Vol. 40 No. 23
I move amendment 1:
To delete the word "passing" where the same occurs and substitute the word "commencement."
This amendment is necessary owing to a subsequent amendment which stands in my name postponing the operations of the Bill for some months. I shall explain the reason when I come to the latter amendment.
I move amendment 2:—
To add at the end of the section a sub-section as follows:—
"(2) This Act shall come into operation on the 1st day of February, 1932."
As the Bill stands at the present moment it is retrospective, and it affects loans which are already in existence, and if it came into force immediately the person who advanced money upon these books would forfeit the money that he advanced at present. Supposing there were two pounds advanced by a pawnbroker on a pensions book, if this Bill became law as it stands he would lose his security and the whole of his two pounds. That would not be just, and in consequence I brought in an amendment that the Bill should not come into operation until 1st February, which would allow, as I think, current transactions to be completed and the money repaid by the persons who owe it. Since I tabled the amendment I saw a deputation which was introduced by three Deputies from Cork—Deputies Anthony, J. Wolfe, and French. They pointed out to me that it would be rather a hardship if the time was only extended to February, because, in the interest of the persons who received advances upon the security of their books, it would be well that they should get a certain amount of time to pay it off, so that instead of having to pay at the rate of 5/-a week they would only have to pay it at the rate of 1/- per week. I think that the Bill will effect its purpose and will be less hardship to both parties to the transaction if "May" is substituted for "February." I would be willing, if the House agrees, to put in the "1st May" instead of" 1st February" in my amendment.
Would it not be possible, while giving an extension of time in the case of a loan already made, to make new loans between now and the 1st May illegal? It seems to me that a loan could be made from now up to that date. Would it not be better to so frame the section that the making of new loans would be illegal immediately after the passing of the Act, but that there would be a stay put upon its operation in respect of loans already made. There would be no objection to lengthening the time if it be felt that the abuse would not continue.
I considered that, but I do not think there is really any danger of the abuse continuing, for the simple reason that no pawnbroker now, after the passing of this Bill, will advance any money upon these books, because he sees that there is a very short time to run. In their own interests not a single one of the pawnbrokers would advance a penny. The whole anxiety of the pawnbrokers would be to clear out of the business altogether to their own advantage. The difficulty of amendments such as the Deputy suggests is, of course, that after the passing of this Bill the amendment could not be carried out. The difficulty about it is that there is a fresh transaction—that is to say, the existing transactions have to be renewed every week. Every transaction becomes, therefore, a renewed transaction. The man gets out his pension book and relodges it every week unless he is able to pay off the whole thing. The existing transactions are continuing transactions. Each renewal of the existing transaction would be a new transaction. I think myself that there is really no danger of any entirely new transaction taking place between this and the 1st May next.
The objection which Deputy de Valera has made is one that appealed to me at first glance, but if the Deputy knew the operations—and the real hardship is that stated by the Minister for Justice—he would know that no pawnbroker and no moneylender would be foolish enough, after this provision is inserted, to have any fresh transactions. To no Deputy in this House does this Bill appeal with greater force than it does to me. I know it with intimate knowledge from authorities who do know what they are talking about that this thing has become in the City of Cork a crying evil. That crying evil will be killed by this Bill. This thing was made impossible by the British Army Annual Act up to 1921. When that Act expired at the end of that year they renewed it, but we did not. The result was that this was made illegal in other countries but that it was legal in ours. What has been done is of no use to the pensioners, because if the words "the 1st February, 1932," are left in there will be a great burden undoubtedly on the pensioners. We want to give them until the 1st May to clear out, and I can assure Deputy de Valera that there is no danger of any moneylender in Cork entering into any new contract between this and the 1st May. These pawnbrokers and moneylenders are shrewd people. They know that after that their contract would necessarily go west. I do not think that there is any danger through putting in "the 1st May, 1932." The suggestion that there was appealed to me at the first glance, but I am now satisfied that there is no danger of that occurring. If we accept the amendment making it the 1st May, 1932, it will amount to this, that the pawnbroker or moneylender will give reasonable time to the pensioners to settle the debt. It will give the pensioner, on the other hand, time and opportunity to repay the loan and get rid of this pernicious system which has now ceased by the very introduction of this Bill, and which, with the help of God, will never again be renewed.
I think the explanation given is fairly satisfactory. The only explanation I would like to ask is how the 1st May was arrived at— what is the basis of the calculation?
So that the pensioner would be able to liquidate the sum by a weekly payment of say 6d. over a period of nearly 26 weeks, whereas if the date were fixed earlier it may mean that a sum of 5s. or 10s. per week would be deducted.
What I want to know is, has it any relation to the period over which the loans are made?
It would simply mean that if there was an advance of £2 the man would pay, say, at 1s. 6d. per week until it was liquidated, whereas if the date were the 1st. February he would be called upon to pay four times as much per week.
The pawnbrokers wanted a much later date.
Yes, in order to make it still easier.
In order to meet both parties and to stir up the pawnbrokers to close those transactions, the 1st May was suggested by me. That, I think, is the soonest possible date on which it could be done without hardship to the pensioner, without loss to the pawnbroker and without throwing on him the onus of squeezing the pensioners. That is the only reason. It was not put down for the sake of the pawnbrokers.
I have no typical example before me from which I could satisfy myself whether this is reasonable or unreasonable. That is the trouble.
Would not the simplest way be to keep to the original date, but to state in a Schedule at the end of the Bill that existing or unpaid balances could be legally collected within a certain number of weeks, say, up to a certain date?
I tried to make it plain to the House that every transaction is a fresh transaction. Take the case where somebody owes £2 to the pawnbroker. At the end of the week he gets the book and after drawing his pension he gives back the book. That is a fresh transaction. You could not have a Schedule setting out what each person owes. Deputy Briscoe is following on the lines that Deputy de Valera suggested. It would be very excellent no doubt, but it would not be possible in practice to carry it out.
I propose to take the remaining stages to-day. It is an entirely agreed measure.
Agreed.
