It is mentioned somewhere in the Bill that it may fall to RTE to administer this register.

That is not in section 2.

Section 9, subsection (2) (a) provides that the Minister may declare that the register referred to in section 2 of the Bill shall henceforth be compiled and retained by Radio Telefís Éireann on behalf of the Minister. Would the Minister explain that?

I shall explain that to the Deputy. It is provided in the Broadcasting Act that if I decide RTE can collect licence fees and if this decision ever comes to be made, as it might arising from recommendations of the Broadcasting Review Committee, I should not like to have to come back to the Dáil with new legislation to provide that RTE should have the power to keep this register.

I accept the point. I hope if there was a transfer to the RTE Authority the Minister would make financial provision to ensure that they would not suffer an administrating loss in administering this register and would be fully compensated for doing so.

I do not understand how the Deputy imagines that RTE would be at any financial loss if they had to keep this register. I do not think that could happen.

Would this mean an alteration of the system which would affect the working of the staff of the Post Office?

I can assure the Deputy and the House I am not considering the question of transferring this register to RTE. I am only making provision for it in case it might ever happen.

The Minister does not propose to do it?

No.

Is there not a difference between RTE administering this register and possibly having to go to court in relation to fines, and the Department administering this register directly?

If we keep the register we keep it simply and solely to have the names and addresses of those who have television sets so that we can encourage them to take out licences.

If RTE keep the register will they have the responsibility of finding out who has not a licence?

If we decided to transfer the register to RTE it would be their business to see that people had television licences.

And would they take people to court?

Naturally.

Will the Minister then assure the House that they would not be at a financial loss for administering part of this Bill?

I do not think that assurance is necessary.

But the Minister said five minutes ago that the Department had been at a loss in relation to fines.

No, I did not.

The Minister said it was not profitable.

He said he would not get the fines.

I do not want RTE to be at the loss of revenue.

I do not agree with taking Committee Stage at this kind of notice. Under this section there is provision for a lot of information to be given in relation to credit sales, for instance, the time of payment and when payments have to cease. Surely this type of information is superfluous?

If the Deputy understood the Bill he would not make that statement. I can explain this clearly to the Deputy if he so wishes. This is actually the nub of the Bill. It provides for the notification to the Minister of individual television set transactions by registered television dealers. Briefly, subsection (1) provides for the notification to the Minister of individual set transactions carried out by registered television dealers. It requires that when a registered dealer sells or hires a set directly to a customer, he shall send to the Minister the information required before the last day of the month following. This information is set out in Part I of the Schedule. It is: (a) the date of the transaction, (b) the name and address of the buyer or hirer, (c) the make and type of set, if it is designed for reception in colour and whether it is portable, (d) the nature of the transaction, e.g. sale, hire purchase, etc., (e) the name and address of the seller or owner and of the person or persons collecting payments, (f) the address of the premises at which the set is to be installed, (g) any change in the address of the buyer or hirer within 30 days of the change coming to the knowledge of the dealer, (h) if there is a transfer from the dealer of the work of collecting payments, that is, to a finance company or a debt collecting agency, the name and address of the transferee within 30 days of the information coming to the knowledge of the dealer. I cannot see how the Deputy can maintain that the information we are seeking here is superfluous.

The Minister referred to "the last day of the month". If a sale should take place on the last day of a month, how could the information be given before the last day of that month?

That information would be given the following month. We would not expect such information within a day or two of a transaction taking place.

It is bad to have this in legislation.

This is really what I was referring to: where the dealer is required to notify the Minister of the actual details of a hire purchase or credit sales transaction. I consider this information to be superfluous. Surely the only information the Minister should require is the name and address of the person purchasing a television set. Such information should be sufficient for administering the Act.

The purpose of this section is to obtain information regarding the holders of sets who are paying instalments or hiring fees. The section provides that the Minister may fix a period of not less than 90 days during which a registered dealer must supply information as to these transactions. The information to be supplied is set out in Part III of the Schedule and I shall not repeat it.

I do not know why the Minister should require information apart from that of the names and addresses of purchasers. This is delving into personal privacy. I object to it on those grounds alone. I do not see why anybody in a State Department should have information in respect of hire purchase or credit sales. This is practically unconstitutional.

The Deputy should know that it is not unconstitutional and I can assure him that this information is necessary, otherwise we would not be seeking it.

It may be necessary for the administration of the Act but it may not be constitutional. There have been sections of other Bills put through by this Government during the past three years which may have been necessary for the Government but which were found subsequently to be unconstitutional.

There are ways and means of ascertaining whether the section is constitutional.

Since it appears that there is more information being asked for than, strictly speaking, would be necessary, would the Minister agree to reconsidering the matter in the Seanad? I agree with Deputy Collins that possibly the name and address of a purchaser and the date of a sale should be sufficient. I do not think the other details are necessary.

Certainly, I could consider what Deputy Tully has said but I would point out that all that is being sought is the name and address of the buyer or hirer, the date of the sale or hiring and, if the payments are to be received by another person at the time of the notification of the outstanding transaction or at any time afterwards, the name and address of that person.

Part III of the Schedule says in relation to section 4 that:

If after a notification pursuant to section 4 (2) of this Act has been given, any payments of or towards the price or by way of rent in respect of the sale or letting which would otherwise be received or collected by the dealer are to be received or collected by another person, the name and address of that other person.

Would the Minister say why that information was necessary? Surely all he wishes to establish is whether a set has been purchased for cash or hired and after that how it is paid for should not be of consequence. Perhaps the Minister would have a look at this when he may find a way out.

I will.

The place to do it is here.

We have agreed to take all Stages tonight and we cannot change our minds now.

I will see whether there is anything we can do.

What is the reason for specifying whether a set is designed for colour or black and white reception? Surely the same licence would apply in both cases.

At some time in the future there might be separate licences for colour sets in which case we would like to be prepared.

Can the Minister say how section 7 would stand in relation to EEC regulations regarding freedom of movement, imports and exports and so on?

I would imagine that if we decided to prohibit the importation of certain types of apparatus, we would be entitled to do so.

Since we are giving away all our other rights, we may as well give that one away too.

I do not think that the EEC would affect the section at all.

I am not objecting to the section as such.

I do not think the section would come into conflict with any EEC regulations.

Under subsection (2) of section 8 it is stated that whenever the Minister imposes special conditions he shall cause notice of the fact to be published in at least one daily newspaper. That could mean publishing all of them in the Cork Examiner, for instance, or in The Irish Press.

The subsection refers to at least one daily newspaper but there is nothing to prevent us from publishing in all the daily newspapers.

Both in English and Irish?

Yes.

Does this mean that these cases can be heard in the District Court? There is no danger, because of the amount involved, that they would have to go to the High Court?

The ordinary Circuit Court.

The Circuit Court?

The District Court.

Is the Minister sure?

Yes. It is the District Court.

I take it the money collected will go into the Central Fund?

Yes.

And expenditure must be sanctioned by the Minister. Is there any direct relationship between the revenue from licences and expenditure by the authority?

Collection costs about 10 per cent of what we take in.

There may be difficulty about some of the information required under a number of headings in the Schedule and the Minister has given an undertaking, I think, to look into this.

I will have a look at it and I will deal with it, if I can, in the Seanad.