§ 2.46 p.m.
§ Lord Balfour of InchryeMy Lords, I should first like to ask my noble friend whether he is aware of the grief which we feel, and which is shared by all sides of the House, at the accident which occurred yesterday on an oil rig in the North Sea, and that we should send a message of sympathy to the bereaved families?
My Lords, I beg leave, to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in the interest of the operational safety of crews and passengers flying to and from North Sea oil rigs, they will enforce those provisions of the Air Navigation Order 1980 which lay down the requirement to carry a cabin attendant in all helicopters with 20 or more passengers but for fewer than 20 leave the decision to the Civil Aviation Authority.
§ Lord LyellMy Lords, first, I am sure the whole House will wish to be associated with my noble friend's expression of sympathy on the tragic accident that occurred on one of the rigs in the North Sea yesterday.
In answer to my noble friend's Question, statutory responsibility for air safety rests with the Civil Aviation Authority, and I am advised that the authority does enforce those provisions of the Air Navigation Order 1980 which require all helicopters on a flight for the purpose of public transport and carrying 20 or more passengers to include a cabin attendant in the crew. Furthermore, where it appears to be desirable to do so in the interests of safety, the authority will direct operators of helicopters carrying fewer than 20 passengers to include a cabin attendant in the crew.
§ Lord Balfour of InchryeMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer, but it does not go quite far enough. Will the noble Lord envisage a dark night in the North Sea, an emergency landing, strong seas running, a 35-knot wind, and the need for a crew member to leave his post and come aft, but a trained cabin attendant is not on hoard? Are these dispensations sufficient, even, when there are fewer than 20 passengers? Should not the authorities review them with a view to doing away with dispensations, on the ground of safety precautions? These dispensations are prepared by worthy civil servants and officials who are desk-borne and do not actually fly aircraft. Those people who do fly aircraft are determined that 319 operational safety is increased by the carriage always of a cabin attendant.
§ Lord LyellMy Lords, I am sure that the House will agree that all your Lordships would be in very safe hands in the conditions envisaged by my noble friend, since I understand that my noble friend, in his early youth, was a pilot. Alas, your Lordships will note that the Government Front Bench is not full of pilots, but certainly there is one here today. I would not necessarily care to envisage all the circumstances which have been detailed by my noble friend, but I assure him and your Lordships that we believe that the existing provisions covering safety are more than adequate. I would stress to my noble friend the outstanding safety records of the main helicopters which are used in the North Sea. Indeed, I am sure that your Lordships will be interested to know that so far there has been no fatal accident involving the carnage of passengers to and from the rigs in the North Sea concerning this one major helicopter, the S.61, in approximately 500,000 hours of flight; whereas the average as regards the worldwide use of S.61s in these conditions is in the region of six fatal accidents so far. I understand that the North Sea has an outstanding safety record.
I would also stress to my noble friend and the House that all operations are carried out according to the operations manuals agreed by representatives of pilots and the department. I hope that my noble friend and the House will not believe that they are all deskhound—most of them are very active. Moreover, at all times the safety of the aircraft and the passengers is the sole responsibility of the pilot.