Offshore Helicopter Safety

Debate between Alex Cunningham and Susan Elan Jones

Wednesday 6th February 2019 Westminster Hall

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered offshore helicopter safety.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Henry. As many of us are aware, the oil and gas industry remains very significant to our economy. Tens of millions of barrels are produced every year and hundreds of billions of pounds have found their way to the public purse in taxes over the years. The industry employs huge numbers of people, and I think we can be proud of what has been achieved, although many of us would have preferred to see Governments through the ’80s create some form of sovereign wealth fund to support our country in the leaner years, rather than squandering much of that money on tax cuts for the rich.

I am here to make the case for an independent public inquiry into the discredited offshore helicopter system and for much-needed reforms to the regulatory framework. Helicopter transport is the lifeblood of the offshore oil and gas industry, transporting some 50,000 workers to their workplace. The remoteness and number of North sea installations make helicopters the only viable mode of transport. Some of the issues I will raise about the maximising economic recovery policy and about commerciality might have been more appropriately addressed to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, but I trust that if the Minister cannot address them today, he will work with fellow Ministers to do so in writing.

It is important to recall the tragic statistics of recent times. Thirty-three offshore workers and helicopter crew have died as a result of accidents across the North sea in the past 10 years, and 65 workers and crew have been rescued in that time. In the UK sector, there have been five helicopter accidents, two of which were fatal, taking the lives of 20 workers and crew. All the incidents have involved the Super Puma models H225 or AS332L2.

Three of the incidents, including the one that killed 16 workers and crew on 1 April 2009, were attributable to technical failures of the main rotor gearbox. The Super Puma fleet was grounded in October 2012 and had just returned to UK continental shelf operations when an AS332L2 ditched in the sea off Sumburgh on 23 August 2013, with the loss of four lives. A month after the August 2013 incident, the Civil Aviation Authority launched a strategic review of offshore helicopter operations, resulting in the publication of CAP 1145 on 20 February 2014. That is the regulator’s sole official response to date to the series of tragic incidents and close calls involving Super Pumas between 2009 and 2013.

Super Pumas returned in the North sea in 2015, but have been grounded since May 2016, following a fatal accident in Norway on 29 April 2016 that caused the deaths of all 13 crew and passengers on board. The helicopter involved was an H225 Super Puma. The final Accident Investigation Board Norway report in July could not establish the cause of the fatigue fracture in the gearbox-operated rotor that led to catastrophic mechanical failure, but it still managed to publish 12 recommendations. They included criticism of Airbus and the European Aviation Safety Agency for failures to act effectively on recommendations on fault detection systems from the April 2009 incident in the UK sector.

The overall impression for the North sea workforce was that once again the Super Puma had failed, with deadly consequences. The trade unions, particularly the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers and Unite, sit on the committees and bodies established to promote higher safety standards in the industry, including helicopter operations. They share my concerns about this area of aviation regulation and are fully supportive of an independent public inquiry. That is not only a priority for those offshore workers on oil and gas installations that are still in production. The emergence of offshore wind as a growing element of the energy mix and the decommissioning of 1970s and 1980s-era infrastructure will require helicopter transport to deliver the workforce safely to the job and back home again for the next 10 years or more. Those workers are very much affected, too.

As an aside, I am told by the Prospect union that the withdrawal of helicopters has other impacts, with pilots and engineers losing out on personal licence payments when a helicopter is withdrawn for safety reasons. Will the Minister tell me how the pay of those workers can be protected?

We know that the manufacturer of the Super Puma, Airbus, has ceased production of the AS332L2. The Super Puma family, however, contributed to Airbus’s successful sales in 2018, with orders received for 17 Super Pumas, including the H225. Once known as the workhorse of the North sea, there is next to no prospect of it returning in either the UK or Norwegian sectors, yet that extraordinary collapse in confidence in one section of the offshore industry has merited little if any comment from the Government.

I met the Civil Aviation Authority last September and outlined my concerns regarding the Super Puma and the need for the CAA to be much clearer on its position. Due to the requirements it says it has in place, it told me that no one can see the Super Pumas re-entering service in the foreseeable future, even though the CAA had cleared them for use. What model will replace the Super Pumas and the S-92s in the long run? The Bell 525 is thought to be the only heavy model capable of operating in the North sea. Industry figures are being invited to Texas to view the new model, but it is still to be licensed for commercial sale by the Federal Aviation Agency in the United States. No other heavy model is at such an advanced stage of development. The RMT estimates that it will take nearly two years to complete, so there is no prospect of new helicopters in the North sea until late 2020.

What assessment have the Government made of the new helicopter models for the North sea market? Is there sufficient capacity in the market? Is the existing fleet in the North sea being stretched to the limit, resulting in more and more downtime, as appears to be the case? We know from worker testimonials that there are problems with resource and downtime. One group gave an example. They checked in at 6.45 am, but due to technical issues, the workers ended up spending 12 hours in the heliport. The following day, that happened again. Workers had been there for a total of 22 hours. There is a long way to go before we can reasonably expect workers to be confident in the equipment—in this case, the helicopters—that is provided for them to be able to carry out their work.

While the CAA’s CAP 1145 document improved breathing apparatus, seating configuration and window design—I believe the windows are made bigger so that people can escape more easily—the perception among many offshore workers is that CAP 1145 is too heavily weighted towards survivability in a crash, rather than crash prevention.

In correspondence with the Government on the matter, I have received a series of broad-brush replies that have done nothing to address my core concerns or those of offshore workers in my Stockton North constituency—many people in my constituency work in the North sea—and elsewhere. The Minister said in an answer to my written question on commercial pressures:

“Offshore helicopter services provide a vital link to ensure the viability of the UK’s oil and gas industry. High standards of air safety are a fundamental concern in ensuring these services are commercially viable.”

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. I am interested that he has referred to the large number of oil and gas rig workers across the country. I imagine that in practically every constituency, someone will work in this line of work. Their safety is paramount.

[Alex Cunningham]

That is most certainly so. I bid for this debate because of the importance of this issue to people across the entire country who are involved in the industry.

In answer to my written question, the Minister went on to say:

“Through the Aviation Strategy, the Government will look at its role in supporting the commercial success of operators whilst balancing this against environmental and safety concerns.”

That is all very laudable, but it should be noted that the Government’s aviation strategy, like their maritime strategy, is for the next 30 years, yet the latest consultation document, which was published just in December, makes no mention whatever of offshore helicopter transport. Can the Minister explain that omission? If he cannot, offshore workers could be forgiven for thinking that their concerns are being brushed under the carpet.

The Transport Committee’s 2014 report found that the CAA review, which led to CAP 1145, said that the Government

“did not consider the evidence that commercial pressure impacts on helicopter safety in sufficient depth.”

The Government must convene a full independent public inquiry to investigate commercial pressures on helicopter safety in the North sea operating environment. That inquiry must examine the role and effectiveness of the CAA.

Respite Care for Vulnerable Adults: Teesside

Debate between Alex Cunningham and Susan Elan Jones

Monday 12th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alex Cunningham]

I certainly do agree. I opened my speech by talking specifically about this being not just a Teesside issue, but an issue across the country, and it is a tremendous challenge to Government to plan for the future; I will also be developing that later in my speech.

I know that the team members at the CCG dealing with respite and wider provision are dedicated to their jobs and that they too have been distressed as we have gone through this process, and I for one appreciate the strains of dealing with such sensitive issues. They are trying to do their best within what they say are the ring-fenced resources available, although I personally could have hoped that they would have kicked the Government for failing to provide the resources needed.

Currently, respite is provided in two NHS centres of excellence, Aysgarth and Bankfields, but what are they planning to do now? The best of the options available to carers is this perceived reduction in residential care provided by the expert and nursing staff for their family members, and then the provision of a menu of alternative choices, largely without nurses. The choices include beds in care homes, hotel rooms, adapted caravans and even in carers’ own homes. Could we really see a vulnerable adult accommodated in a caravan somewhere and looked after by people in whom their parents may struggle to have confidence? What about the risk assessments for that menu of provision? Who is going to check that all the new people caring for these vulnerable people are both trained and suitable for this role and that the premises are suitable? What respite is it for a carer if they have the respite worker under their own roof? That is not much of a break for the carer or the family member.

To be fair to the CCG, it has promised that there will always be appropriately trained staff to offer the care and support required. Sadly, however, it is yet to provide the families with the reassurance they need, and the uncertainty is torture for them. So much more needs to be done to drive understanding. We also have to ask whether changes that cause such disruption are really appropriate in 21st-century Britain when carers do not know what the future holds. Our provision should be improving, not deteriorating in practical terms nor in the eyes of the carers.

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Does he agree that this country needs to be doing a great deal more to support carers? I think back to the 1997 Labour Government, when national insurance contributions towards carers’ pensions were introduced. Is there not a case for looking at things in the round and doing more to support carers?

[Alex Cunningham]

I am a member of the all-party parliamentary group on carers, so I spend a bit of time on this subject. I do not know whether we will ever get to a point at which we are content that we have done enough, but we need to do much more.

I recently wrote to the Hartlepool and Stockton-on-Tees CCG regarding the consultation that was taking place at the time. It confirmed that it is committed to retaining the full £1.5 million fund for this provision, but it highlighted that the money will have to be spread further to reach more families. That confirms that provision is being diluted, and when provision is diluted, it is cut, and it will be the carers who will pick up the extra responsibility.

I accept the CCG’s point that more people need respite services, but the answer is surely to increase funding and provide the services that are needed, not water down what is available and provide a poorer-quality service. Demands for such services will continue to increase over the coming years as more vulnerable, high-needs young people grow into adults, live longer and need the kind of comprehensive support given by the people I have been speaking of today. The cost of meeting the services will therefore go up and, yes, although the cost may in some cases be shared between the NHS and local authorities, neither of them can sustain quality services for a growing cohort of people when the income simply is not there.

According to the National Audit Office, Stockton Council has had its budget cut by 52% since 2010 and spends around 57% of its money on social care. Does the Minister realise that we are facing a potential crisis? Does she understand the tremendous role that carers take on? Does she appreciate the need for comprehensive respite care to give them a few days’ break, or does she think that they will get by and manage? Well, while some may, others will not and will face the difficult decision to hand their loved one over to the health service full time because they simply cannot cope any more. What short, mid and long-term planning are Government doing to ensure that we have a strategy in place not just in Teesside but across the country to cope with increased demand and provide the increased resources required to deliver appropriate provision?

My colleagues on Teesside—my hon. Friends the Members for Stockton South (Dr Williams), for Hartlepool (Mike Hill), for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) and for Redcar (Anna Turley)—have all listened to carers’ stories and recognise that they are facing tremendous anxiety over what the changes will mean to respite care. Others have listened, too, including the scrutiny committees of our local authorities. The joint health scrutiny committee, a cross-committee of local councillors, stated that it could not endorse either of the two options or any other that would reduce provision. None of the councillors believe that the CCG has covered itself in glory in its handling of the matter, and they can see why those dependent on these services for a decent quality of life have lost all trust in the organisation, feeling that it has ignored their pleas and failed to understand their needs.

There is another dimension to this. I applaud the CCG for the comprehensive consultation exercise—and it has been comprehensive. Sadly, the CCG has failed to get its messages of reassurance across to these needy families, who interpret that as its having failed to recognise the anxieties created by the process. Carers tell me they have no understanding of any new criteria that will determine who gets what services. They feel that they are being left in the dark. Yes, I praise the public consultation by the CCG, but at the end of day the options were severely limited. I repeat that there is no extra cash to cope with increased demand.

I have heard that at one meeting with councillors, the CCG said that carers cheered when option 2 was chosen over option 1, which would have ended all provision at the two nurse-led residential units. Naturally, the carers cheered the better of two bad options. There was no option at all to extend the current provision or provide resources to cater for the additional needs of new adults coming into the system, which is something that Ministers need to reflect on. The CCG also stated that this was not a cost-cutting exercise. I know that the money is ring-fenced, but with the need to look after more people with the same money, there are fewer resources per person in the system. While I remain critical of the CCG and the way in which it has handled this issue I recognise that in many ways it has been backed into a corner. It know the demands on its service, but does the Minister? It knows that there are more people needing services, but there is no additional funding to provide that.

We all know that we have a health and social care crisis in our country, and while local authorities can shift the burden on to local council tax payers as Government cuts bite deeper, it is not something that our local NHS commissioners can do. They cannot tell local tax payers that they are sticking an extra 3% on their bills to try and alleviate the shortage of funds in areas such as respite care. That leaves the buck well and truly in the Chamber, with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and the Minister. My plea to her is simple. Will she take an interest in what is happening on Teesside with respite care for vulnerable adults? Will she examine the proposals, which parents see as a cut to provision for families in the area?

This is much bigger than Teesside. Yes, I know that there are CCGs up and down the country facing the same issues, so perhaps it is time for Ministers to consider the whole policy area of supporting carers such as those I have talked about this evening and find ways of providing the NHS and, for that matter, local authorities with the resources that are needed. Will the Minister instigate a much-needed policy review to see how we can do much better as a country to support carers?

Many families—I have talked to several—are living on the edge, struggling to cope with the needs of their loved ones. They have no intention whatsoever of handing them over to the state, but they need comprehensive respite care services to give them a little of their own time and space. We as a nation owe them no less.