Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 21 Oct 1932

Vol. 44 No. 3

Private Deputies Business. - Moneylenders Bill, 1932—Second Stage.

Mr. Little

I move the Second Reading of the Moneylenders Bill. It has been through the House in the last Dáil and amended after evidence being taken from the moneylenders themselves, from Government officials, and with the co-operation of the whole House. The Bill, therefore, through the evidence which appeared in the Press at the time, is familiar in its principle to everybody. Everyone realises the necessity for it, therefore, and it would be waste of time to go over it again. The only point I want to draw attention to is the amended rate of interest. In the Bill as introduced it was 20 per cent. After careful consideration, that has been changed to 39 per cent., because we found that the usual rate varied from 150 to 200 per cent. at present and, in England, where the standard rate was fixed at 48 per cent. a great many of the moneylenders who were producing the worst effect of the moneylending business were wiped out by reducing the rate to 48 per cent. We felt, therefore, that 39 per cent. as a maximum fixed rate would be the best thing to introduce into the Bill here. In the Bill, as originally drafted, the principle was that the 20 per cent. should be a standard but should not be a maximum. We think it is better to fix a maximum and to make that maximum 39 per cent. The reason that figure is chosen is because it is easily dealt with in connection with weekly payments. It is a Committee recommendation and the amendments are all of necessity Committee recommendations.

The issue that was exercising the minds of a great many people on the Committee was whether we should arrange the Bill so as to wipe moneylenders out altogether, but we came to the conclusion that it was better to take the other course for the reason that prohibition generally has the effect of driving people underground. It is better to have it controllable, even though it is recognised as an evil—and I am afraid, a necessary evil—than to drive it underground and so prevent the possibility of supervision. In such a case there would be no protection for people in desperate straits, and we think it is better to give them whatever protection we can by allowing moneylenders to become registered. Another point is that in Ireland we have no charitable institutions such as they have in other countries like Italy, for helping people out of their difficulties. Until we have such we would not be justified in wiping out the moneylenders entirely, but we are placing them in the position of carrying out a very excellent function for society, if they wish to do so, by helping people in great necessity out of their difficulties, and, at the same time, not encouraging people who want to get a large loan for betting purposes and who do not care what interest they pay. When this Bill is passed, we hope it will facilitate the Administration in following up moneylenders who do not intend to get registered. It is difficult for the police to deal with the matter, but we hope that the effect of this Bill, which is now in a form which is largely the result of police investigation and the evidence of District Justices, will be to help them considerably. I anticipate, therefore, that there will be no difficulty in getting the Bill through all its stages, but, being a Private Bill, it would require to be sent to a Special Committee and it would take about a fortnight to deal with it passing through Committee.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

This Bill was considered in Committee during the existence of the last Dáil, and considered very carefully. The Committee had a considerable body of evidence before it, and the Bill is a result of the efforts of that Committee to place before the House the best solution it could find of the moneylenders' problem. I may say the Committee investigated the matter as fully as lay in their power to investigate it. They received, as Deputy Little informed the House, the most valuable evidence from the Chief Commissioner of the Garda, the Senior District Justice in Dublin and various other witnesses. Speaking frankly, from my point of view, the impression left upon my mind, as I considered the evidence put before the Committee, was that it did not seem to me that the moneylenders really succeeded in establishing a case for the existence of moneylending in this country at all. We pressed them very much to show any particular examples that could be given, or any concrete examples that could be given, that any person had been substantially helped, or got out of difficulty once they got into the moneylenders' hands. And certainly, although we had a great number of moneylenders represented before us, and they put forward the very best cases they could, it seemed to me, at any rate, that there was no real substantial hope of anybody, who got into the hands of moneylenders, ever getting out of their grip. That was the impression left upon my mind. I certainly would like that the people should know that that was my impression and I think it was, practically, the impression of everybody who was a member of the Commission.

I certainly hope it will not get into the public mind that because a Bill is passed, putting 39 per cent. interest as the maximum interest, that now the ordinary man in the street can, as a prudent and cautious man, have dealings with moneylenders. As I said, the very opposite impression was left upon my mind, and I hope the public will, in as far as I am concerned, and I think as far as the other members of the Committee are concerned, understand that the impression left upon our minds was that nothing more disturbing could happen to a person than to get into moneylenders' hands. I hope they will take the passage of this Bill not as an encouragement to deal with moneylenders, but will take it as the view of a Committee that examined the matter impartially, that nothing more foolish could be done by people than to allow themselves to get into the hands of moneylenders.

While it is fashionable to talk of a high class of moneylenders and moneylenders not of so high a class, and that one would be perfectly safe in the hands of Mr. Jones but would be hopeless in the hands of Mr. Robinson, no evidence brought before the Committee showed that there was any real or substantial difference between Mr. Jones and Mr. Robinson, and that once the fly gets into the spider's net it does not substantially matter which is the particular spider that spun the net which caught the fly. While I say all that I do think, at the present moment, it would not be feasible to completely stop moneylending. I do not think very much for the reason put forward by Deputy Little that that would be completely feasible or possible at present.

I am afraid that moneylending is an evil—a very real, serious evil—which all communities will have to face until such time as common sense gets right down into the understanding of prospective borrowers. Therefore I do think that the best course we can adopt at the present minute is to pass this measure, letting it be clearly known that we are aware of the evils moneylending is bringing about, and that while we cannot completely abolish it we recognise this Bill as giving a palliative and nothing else except a palliative. In consequence of this I personally am in favour of the passing of this Bill.

Mr. Briscoe

As a member of the Committee which sat to consider this Bill I endorse practically everything said by Deputy Little and Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney, that this Bill is more or less an attempt to check what we believe to be an evil in our midst and to control it to a certain extent. We do not pretend to say this is going to bring about the desired change that Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney wishes for. But we do feel that one element connected with this particular business will be so controlled and checked that it will be no longer profitable to carry it on. The Committee, representing all sections of the House, approached this matter in the spirit of getting down to business. There was no distinction of Party, and everybody felt that we were doing these things in the interests of the whole community as legislators should approach the matter.

Every one of us was impressed by the serious condition that exists in the case of people in the hands of a certain class of moneylenders. One thing I am glad to see in the Bill is that where a workman's wife, or any man's wife, depending upon him for maintenance, attempts in the future to borrow money, such money will only become legally due if given to the wife with the knowledge and consent of her husband. That was one of the items upon which much stress was laid, and its adoption, I believe, is a good day's work. With regard to the general run of the thing, I believe that efforts will be made to continue in the business by moneylenders without being registered, and I hope when this Bill becomes an Act that the appropriate department of State will make it a very unhealthy thing for anyone who tries to carry on moneylending outside the control of the Dáil.

Mr. Wolfe

I endorse what has been said by previous speakers and particularly by Deputy Little, who introduced this Bill. I suggest that there is no necessity for wasting much time at this stage upon it. This Bill has already been through an elaborate Committee Stage. The Committee went to great trouble over it and, as Chairman of the Committee, I confess I received very great assistance from every section and party represented in this House. Nothing could be fairer, and nothing could be better, than the way in which the Committee helped me through the various stages of that Bill. It was to me a lesson which I shall not soon forget of how much better business can be done by a small Committee representing all sections of the House in a matter of this sort than it could be dealt with by the whole House. I may say, and I think Deputies who spoke before me will agree, that before the end of the Committee Stage we arrived at such knowledge that we found no need to go forward another day.

We tried to come together, and as a result the report of the Moneylenders Bill Committee, which was prepared at a good deal of expense, and cost a good deal of time to various people, is before the House. It has come before you as a practically unanimous report. That being so, I would suggest that there is no necessity for any waste of time at this stage. If there are any amendments they can be put forward on the Committee Stage. There should be no further time wasted on the Bill at present. It has cost the country enough already. We heard at great length representatives of every class who could possibly be affected by it. I would ask the House to give the Bill an unanimous reading, to shorten the discussion, leaving any amendment for a later stage. There might have to be a few technical amendments—I think there must be—when the Bill comes before you at a later stage, but we are only wasting time by discussing it now.

Mr. Little

The Bill, of course, being a Private Bill, must be sent to a Special Committee. That can be done. The Committee of Selection can select the Committee next week, and possibly one meeting of the Committee the week after would deal with all the amendments, and the Bill would go through its final stage in a fortnight or a little later.

Question—"That the Bill be now read a second time"—put and agreed to.

Mr. Little

I move:—

That the Moneylenders Bill, 1932, be referred to a Special Committee consisting of eleven Deputies to be nominated by the Committee of Selection; that the first meeting of the Special Committee be held on 2nd November, 1932, and that the Quorum of the Committee be five.

That the Report, Minutes of Evidence and Proceedings of the Select Committee on the Moneylenders Bill, 1929, be referred to the Special Committee on the Moneylenders Bill, 1932.

Question put and agreed to.