A CI╔ document claiming that the Department of Public Enterprise had no objections to a proposed joint venture between CI╔ and Esat in 1997 was overstating the position and was not factual, it was stated yesterday.
Mr Pat Mangan of the Department of Public Enterprise was commenting on a document drawn up by a former CI╔ head of programmes and projects, Dr Ray Byrne, in 1997.
Earlier, Dr Byrne told the inquiry he disagreed with Department officials as to when they first knew about a proposed joint venture.
He had been asked by Mr Pat Rabbitte TD (Labour) about evidence by a former secretary general of the Department of Public Enterprise, Mr John Loughrey, who said the first time Department officials knew about the proposal was on June 16th, 1997.
Dr Byrne yesterday said he disagreed with that as the idea certainly would have been discussed informally with officials.
Asked between whom, Mr Byrne said he could not recollect but he was perfectly satisfied there was constant communication between CI╔ and the Department at the time.
Mr Rabbitte asked about the document he wrote to the CI╔ board which stated "no objections were raised by the Department" about the proposed joint venture.
Did he stand over that?
Mr Byrne replied: "I do."
Asked by committee chairman Mr Seβn Doherty how he substantiated this, Dr Byrne said he could not recollect.
Mr Mangan said there would have been informal discussions about property development in general terms.
"The first we knew of the details was on June 16th," he said. He said he did not have any recollection of any details before that in terms of the specifics of the Esat deal.
Mr Doherty said Dr Byrne's document suggested the Department would have no objections to the venture.
"What was in the document was overstating the position," Mr Mangan said.
Pressed by Mr Rabbitte about when Department officials knew, Mr Mangan said all he could say was that Mr Loughrey was correct.
"The document overstates the position as it gives the impression that the Department had given clearance. In fact, the Department raised issues shortly after," he said.
He said they had not seen the specifics of the Esat deal so they could not have taken a view on it one way or the other.