The Minister for Public Enterprise has defended statements by herself and her Department spokesman on the Government's position relating to an EU aircraft noise directive. The businessman Mr Ulick McEvaddy has claimed that the directive would cost his aviation company £26.8 million if implemented.
Ms O'Rourke was responding to questions on the RTE radio programme News at One from Sean O'Rourke, who noted that earlier this week the Minister's spokesman had said the Government had neither championed nor opposed the directive. He added that yesterday's Irish Times had recalled that Ms O'Rourke told the Dail last May that she hoped the directive would be altered.
Ms O'Rourke said that in October of last year the directive was passed at a Transport Council meeting. "I did not take any part in the debate, and there was no vote. So that statement is actually completely accurate."
It was put to the Minister that she had told the Dail she hoped the directive would be altered, suggesting that she was opposed to it in its existing form. She replied that there was a council meeting last March, which she could not attend for personal reasons, and the Government was represented by the Minister of State in her Department, Mr Joe Jacob.
"Neil Kinnock, the Commissioner, had been talking to the US authorities who had got themselves into a fine head of steam about the whole thing . . . and it was stated that we would adopt the directive, as of October 1998, but that the implementation of it would not come in for 12 months, until it was agreed all round, some sort of consensus decision." She said that "the worries we had presented to us by the Commissioner were based on the US, who were extremely worried about it". There had been numerous questions put in the Dail to her, she said, "which I had answered, very openly".
She said that two days before she went to the informal Council meeting, Mr McEvaddy had claimed on RTE radio that she had done nothing and did not intend to do anything, that she was not doing her job. "All these jobs were going to go in Ireland, and all that stuff had been pell-mell, being said without any rebuttal coming from anybody."
She added: "You see, I think what has been missed in this is the search for a compromise does not suit Ulick McEvaddy . . . He wants the directive to be done away with and, in fact, he is taking a court action against the Irish Aviation Authority and has lodged his affidavit to see that it is not implemented. But, of course, that is for the courts, so I cannot comment on that."
She was asked if the remark by the Department spokesman, that the Government had neither championed nor opposed the directive, was an effort to distance her from the controversy which had engulfed the Tanaiste, Ms Harney, and the Minister for Finance, Mr McCreevy.
Ms O'Rourke replied: "I couldn't tell you because it is the truth. It actually is the truth that the October meeting at which the directive was adopted, I didn't speak at that meeting, nor was there a vote at that meeting. So the sentence you quote is the actual truth."
Asked if she had benefited from hospitality from the McEvaddys, the Minister replied: "No. He came to see me once about 15 months ago, at 8.30 in the morning, about his airport plan, and I gave him a cup of tea and he accepted it."
She said that Ms Harney and Mr McCreevy were "as honest as the day is long".
Asked if she believed they had been unwise to accept the holiday in the south of France, the Minister replied: "Well, Mary Harney herself said that if she knew the upset was going to be passed on to her friends she wouldn't have done it. So I am just quoting herself in saying it. But I say again the two of those are as honest as the day is long. And they never spoke to me about Ulick McEvaddy, nor I to them."
