 I ask those who are leaving the chamber to do so quietly please. The final item of business is a member's business debate on motion 7724, in the name of Loose McDonald, on workforce concerns regarding helicopter safety in the North Sea. That debate will be concluded without any questions being put and I would ask those members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now. i'n gweithio i'r Ffath Gaeligol a Llywus MacDonald i'r gweithio i chi'n gweithio i'r ffrindig ddod seven minutes. I'm delighted to welcome members of the United Union to the Public Gallery this evening, as well as representatives of Airbus and others who have stayed for this debate, and I thank colleagues across parties for their support. Tonight gives us an opportunity to put on the record the views of offshore workers themselves on an issue of the utmost importance to them and their families. maen nhir ymlaen chi yw aethau cydwynidol ar y cydwn i'r blaisiau, ac ar y blaisiau yn y byw. Slawd i'r gynlluniau a hwnnw i'r cyfrinogi'r cyllid yn y pethau yn gondol yn ddiweddol, yn gondol yn ddweud i ddู o soni, yn ddweud yn gondol'r llwyddo wef ymlaen y cael ei ddweudachau. Ond y fflaen yw'r safityn yn y pethau yn y cyfrinogi a'r pliant yw'r cyflwyffod cuirfod yn rhan o gyflwyno arnghwych i gael a'r dwiadol yng Nghyrach Llywodraeth. It is also about the journey to work, which carries risks of its own. Most people travel to work by train or by bus, by bike or by car on a daily basis. Oil workers make a journey too. They travel every month to the heliport in Aberdeen, then they make another journey on a helicopter to the place where they will work long shifts on successive days for often three weeks at a time. Sometimes they will travel first from Aberdeen to Shetland, then fly again from there to an offshore installation and then do the same journey in reverse when coming home. That is a lot of hours in mid-air. I have travelled offshore myself a number of times in the last 30 years and I can tell members that it is not the same as taking the bus. A passenger on a bus does not need to be trained in advance on how to get out if things go wrong. He or she does not need a survival suit or all the gear required to stay afloat and keep breathing in the event of an accident. Never mind going through that whole process of kitting up twice in the same journey when the trip involves changing from one vehicle to another halfway there. It is important to understand what the journey is like and what that implies for workforce safety. Formal certification of safety on its own is not enough. Taking a chopper to work in the North Sea is not the same as joyriding at an air show on a summer's afternoon. The journey is also about the gear, the safety procedures, the unpredictable flying conditions, the hazardous environment. When workers do all that before they get to work, they need the certification, of course, but they also need to feel that the aircraft they are travelling on is fit for purpose. That is what is at issue here this evening. Super Puma helicopters do not feel safe to many of those who may be asked to step on board. United Union has collected thousands of signatures that say that that is the view of its offshore members, and some of those workers are here with us here this evening. Airbus, who makes Super Pumas, has done their own survey. They found that 62 per cent of helicopter crew and passengers in the North Sea would not fly in Super Pumas, given the choice. They also found that 44 per cent were unaware of the efforts that Airbus had made to address the issues that caused Super Pumas to be grounded in the first place. Of course, those efforts are significant. Airbus have a good deal of professional engineering expertise, and they have applied all their technology and expertise to addressing the critical issues, and they have briefed MSPs accordingly. The facts of the matter are not in dispute. They have been established by national and international civil aviation regulators. The Super Puma 225, which crashed in Norway last year, did so because a crack developed in the gearbox that led to catastrophic failure and the helicopter dropped out of the sky. Thirteen passengers and crew died as a result. Airbus have made public what they believe caused the crack to develop where they did, and they have put mitigation measures into place. For example, two different companies previously supplied versions of the part that Airbus believed was at the heart of the failure in the gearbox, and the Airbus in the future will use only one version from one supplier. Mechanisms for detection of faults or failures have been improved, and maintenance rules and procedures have been tightened up. All of those steps are welcome, but they do not guarantee that such faults or failures can never happen again, which is why so many people remain unconvinced. It is important, of course, to know how and why a crack develops, but it is also important to know how long it takes before it becomes critical how long there is to take action to deal with it. It is right to remove the less safe of two alternative components from the supply chain, but we also need to know whether there are other parts of the aircraft where safety critical components are supplied by different companies and what is being done about those. It is interesting to know that Airbus could reduce the number of seats and improve the internal cabin space in the 225, but there is no certainty that that will happen if helicopter operating companies cannot make a profit flying with fewer passengers. There are wider questions, too, and not just for Airbus. My friend and former colleague Aberdeen MP Frank Doran won the support of the Transport Select Committee at Westminster for a public inquiry into helicopter safety in the North Sea back in 2014, but that call was rejected by the Tory transport secretary of the day. RMT, of course. Mark McDonald? I am grateful to the minister for giving me a heel. I appreciate that, given my ministerial office, I cannot contribute a speech to the debate, but, given that, it affects a number of my constituents as well. I wonder if you would agree that, as well as the communication with the workforce, which is essential, there is also the wider communication that is required with family of workforce, but communities, particularly Dyson bridge of Don in my constituency, which regularly experience helicopter flights over built-up areas and often feel concerns around what the impact of helicopter safety might be on those communities. A very strong point, because a lot of that is about communication. In a sense, that is the central point. It is not only about technical solutions to technical problems, but it is also about communication with the workforce, their families and, indeed, the wider community. Hence, the call that was made three years ago for a public inquiry into helicopter safety, not just around standards but also around the communications that relate to that. RMT and other of the unions within the offshore co-ordinating group has repeated the call this week for a public inquiry. I would be very interested to hear from the minister in responding to the debate on what the Scottish Government's view is of that matter, recognising, of course, that the responsibility lies elsewhere. Offshore trade unions have also argued that helicopter transport needs to be on the agenda of the oil industry's regulators, the oil and gas authority and the health and safety executive, as well as the agenda of the civil aviation authority. Again, that makes the same point. That is not just about technical standards, it is about workforce engagement and confidence, and it is an issue for the whole industry. That is why the partnership of workforce, unions and regulators must be strengthened, not weakened, if the North Sea is to have a safe and successful future and why the views of the workforce must be heeded by all concerned. Only by putting the workforce at the centre can we have the oil and gas industry that we need, operating to the standards that those who work in it deserve. I really want to thank Lewis MacDonald for bringing forward this member's debate today, and I completely concur with his last sentiment there that the workforce really has to be at the centre of this. Sadly, one of my earliest duties in this chamber after being elected, and it was the very first question that I put to this chamber, was a question to the First Minister about the safety of the Super Puma H225 fleet in Scotland. This came after the tragedy in April 2016, which took the lives of 13 people, including that of one of my constituents, Mr Ian Stewart, who was a father of two from Lawrence Kirk. At that point, the fleet was grounded, and rightly so, so that an investigation could be carried out to ascertain why this model of helicopter, at that point responsible for around 140,000 flights each year across the UK, appeared to have recurring problems with its gearbox. In the period from 2009 to 2016, four flights had come down in the North Sea with sighted mechanical failure, two of them leading to fatalities with a loss of 29 lives. Because of that, it really isn't difficult to understand the concerns and the reluctance of offshore workers and their families at home to travel offshore when they depend on the helicopter fleet for transport to and from platforms and what really is a challenging and often hostile environment that Lewis MacDonald described earlier. Lewis MacDonald also pointed out in his motion that Airbus, the company that makes the Super Puma helicopters, has carried out a survey of pilots and passengers, which found that 62 per cent of those surveyed would prefer not to fly in Super Pumas and that 44 per cent were unaware of the work carried out to improve safety since that tragedy in 2016. Now, I raised this when I met with Airbus, who manufactures through Pumas last week, and I wanted to discuss the Civil Aviation Authority's recent decision, and really to ask them what had been done to improve the safety of the workforce in the oil industry. Airbus went through in detail each of the incidents that had happened over the past few years and, in particular, that incident of April 2016, and the methods that had been carried out by the hundreds of engineers and scientists who investigated not only the design of the part that caused the problem but also the history of the individual gearbox, which had failed so catastrophically from its construction, its individual parts, its transportation, installation and final operation. The outcome of their investigation found what they believed to be a combination of factors that led to the failure of that gearbox in 2016 and factors that have since resulted in a number of changes being made, some of which Lewis MacDonald outlined. Those gearbox parts, which identified as contributing to that accident, were replaced with alternatives already safely in use in other models of helicopter. Airbus reduced the service life for various gearbox parts from 4,000 flight hours to 1,000 flight hours, the particle detection system and related inspection criteria had also been improved, and a new transport transit packaging system had been introduced, which monitors the gearboxes for any unexpected forces, forces that they believed contributed to the failure of parts, such as in the incident last year. In addition to that, aircraft operators are no longer permitted to separate the modules of the main gearbox and must send them to Airbus's own maintenance venues. I hasten to add that that is only a very brief non-technical overview of some of the changes that were made. When I asked them about the results of the survey, they told me that the company still had to engage with the industry as a whole, including the workforce, trade unions and operators. To me that is one of the real key issues here, because I think that it is all very well that as MSPs and politicians we can be briefed, but we are not the ones that have to be convinced about the safety of the fleet. I very much appreciated the chance to meet with Airbus last week, but I am conscious that the information and the briefing that I received and the opportunity to ask questions about that is something that those working in the industry are yet to have, as well as the point that was very well made by Mark McDonald, that wider communities also need to be informed about the changes that have taken place. Airbus is just at the start of that process, and those still have a lot of work to do. There is also the fact that, while we have a preliminary report from the accident investigation board in Norway into the incident, the final investigation report is still to come. I just want to finally stress that I am fully behind and fully support our offshore workers. It is our absolute duty to ensure as far as possible that our workforce is only flying aircraft where they not only feel safe but are safe. My husband has to go offshore. I have family and friends working in the industry who have to do the same. You cannot live in the north-east of Scotland and not know anybody who works offshore. I would never expect anyone to do anything that I myself would not be willing or happy to do if I was in their position. That is why I would only support the return of this helicopter to service if the workforce feels happy and secure enough to travel in it. They are the ones taking the risk, and it is only right that we support them. I thank Lewis MacDonald for bringing this important topic to members' debate today. It is, without a doubt, a consensus that the loss of life due to the failure of superpumar helicopters was unacceptable and a tragedy that we do not want to see again. Aberdeen, amberwido, oil and gas industry across the UK can take pride on its health and safety record and continue to be a world leader in this regard. There is no doubt that superpumar helicopters have brought concerns for both oil companies and workers alike. As oil and gas UK stated earlier this year, the safety of the offshore workforce is of paramount importance to the industry. More recently, the decision to use the superpumar rests with the operator, its workforce and their helicopter operator. However, I am grateful that the manufacturers of a superpumar helicopter's airbus have taken those concerns seriously. Airbus are now in the process of meeting with workers from oil companies who use these helicopters to inform them of the changes that they have made to make the aircraft safe. It will be interesting to see what feedback is received and how airbus acts on any further concerns. After investing millions in improving the safety of their aircraft, airbus have carried out thousands of tests on all parts of their helicopters. Following this investigation, they have now improved practices by increasing their frequency of inspections, imposing stricter criteria, overhauling detection methods for failures, increasing monitoring of individual parts, reducing maximum operation times for parts by a factor of four and gone as far as prohibiting parts within their aircraft completely. That is the kind of rigorous health and safety checks that we now expect from our oil and gas industry, and that airbus have done their utmost to live up to this rigour is no less than we would expect. However, the problem that airbus face is to regain the confidence of workers, and that was evident by the recent survey results. However, with checks having only been completed earlier this year, it is too early to call for an all-out ban. It is also too early to expect workers to be aware of the work that has gone into improving the safety of the aircraft. Now I completely understand workers' reasons for being cautious, but airbus have produced a thorough investigation and performed thousands of tests. Airbus should now be allowed time to get around all companies who use the helicopters so that they have adequate time to speak with workers and reassure them of their safety. The health and safety checks have been completed, revisions have been considered, changes have been made, and airbus now needs to communicate that to those who use the superpuma and restore confidence. Richard Leonard, to be followed by Gillian Martin. Can I begin by drawing attention to my register of interests? In particular, my membership of the Unite and GMB trade unions. Can I also welcome those trade union members who are here in the public gallery tonight, who are the lifeblood of the trade union movement? Let me begin by reminding Parliament that it was the Abaddonian trade union leader Jimmy Milne, who, when he became the general secretary of the Scottish TUC, led on the call of his predecessor Jimmy Jack, who, in 1972, had demanded the establishment of a Scottish Parliament as a worker's Parliament? I am not quite sure that Jimmy Milne and Jimmy Jack would say that this is what we have achieved yet, but can I welcome Lewis Macdonald's initiative in securing this timely debate in Parliament on the matter of the highest importance to workers in this most strategically important industry in Scotland? It is a primary industry where the extraction of a natural and national asset comes up all too often against conflicting interests between multinational, private and industrial ownership whose first duty it is to shareholder returns and a workforce for whom our first duty in this Parliament must be to secure their health and safety at work, including their safety in travelling backwards and forwards to work. If we had anything resembling industrial democracy, we would not need to have this debate at all, but it is precisely that we do not have industrial democracy, that we have an industrial balance of power tilted in favour of the owners and the operators that this is such a highly charged debate. So it is a bit disappointing but not surprising to hear the Conservative Party, as I understand it, refusing point blank to back the trade union campaign and we heard it again just a few moments of go. The decision to use the superpuma rests, they say, with the operator, their workforce and their helicopter operator. This is, in my view, a negation of the Cullen edit, that in the North Sea the frequency of accidents may be low, but the potential consequences are very serious. As others have pointed out, even Airbus' own figures reveal that as many as 62 per cent of all those who have been surveyed by them are, and I quote, very uncomfortable and unlikely to fly in a superpuma again. We must all understand that when we add to this the 15 per cent, who I quote, are uncomfortable and would need more safety information before flying again, it becomes abundantly clear why the Unite campaign has moved from a back home safe campaign to a no comeback for the Puma, make the North Sea Puma free campaign. I hope that the minister, in his closing remarks, will pledge his full support to this important trade union safety campaign. Deputy Presiding Officer, there is an added poignancy to this debate tonight, because the superpuma crash just off the coast at Bergen in Norway, which concerns us tonight, in which 13 souls lost their lives, took place on Friday 29 April 2016, the day after international workers memorial day. The day when we, lest us not forget, remember the dead, but fight for the living. So if this is to be more than a slogan, we need to act upon it. And as the RMT union reminds us in their briefing for this debate, next year is the 30th anniversary of the Piper Alpha disaster, the pain still being felt by widows, orphans and survivors right across the country. So we owe it to them to find a new determination in this Parliament to say to those offshore workers who are with us tonight and to all those beyond, we in this Parliament are on your side, and it is the duty of Parliament to make sure that these tragedies never happen again, that we not only hear you but that we listen to you as well. Can I just say to visitors in the gallery please that it's not appropriate to either clap or cat call? Perhaps at the end, if you want to show your appreciation at the end of the debate, there will be an opportunity. Have Gillian Martin please be followed by Neil Bibby. And thank you to Lewis MacDonald for securing this important debate. I was going to say for our area, but we often forget as northeasters how many other people in Scotland and particularly the north of England do work offshore. I'm coming from this debate from the perspective of those who work offshore and their families. More than 20,000 flights are made every year to installations hundreds of miles off land, where men and women go to work for weeks before returning home to their family and friends. We know that the journey to and from the installation is potentially the most hazardous aspect of working offshore, as it stands by its very nature, and we must therefore make sure that the helicopters and use of the safe is available. For nearly 20 years when I ran my own company, I've periodically flown to platforms in the North Sea, West of Shetland and beyond, and there are considerable procedures, precautions, mitigation measures and training in place, but if something goes wrong with a helicopter over the North Sea, every one of us on that flight knows that the chances of survival of a ditching helicopter are not high. I can understand why those who have to make those journeys with far more frequency than I ever did may now need more reassurances about the helicopters that are asked to board. The Union Unite, which I mentioned a lot today, representing its members, has just in the past couple of days reinforced its message that strike action will be threatened if the superpunas are put back into use. We know that certain companies have at this point decided that they will not put their personnel on them despite airbus reassurances on their safety and the fact that the UK and Norwegian civil aviation authorities have, as of July this year, deemed the superpuna safe. In a workforce survey that many people have mentioned, the 62 per cent response said that they would not want to use the superpuma again, and a further 15 per cent said that they would not be comfortable boarding until more guarantees about safety changes had been explained. In other words, that is three out of four of North Sea workers are unhappy about boarding a superpuma again at this point. We know that while the fleet of superpumas are not being used in the UK, they continue to be used all over the world. Airbus has also said that a full understanding of the causes of the crash in Norway has put forward a number of measures that make them confident that a similar tragedy would not be repeated. Others have mentioned what those measures are, and we have obviously had briefings as MSPs. I will not repeat what my colleagues have said about them. However, the death of 13 people last year of the coast of Norway was a real turning point for many offshore workers who do not feel that they can make the journeys to work on these helicopters any longer. Of course, they already had significant lingering confidence issues with the integrity of the superpuma after the tragic accident of the coast of Peterhead in 2009, where 16 people died, including Stuart Wood from my own home village of Newmacker. I can't stand here today as the MSP of his mother Audrey and his sister Kerry and advocate anything other than extreme caution over this helicopter that has repeatedly had issues before and since that devastating day. I guess that extreme caution really translates at this point into not using them again, given the recurring faults. Can the airbus and the helicopter operators do more to communicate and convince Norsea workers and operators that they can feel confident travelling in the superpuma? Perhaps, and it has been pointed out that they really are at the start of this communication process, and we have all made suggestions on how that can be improved today. Right now, I am not so sure that confidence can never come back. Until it does, I do not think that any of us should ask people who face significant risk already to do the jobs that they do offshore to board them. Before I call Mr Bibby, there are a few other people who wish to speak in the debate, so I am minded to accept a motion without notice under rule 8143 to extend the debate by up to 30 minutes. I invite Lewis MacDonald to move a motion without notice. The question is that the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes. Are we all agreed? That is there for agreed. I call Neil Bibby to be followed by Graeme Dey. I want to make a few brief remarks first for the record. I declare that I am a member of Unite the Union and the Gmb Union. I congratulate Lewis MacDonald for securing this debate and associate myself with the remarks that he has made. I also, along with Richard Leonard, want to commend the Unite the Union and those in the gallery, all those involved in the back home safe campaign, as well as the on-going work of the offshore coordinating group consisting of Unite and the other trade unions that organise offshore workers. As we have heard, those who represent the workforce have been very clear. Despite the decision by the civil aviation authority to lift a ban on the 225 and Mk2 superpumas, there are still serious and fundamental questions to be asked about the safety record of these aircraft. Since 2009, 33 workers have tragically died and 65 passengers and crew have had to be rescued as a result of accidents involving the superpuma in the North Sea. Oil companies that we have heard have ruled out reinstating grounded superpumas at least until the root cause of last year's fatal accident off the coast of Norway is known. Stat Oil says that it has no plans to use this helic doctor ever again, even if they are clear to do so by the Norwegian authorities. When Unite have warned that if the superpumas are reintroduced, they are perfectly prepared to take industrial action to protect their members. As Lewis MacDonald and Richard Leonard have said, the workforce needs certainty, and it needs to have confidence in safety arrangements in the North Sea. That is why whatever the future of the superpuma itself, engagement with the trade unions must be a priority for government and for regulators going forward. The UK Government must also reconsider the case for a full public inquiry into helicopter safety in the offshore sector. The RMT believes that unique operating conditions are a contributing factor to the number of fatal and non-fatal superpuma accidents in the North Sea. High cross winds, low temperatures and adverse conditions. Superpumas operate worldwide without the poor safety record observed over recent years in the North Sea. We need to get to the bottom of why the safety of the aircraft is such an issue in the UK and Norway. On that issue it would be helpful if the Scottish Government could clarify their own position for the need on an independent inquiry. Once again, I congratulate Lewis MacDonald on securing this debate, and I would urge the Government and the regulators to treat the action that is needed to restore the confidence and trust of workers and helicopter safety in the North Sea. I call Graeme Dates, followed by Tom Mason. Can I congratulate Lewis MacDonald on securing a debate on this important issue? I was happy to support his motion, because I believe that this is a matter that ought in view of the worries of the offshore workforce and the fact that some lean oil companies will not utilise the aircraft at the centre of the issue. That is an issue that ought to be aired in this place. The very root of the issue for me, as others have alluded to, is one simple thing. No one should be travelling to their work harboring concerns over whether they will get there or return. That is what the Airbus survey of North Sea workers tells us the situation currently is, with 62 per cent of respondents indicating that, given the choice, they would be unlikely to fly in a super-puma helicopter. Those fears may well be misplaced. As MSPs, we have each of us been sent a briefing and video from the manufacturers of these aircraft who have been in Parliament today seeking to make the case that the measures that they have implemented, following the incidents at the heart of the situation, have rendered the models and questions safe. Back at the beginning of the month, Airbus chief executive C Guillaume Forry flew into a helicopter exhibition in London in a super-puma H225 to demonstrate that the aircraft is safe for passenger use. It was a move that some might consider reminiscent of John Selwyn Gummer, the then agricultural minister during the BSE crisis, as he tried to defeat his daughter, a burger, and ate a bit himself to show that beef was safe to consume. To be fair to Mr Forry, he has acknowledged that it takes time to restore trust after accidents. The truth is that we are a very long way away from reaching that destination. Those expression concerns are men and women, as Lewis MacDonald said, who are under living in an extremely harsh and hazardous environment. They are hardy individuals, so if they are spooked and the figures suggest that they are, then this is a significant matter. We are, of course, looking at this following what we now know to be two tragic accidents, which are similarities. One in 2009 off the coast of Peterhead, which saw 16 people lose their lives, and one in 2016 in Norway, which saw 13, sadly, pass away. We also have an additional incident with a super-puma off Shetland, which saw four people perish in 2013. The Unite petition opposing reintroduction of the helicopters references the fact that, overall, at over eight years, super-pumas have been involved in six incidents, meaning that 65 people are being rescued from the North Sea and 33 families are losing loved ones. Sitting alongside this, we are told that Shell will not use the 225, BP will not use the super-pumas until the completion of the formal investigation, and the root cause of the Norwegian incident is identified. Statoil, as we have heard, has stated that it will not use those models ever again. Balancing this, Airbus has made modifications to the two models and the maintenance programme. They are now lower thresholds for rejecting deteriorating components and more frequent inspections, for example. I am no expert in this area. I suspect that, on balance, those aircraft may be safer to be flying in than was previously with the case, but it is the regular users who need to be convinced of this, not members of Parliament. I find it surprising that the European Air Safety Agency and the UK and Norwegian civil aviation authorities have lifted their bans when no final report on the crash in Norway has been delivered and no definitive cause has been identified. The accident investigation board in Norway published an interim report into the 2016 accident earlier this year, but, according to the scope and complexity of the investigation, which I recognise, it was unable to estimate a completion date for its investigation and it states on the AIBN website that only the final investigation will represent the complete report. Against that backdrop, and given the concerns of our North Sea workers, Joi Martin is right that we need to proceed extremely cautiously. I have Tom Mason to be followed by Elaine Smith. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and thanks to Lewis MacDonald for bringing us to the public attention. I, of course, remain a City of Aberdeen councillor. I have a number of constituents in their ward who go offshore and not least of all my own son, who regularly travels by helicopter. Our foremost concern in this debate is the safety of workers who rely on helicopter transportation as part of their day-to-day lives. We should reflect on the tragic accidents that involve those helicopters but also on the work to improve them and make them safe for continued use. The point that I make is this. The best judges of helicopter safety are not politicians, or trade union officials. The best judges are the experts who specialise in aeronautical engineering. The improvements that are made to the H-225LP and the AES-332L2 have met the standards of the Civil Aviation Authority and the European Aviation Safety Agency. Airbus has conducted extensive investigations into both helicopters. They co-operated with the international efforts with the CAA, concluding the decision, and I quote, "...only being made after receiving extensive information from Norwegian accident investigators and being satisfied with the subsequent changes introduced by Airbus helicopters through detailed assessment and analysis." If we were to call for banning these helicopters in spite of such conclusions, what does it say within the faith that we have in our regulators? At what point do we abandon our trust in their ability to work in a diligent and competent manner? Why don't we ban all helicopters if that is the case? I believe that we are ready to have this debate, then it should be concerned the standards the manufacturer needs to meet, not placing extra restrictions on an aircraft that experts already deemed safe. With that said, it's not enough to meet these standards and carry on as nothing has happened. The lessons of the past must be learned. Regulatory of bodies and manufacturers must focus on early preventive action, whatever the most remote possibility of a problem arises. I would expect this of all manufacturers and operators to whom offshore workers place their trust on a daily basis. I remember flying offshore in the 1970s, in the early part of the oil industry, and I am encouraged by the progress that was made since that time. Back then, my one hand would not have been presented as a risk to fellow passengers. Now I'm pleased that today's standards mean that that wouldn't be permitted. I would not be allowed offshore. I've not had the training, I don't have the equipment, and I don't know how to handle it. I have one hand that's totally impossible. I do not want to jeopardise my fellow passengers. Moving forward, I believe that operators should review their procedures to ensure that training is regularly improved and that flights are not overcrowded, unnecessarily weighted or flying in excessive adverse conditions. Finally, in respect of the survey that the Airbus conducted earlier this year, it has done surprising. The majority would be uncomfortable flying in its aircraft given that 50 per 6 per cent are unaware of new safety measures applied to the aircraft. This is an early survey. More information is necessary to get people to understand what is taking place. I think that the widespread public engagement will help reassure all and gas workers. I hope that the Airbus will consider this to a great extent. To include, Presiding Officer, I believe that we should accept nothing less than the highest possible standards for these helicopters. At the same time, however, we should trust the expertise of the CAA and the EASA. Our offshore industry personnel have every right for safe working conditions. We must hold the manufacturers to that and ensure that, in future, we see improved, continuous safety evaluation across the aviation industry. Eileen Smith, who is followed by Patrick Harry. Presiding Officer, I declare an interest as a member of Unite the Union. A personal interest is my son's mechanical engineering student who is applying to companies in the oil and gas sector, so I might have a personal interest in the issue shortly. I also welcome members of Unite the Union to the chamber and thank my colleague Lewis MacDonald for bringing this important debate this evening. As a convener of the RMT Scottish parliamentary group, I feel that it is important that I put across the views of their members on this matter, as well as those of my own union Unite. It is clear that offshore workers, the trade unions and indeed the publicas, pointed out by Mark McDonald in his intervention, have an unacceptable safety record when flying workers to and from platforms in the North Sea, although it may not be quite as clear to Conservative colleagues in the chamber this evening. Undoubtedly, as Neil Bibby pointed out earlier, the unique conditions of the North Sea contribute to that inferior safety record, with low temperatures and exceptionally high crosswinds. The superpuma has been responsible for the deaths of 33 people in North Sea crashes since 2009, and 65 other workers in Peru have had to be rescued during that same period. As we have heard from others, offshore workers' confidence in superpumas as a result of that is extremely low, to say the least. The RMT's general secretary, Mick Cash, said that, if this were a public transport service, such a terrible pattern of failure would have been tackled long ago. When workers consistently point to helicopter transport as the number one safety concern, Government and regulators at all levels must take action or reface further deterioration in the perception of safety at work offshore. In view of that, the RMT is calling for a fully independent inquiry into offshore helicopter operations, covering regulatory standards and commercial pressures in order to restore trust and confidence in helicopter transport operations in the North Sea. Like colleagues, I look forward to hearing how the Scottish Government can assist, if minded, to achieve that independent inquiry. Meanwhile, Pat Rafferty, the Scottish Head of Unite, has said that thousands of offshore workers will be ready to strike if the superpuma returns. That is a serious situation, but that aircraft clearly presents a danger to people who work hard for their economy. Indeed, many workers in the sector have taken to referring to it as a flying coffin, and I think that that gives us a very clear impression of how they view that particular helicopter. The opinion of those who know the job better than anyone should be taking very seriously, particularly since operators are not unbiased parties in that debate. There needs to be meaningful workforce engagement as a priority. Undoubtedly, improving the safety of helicopter transport for offshore workers is a major issue, and it is crucial to the future employment of Scottish workers in the oil and gas industry. If that is not done, then it is going to lead to more jobs and skills flowing away from our domestic industry and the increased use of cheap labour. That is already happening in the decommissioning sector. For example, Canadian natural resources paid non-EEE workers $45 per day to decommission the Murchesson platform. As we speak, the BP-Miller platform is being decommissioned using a workforce employed back from the Philippines, who are living on a bar connected to the platform. Those super pubers have been grounded since May 2016, and it seems beyond belief that they could be reintroduced without a proper independent inquiry. Also, there are on-going investigations into the cause of the gearbox fatigue and the alarm system failures. Further, last month, the European Aviation Safety Agency issued an emergency directive saying that a main rotor component in the 225 is susceptible to crack development. Is it any wonder that workers do not want to travel in these helicopters, and surely they must have the right not to do so? I understand from the workers today that some companies—I think that it was mentioned earlier in the debate, such as Statt Oil and Shell—have already indicated that they will not be using superpumas, and I hope that other companies will follow. The safety of offshore workers must be our number one priority, and, as such, those superpumas must stay grounded. The last contribution in the open debate is Patrick Harvie. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I begin by offering my respects to those who have been most affected personally by the issue, especially those who have lost a friend, a colleague or a loved one. I also pay tribute to the trade unions who have been active on the issue and congratulate Lewis MacDonald for bringing the debate to the chamber. I have occasionally encountered a preconception that the Greens would place a low priority on any issue connected to the oil and gas industry. Notwithstanding the fact that, of course, helicopter travel will be relevant for the future, even with the transition to offshore renewable energy sources, I think that it should be put on the record that workforce safety in relation to the existing fossil fuel industries should be a non-negotiable issue, regardless of the different views that we have about the vested interests of the fossil fuel industry itself. Just as I can oppose nuclear energy, nuclear safety remains an extremely important priority within that debate, and the same thing applies in that context. With the recent downturn in the oil and gas industry, one of our most important areas of concern was, for the potential, as Elaine Smith alluded to, for reducing the terms and conditions for the workforce or, indeed, the safety conditions that they work with. That is a shared concern right across the political spectrum. Lewis MacDonald opened the debate with a comparison with other modes of transport. I suspect that many of us who travel to work on a bus or on a train would entirely understand the point that he is making and acknowledge the significant differences, not just the environmental conditions but the level of safety measures that are needed. As well as those clear differences, I think that most people travelling to work on a bus or a train would absolutely recognise the importance of the question of trust—trust in the safety that the workforce who have to travel to offshore installations by helicopter has a right to expect. When rail crashes take place, we see an immediate response in the trust that people have in the rail operators. When there are stories about the safety concerns relating to road vehicles, we see that reaction as well. How could we not empathise with those who are travelling to work in a more harsh environment with a much greater expectation that safety measures are taken to look after them in relation to that form of transport? Even if we do not have the personal experience that Lewis MacDonald has had of going on those helicopter journeys to offshore facilities, that question of trust is something that we can all relate to. Even if measures have been taken by the manufacturer to address the concerns as they perceive them, if that trust has not been rebuilt, that in itself is an unacceptable aspect of somebody's working conditions. If they are having to go to work using a form of transport that causes that level of lack of trust, of anxiety, of fears even if work has been done. How can that trust be rebuilt if there is not full transparency by the industry, by the manufacturer, about the issues that they sought to address and how they have addressed them? That lack of complete transparency is the principal reason why I join with those who have expressed support for the proposal for a full independent inquiry into those issues. Greens will continue to support that call alongside those who are representing the workforce. In the meantime, the decision should absolutely lie with the workforce, not just with the industry, not just with the regulators. The workforce should be respected, and if they wish to express clearly the view that the supercumour should not be brought back into service, their decision should absolutely be one that we all respect. I call Hamza Yousaf to respond to the debate around seven minutes. I also start by offering up my condolences and continued sympathy of the Scottish Government for those who have lost family members, friends and those from local communities, whether they have lost community members in the tragic accidents that have taken place involving supercumour helicopters. I also congratulate or welcome Lewis MacDonald for bringing this debate to the Parliamentary Chamber. I think that the debate, the quality of the contributions across the chamber, has been very high indeed, and really very nuanced as well. There have been some key central themes throughout almost every contribution that I will try to pick up on, as well as answering one or two questions that members have also posed. I thought that the way that Lewis MacDonald started his contribution really importantly set the context. Other members picked up on this, including just Patrick Harvie a moment ago, that there are very few professions whereby the travel to that profession, to that place of work, could be so hazardous. There are not many industries where you travel to work, where you must wear a full survival kit, a life jacket or a rebreather, just as part of your travelling attire, so I have, as I know the chamber does, the utmost respect for every man and woman who works in the industry. The tragic accident on the 29th of April last year in Norway, where 13 people sadly died, clearly underlines the risk and challenges of working in the North Sea. Of course, the accident followed tragedies in our own waters near Sumbra and Peterhead. The most recent accident in Norway has been subject to extensive investigation, and indeed that investigation by the Norwegian regulator continues. While the exact cause is still to be determined, the UK, the CAA and the Norwegian CAA announced their intention in July to lift the restrictions that were placed on the H225 and the S332L2 superpuma helicopter that swallowed the accident in April 2016. It is not uncommon to put in place airworthiness measures before accident investigations report. I am aware that the UK, the CAA have not taken the decision lightly. They have made the decision after receiving extensive information from their Norwegian counterparts and Norwegian accident investigators and have been satisfied with the subsequent changes introduced by Airbus helicopters. I would like to be clear that any decision to lift the restrictions that are made by the regulator—in this case, the UK, the CAA and the Norwegian CAA—and the Scottish Government does not have input into those decisions, the regulator must maintain their independence from external input. However, I would say that the UK, the CAA must continue to work with helicopter operators, offshore industry and international regulators, but, importantly, as everybody here has mentioned, unions, the workforce and pilot representatives. That is the key in the crux that every single member just about has touched upon here. Regardless of what is lifted, what is not, what restrictions are being put in place, what measures have been taken and what mitigation has been done, if the workforce does not have confidence—as is clear from the many surveys that have been quoted—if the workforce does not have confidence, I am afraid that you would not want to force anybody to travel to work on a mode of transport that they are deeply uncomfortable with. On the questions that have been posed by a couple of members on the inquiry and the public inquiry, I was looking at some of my notes and I am aware, as members will be, that, in the accident that I have already mentioned prior to the accident in 2016, the CAA, in conjunction with the European Aviation Safety Agency, the Norwegian Aviation Authority and an independent peer review group undertook the review of offshore helicopter flying. There were a number of recommendations that were made on the back of that, and the recommendations are being taken forward by the offshore helicopter safety action group of the Scottish Government to support the review. Transport Scotland has observed a status on the Government's body. I should say that we are generally satisfied that there is progress being made in the right direction. I would be more than happy to meet both the United Union and, indeed, as Elaine Smith rightly says, the RMT. If any members wish to join us in that meeting to hear whether those unions, the workforce fuel that perhaps those recommendations are not being taken forward at the pace that they would like to, and, if that is the case, I would like to hear from them the case for why they think that a public inquiry, an independent inquiry, may well be the right route to go down. I have not settled on that. The Scottish Government, as I say, is part or has observed a status in the governance of Osag, and therefore we have very much looked to that body to continue the work that it is doing to give confidence where it can to the workforce. The lifting of those restrictions in the superpuma, as I say, has raised concerns with the industry. The unions clearly point across the concerns of the workforce they represent. The recent surveys by Airbus and Petitions by Unite have shown that there is a clear lack of confidence when it comes to the superpuma helicopters. Airbus has a lot of work to do to rebuild that confidence and trust in the aircraft, not only with the workforce unions, but with operators as well. A number of members have mentioned some of those oil and gas operators who have been very clear in the view publicly that they have no plans for their turn of superpumas to their North Sea operations. The passengers, flight crews and their families must have confidence that everything that is possible is done by regulators—the aircraft operators, the manufacturers and the oil and gas industry—to minimise the risk of them flying in the North Sea. Airbus has worked hard to learn from that accident. A number of members have said that they have met them in the recent days and perhaps before that. Airbus and their team have not taken those accidents lightly at all and have put some of their best minds to finding solutions that they hope will give confidence. Nonetheless, it is absolutely critical for Airbus to work with the workforce unions, the industry and the regulator to attempt to reinstall confidence and trust in the aircraft's safety. The CAA announcement does not mean an immediate return to the service of the superpuma. A plan of checks, modifications and inspections would need to be undertaken before any flight could take place. Any reintroduction would need to be on the basis of a robust safety case being submitted by the operator to ensure that it has the necessary measures in place. Now that the regulators have made their decision to lift the restrictions, it is ultimately for the helicopter operators, but I would strongly encourage the operators and their customers to consider the views of the workforce. They are the people, the men and the women who have to travel on a daily, weekly basis on the superpumas. The workforce must play a key part in any decision to reintroduce the superpuma back into North Sea operations. There is no decision to reinstate the superpuma that should be made unilaterally without that workforce engagement at its heart. The safety of workers in the North Sea has been and will always be the highest priority for this Government. I am reassured to see a desire among the industry, including the unions, helicopter operators, the manufacturer, oil and gas companies and regulatory bodies to do everything possible to ensure that workers in the North Sea have a safe journey to the place of work. That concludes the debate, and I close this meeting.