Before we get into the twin vs. single discussion again - please don't - let me make a point. In principle twins are safer than singles. But...
1. Twins are more expensive to buy and operate, which makes most jobs out there just uneconomical.
2. Twins are more complex, which will reduce the safety margin against a single.
3. There are no twins out there, that are specifically built for aerial work, like the Lama was or the B3 is. To a certain extend also the H500. There isn't a twin, that can take the beating of logging for example, like those singles can (in that weight class!). And adding a second engine to a single never was a really good solution. Nobody wanted the TwinRanger and the Twin Ecureuil was even with two engines running not even close as performant as a ... let's say a BA. I don't have the numbers in my head, but it was a really weak ship compared to the singles.
4. I have the impression, that quite a bit of the added safety in twins, result from the fact, that they are flown more like airliners. Everything by the numbers, nothing by the seat of the pants.
Therefore. Yes twins are safer and I would not want to fly offshore in a single every day. But, the engine failure in a single is so extremely rare, that we just take the risk ... over land. In the Alps without those singles, many alpine farms would have to be abandoned. These singles are just needed as they are. The safety record for single engine helicopters regarding engine failure is outstanding and there isn't a twin that can take over these jobs.
Unfortunately for you H500, you have to live with the CAA now. In EASA-land your life would probably be easier.
Interestingly, even EASA admits, that Europe is worse than the US regarding helicopter accidents. We do not have any reason to be smug. But twins vs. singles will not change that.