Marc MacSharry (Sligo-Leitrim, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Yes, they were in jest. I do not want to implicate any of my colleagues and I am not on the interview board.

At our meeting with service providers and representative organisations, BT suggested that it had first become aware of the fact that the MANs were prepared to be extended to the 2030 date from Parliamentary Questions Nos. 604 and 607 of 23 May 2017. It highlighted that there was a process and that the Minister was considering extending it. On the basis of that, BT wrote to express its interest in participating in that process and to formally register its interest as a bidder. In correspondence, Mr. Brendan Whelan, a principal officer, wrote back on 4 August - the original letter was dated 15 June and the parliamentary questions were tabled in May - stating that it had effectively already extended this, that it was within its rights to extend it and that it was a case of "Thanks anyway". BT further wrote back indicating that it was very disappointed with this and that it might have to go to the European Commission with some of its concerns on the matter.

Was there a parliamentary question from which BT could reasonably have been led to believe that a process was going to commence in which it could register its interest as a bidder? As it alleged that the decision had already been made at the date of the response being given to the parliamentary question in the Dáil, it would not seem transparent if the Minister was going to commence a process, or consider a process, when at that time the extension had already been granted. That is the implication of the correspondence from Mr. Brendan Whelan on the Department’s side and from Mr. John O’Dwyer on the BT side.