Paul McGrath (Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 62: To ask the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources if his attention has been drawn to the views of the European Commission in regard to broadcasting here; his views on same; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14526/05]

Paul Gogarty (Dublin Mid West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 63: To ask the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources if his Department has replied to the Commission regarding the need for transparency on the allocation of State funding to RTE and TG4 for public service broadcasting purposes; if so, the substance of that reply; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14551/05]

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 173: To ask the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources if his attention has been drawn to the views of the European Commission in regard to broadcasting here; his views on same; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14756/05]

Noel Dempsey (Meath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 62, 63 and 173 together.

I assume that the Deputies are referring to the EU Commission's investigation into the funding of RTE. As the Deputies may be aware this investigation arose in the context of a formal complaint by TV3, made originally in 1999, alleging infringements of Articles 92-94 of the EC Treaty relating to, among other things, the payment of licence fee revenue and direct grants to RTE. This is one of a number of complaints made by commercial television operators across the European Union against the funding arrangements in various member states for public service broadcasters.

Following a period of investigation, the EU Commission forwarded an Article 17 letter to the Irish authorities on 3 March 2003 setting out its preliminary views. The letter included a number of recommendations which the Commission considers must be implemented before the funding scheme for RTE can be considered as compatible with the relevant provisions of the EC Treaty, including recommendations relating to the implementation of the transparency directive.

The recommendations proposed by the Commission are of a detailed legal and regulatory nature which I am carefully considering. However, it should be noted that the views of the Commission set out in the Article 17 letter are preliminary in nature and should not be considered as the final decision of the Commission in relation to the complaint. The outcome of the Article 17 process is subject to ongoing informal and formal contacts and is a matter of negotiation between the Irish authorities and the European Commission. Accordingly, it would be inappropriate for me to make any detailed comments on the contents of the letter.

Under Article 17(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty, Ireland had one month to respond to the Commission's preliminary view. However, in accordance with that article, Ireland applied for an extension of the time limit and the EU Commission has recently confirmed that Ireland has until 26 May to respond. At this stage I am confident that Ireland will be able to achieve a satisfactory outcome.