Mr. Kevin Humphreys:

On the question of scientific advice, EASA commissioned a scientific report and we in the Irish Aviation Authority have forwarded a comment that we were not happy with the amount of scientific advice that was taken on board. In its documentation EASA fully acknowledged that the scientific advice amounted to caution and there were several recommendations, but they were not actually definitive. The Deputy spoke about fatigue. Fatigue is not a medical matter. It is to do with the duration of work and people's tolerance for working at night or working in the morning, so one size does not fit all.

We have forwarded a statement today to the EASA committee, which is discussing this. It is important to note that this is the opinion of EASA that is going forward to the EU process, so it is still not finalised. One would imagine there will be several opportunities for it to be changed should the majority of the states wish to do so. I should advise the committee that most of the aviation authorities in Europe have welcomed this amendment to a system called Subpart Q mentioned by Mr. Brennan, which has only been in place since 2008. So this is a very early stage to be reviewing a process. The purpose of this amendment is to tighten up areas in which individual states would have the flexibility to have different rules in these parts. Rather than having one state allow a certain rest period, or having split duties whereby staff go to one destination and have to wait four hours there before they come back, all of these anomalies have been taken out to level the playing field. Obviously more scientific advice remains to be taken. That is all I have to say on the scientific matter.