not be the only member who has talked to Malcolm Webb and others in the industry about what they plan for the helicopter safety steering group and the other reviews. However, it strikes me that the confidence that the industry and the workforce need for the future is best rebuilt via an independent inquiry that will allow the industry to address the issues. BALPA said a lot of pretty relevant things about the inquiries when it expressed its concern over the nature of the CAA inquiry. That needs to be dealt with, and I hope that, in the interests of people’s confidence, we will end up with one publicly led inquiry.
13:03
I, too, thank Richard Baker for bringing this issue to the chamber.
Like others, I have talked before about my friends and family who work offshore. When people from Aberdeen are away from home and hear news of an accident in the industry, people around them are often surprised that their immediate reaction is to head for the nearest phone to ensure that their loved ones are safe. As Dennis Robertson says, it is no consolation to hear that other people have lost loved ones through a tragic accident.
No matter what conclusion we come to at the end of this debate, every member here has played a large role in ensuring that health and safety in the North Sea is as good as it can be. That is particularly true of the members of the cross-party group on oil and gas, who have considered the issues carefully during my time in the Parliament. We have heard from Step Change in Safety, union representatives and the industry about how improvements could be made.
Today, we have heard a little bit about all the inquiries that are under way, about the CAA investigation, with support from the European Aviation Safety Agency and input from Norwegian partners. We have heard about the Air Accidents Investigation Branch and the operators’ review, and there has been an appeal today for the FAI process to be speeded up. Tavish Scott called for a public inquiry, which is not in the jurisdiction of this Parliament or Government.
I have a concern about a clutter of inquiries because there are only so many experts who can look at what the failings may actually have been, but is a quick FAI the answer? I have been looking at this situation and at what is said about FAIs. The documentation from the Government and the courts states:
“The purpose of an FAI is to determine:
•Where and when the death took place.
•The cause of the death.
•Reasonable precautions whereby the death might have been avoided.
•The defects, if any, in any system of working which contributed to the death or any accident resulting in the death.
•Any other relevant facts relevant to the circumstances of the death.”
In some respects, a fatal accident inquiry would be in the dark about some of these points because we have not yet concluded what the failings have been.
I have also had a good look at the Cullen review of fatal accident inquiry legislation, which was produced in 2009. I have not gone through the entire document, because it is rather large, but there are some interesting points there.
From my perspective, and in this I agree with Alex Johnstone, we need to see the improved safety standards without a doubt but, to use the words of Lewis Macdonald, who called for “early and effective” FAIs, I do not think that an early FAI would necessarily be an effective one. This is something on which I intend to dwell as we go forward.
13:08
I add my condolences to those expressed by colleagues to the families who lost loved ones on 23 August, and I recognise the work of the rescue services. I also congratulate my colleague Richard Baker on securing this important debate. Richard’s interest in the conditions faced by workers in the North Sea is extensive and it is fitting that he should lead the debate today.
The motion refers to the draft member’s bill that I have issued for consultation. I would like to outline today why I believe such a bill is necessary and how it is relevant to this tragedy.
I have spoken to people who have lost a loved one in a workplace, or other incident and three things have become clear to me: first, the time it takes to hold a fatal accident inquiry is often far too long; secondly, those families do not feel that they have the level of involvement that they would like to have in the process of deciding whether a fatal accident inquiry is held; thirdly, when an FAI takes place, the sheriff who conducts it cannot make binding recommendations and the lessons that could be learned from the inquiry are not always applied. Unfortunately, this case demonstrates those points only too well because, as the motion says, this is not the first time a Super Puma helicopter has crashed into the sea, and the families of the 16 people who died in 2009 are still waiting to hear whether there will be an FAI.
Could lessons have been learned from the crash in 2009? I do not know, and none of us can know. What I do know is that, in 1989, a fatal train crash took place at Bellgrove in Glasgow, when two trains collided at a point where two lines converged into one. The cause of that accident was found to be that one of the drivers did not react to a signal warning him of that line convergence. That is a recognised phenomenon in the railway industry and is known as SPAD—signal passed at danger. In that case, the sheriff recommended the simple change of introducing what would in effect be a double signal, on the basis that a driver is less likely to miss two danger signals. However, the recommendation was not implemented. In 1991, the Newton rail disaster occurred, in which four people died and 21 were injured. The principal cause of that tragedy was, again, a signal passed at danger.
The Scottish Government has said on several occasions that it will legislate but, unfortunately, its legislative programme so far has been silent on the issue. That is why I am going ahead with my bill proposal. I ask the minister to consider the bill—he may take the bill, if he will, although he will not necessarily agree with everything in it—and let us have the debate. Let us hear from the families, the trade unions and the industry on what they have to say. The industry understands that delays are detrimental because, for the companies involved, the liability for an incident remains on their books until such time as its cause has been established. The industry also knows the costs, both in terms of personal involvement and in terms of money, that arise from people having to go over again an incident that was a tragedy at the time and remains a tragedy years later.
I realise that ministers have many other priorities, but I say to the minister that I am consulting not just on an idea but on a bill proposal that has already been drafted. I would happily work with the minister, the cabinet secretary and other parties—I welcome Alex Johnstone’s comments in particular—because, at the end of the day, this is not about party politics but about people’s lives.
I am afraid that you must conclude.
No one should lose their life just because they go to work. We here have the power to make a difference. Let us use it.
I am afraid that I can allow only a shorter contribution from Christian Allard.
13:12
I add my thanks to Richard Baker for bringing the debate to the chamber. I, too, extend my condolences to the families.
Last week, I heard at first hand from the industry how the relatives of the victims felt after the helicopter disaster in August. I was told that some of those relatives would like to help to make commuting offshore safer. I commend the industry and the unions for the way in which they have engaged with the partners and families of the victims.
Earlier this month, we all listened to the heart-felt statement of the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth, John Swinney. I remember the emotion that we felt in the chamber as members spoke thereafter. As members may recall, I made a call then for the relatives of offshore workers to be represented at a senior level in the work of the helicopter safety steering group. The proposal is that the industry should give partners and relatives a voice on the way forward for the industry.
We can all imagine the worry that is experienced by families and relatives as they wait at home for news and wait for their loved ones to return safely from their shift offshore. Parents are worried when their children decide to join the industry. Partners find it difficult to cope with the anxiety when waiting for their loved one’s return and to explain to children what could happen.
Like Dennis Robertson, I recall the ceremony in Aberdeen’s memorial garden in July, when we remembered the 167 men who lost their lives in the North Sea 25 years ago. Still with the memory of that commemoration in my mind, I went to an early helicopter safety steering group town hall event a few weeks later. The industry, the unions and the workforce were talking about safety procedures to return the EC225 fleet to service. Partners and relatives listened to every word as pilots and offshore workers asked questions. At the end of the morning, someone left the room in tears after others had agreed to the decision to allow the EC225 to fly again. It did not feel right.
Like Patricia Ferguson, I feel that we should leave some space for partners and relatives to take an active part in any review that takes place. I understand that the industry is not set up to include partners and relatives. One might ask how they could take part at a senior level in the discussions on helicopter safety. I understand that it might be a challenge for the families to organise themselves to be able to participate, but we should do something about it, whatever review we think we should have. Partners and relatives should be at the main table because they are relevant stakeholders and they have a contribution to make. Ensuring that their voice is heard remains a challenge for the industry, the workforce and us all.
13:15
I thank Richard Baker for bringing this important debate to Parliament and thank all members across all parties who spoke for their speeches. The debate has been sombre, serious, considered and a useful contribution to the debate on a matter that is plainly of huge importance.
I also express my sympathies and condolences to the families, friends and colleagues of all those who lost their lives in the tragic incident. They were Sarah Darnley, Duncan Munro, Gary McCrossan and George Allison. We must always remember that those people lost their lives. The bereaved who survive them will always remember them. Dennis Robertson set out that side of the matter powerfully.
The Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth, John Swinney, made a statement to Parliament on Wednesday 4 September in which he outlined the facts of the incident, the tremendous response by the emergency services that resulted in the rescue of 14 survivors and the strong leadership provided by the helicopter safety steering group in taking some difficult and challenging decisions to ensure the safety and confidence of the workforce. I add my thanks to all those who were involved in a tremendous effort, as Tavish Scott—the member for the Shetlands, including Sumburgh—mentioned. We all thank them.
I had some experience of this when, as a member of the Lomond mountain rescue team, I attended a call-out on 1 February 1987 and there was a fatality as a result of a helicopter crash; I note that the late Sergeant Harry Lawrie is still remembered from that day. On that occasion, a Wessex helicopter was involved. Such incidents are sombre occasions, and all those who attend will have the experience etched in their memories.
It is understandable that huge concerns exist. They have been heightened because of the proximity in time of the helicopter incidents in the North Sea. The one in August was the fifth incident since 2009 and the second involving fatalities.
The five incidents involved two specific types of aircraft: the L2 and the EC225. The EC225 has been subjected to stringent tests and analysis since it was grounded following the incident in October 2012. I understand that, at this point, the helicopter safety steering group regards the EC225 as the safest helicopter available for offshore operations anywhere in the world. We must give credence to that view, given the group’s expertise.
It is clear that the helicopter safety steering group will need to work hard in the coming weeks and months to get that message across to the workforce and to help rebuild the confidence of the offshore community, as many members said in the debate. I understand that, in addition to lifting the suspension on the L1 and the EC225, the helicopter safety steering group has also launched a far-reaching communications campaign across the industry to engage with the workforce in an effort to rebuild confidence.
On 5 September, the AAIB issued a special bulletin advising on the initial findings of the investigation in which it stated that, to date, it has uncovered no evidence of a “causal technical failure” in the helicopter. The special bulletin confirmed the earlier report that the preliminary investigation had found that the helicopter was intact when it struck the sea in, as I think Maureen Watt said, an upright position. In addition, analysis of the data recorders found that both engines were delivering power until impact.
On Tuesday, the CAA, which is the UK’s specialist aviation regulator, announced a review of offshore helicopter operations in the North Sea. I think that it is relevant to point out that its work is a review, not an inquiry—the CAA does not investigate accidents; the Air Accidents Investigation Branch does that. Following the AAIB’s investigation, the CAA, as the regulatory body, would take action, if necessary.
I have read the “Review of Offshore Helicopter Operations Terms of Reference”, which outlines the objective and scope of the review, its timescale and the membership of the review team. Lewis Macdonald asked whether specific practical matters, such as the maintenance regime and the rigorousness of it in respect of helicopters, and various other factors would be addressed. The CAA’s review will look at a number of issues, but I would be interested to know whether Mr Macdonald considers that all the serious issues that he raised will be covered. Perhaps that is something that we can come back to.
Like Mark McDonald, I welcome the fact that the review will be undertaken jointly with the Norwegian Civil Aviation Authority and the European Aviation Safety Agency and that it will be advised by a panel of independent experts. It will study current operations as well as previous incidents and accidents. In other words, it will not look only at the most recent tragedy.
I agree with what the minister has said, but would he be willing to engage with my colleague Patricia Ferguson on the issue of fatal accident inquiries, which is central to the motion?
I will come on to that when I have finished my remarks about the CAA’s review.
The point that I was seeking to make is that, from my reading of the review’s terms of reference, the background to it, its objective and scope, and its timescale, I think that it is a fairly substantial review. We should acknowledge that the people who will be involved include a number of experts and people with huge experience in the industry. If members have any particular suggestions to make about the review and how it could be improved, extended or altered, I would be keen to receive them after the debate.
I turn to the issue of a fatal accident inquiry. Plainly, this is one of those debates in which I am responsible for some matters and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice is responsible for others. The justice secretary is responsible for taking forward the serious issues that have been raised in relation to fatal accident inquiries and the timescale for them. Quite properly, those are matters for the Crown and the Lord Advocate, and not for the Government. The Crown acts independently of the Government, and rightly so. Plainly, that is an important principle.
In relation to the four-year time lapse between the 2009 incident and the FAI, which Mr Baker raised in his motion and which Patricia Ferguson mentioned, the cabinet secretary has made available to Parliament the timeline of the complex investigation involved. The Lord Advocate will publish that on the Crown Office website. It is essential that complex investigations are pursued methodically and are not rushed but are comprehensive and detailed. More than 600 witness statements have been taken and 2,000 documents gathered.
I understand that the consultation on Patricia Ferguson’s proposed bill finishes on 22 November. The Scottish Government will consider the final proposals when they are available. Mr MacAskill has already given an undertaking to the Justice Committee that the bill to implement the Cullen recommendations will be introduced in this parliamentary session. I will pass on the Official Report of this debate to Mr MacAskill because I am conscious that, in the time available, I have not been able to answer all the questions that have been raised, and I would like to do that.
I am keen to continue to ensure that the Scottish Government is fully engaged with the oil and gas industry and the trade unions. As it happens, I will meet a number of senior trade union representatives tomorrow—the meeting was arranged some time ago—and we will consider these matters very carefully.
Rebuilding the confidence of the men and women who travel to and from our offshore installations on a daily basis must be a key priority for us all.
I apologise to Christian Allard for cutting his time; I was advised that the minister had another pressing engagement and had to leave the chamber at 20 past 1.
13:25
Meeting suspended.
14:30
On resuming—