asked the Minister for Justice if he is aware of the disturbing evidence disclosed by the television programme, Seven Days, of unfettered unlicensed moneylending in Dublin city and of the strong arm methods used by some of the illegal money-lenders to recover their money; and what measures the Government propose to take to ensure that the underprivileged and others who use these illegal services are protected, that these money lenders are brought to justice along with those whom they use to injure and intimidate people and that every possible protection will be afforded to those who seek to expose these people.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Unlicensed Moneylending.
52.
It is, of course, wellknown that some unlicensed money-lending goes on, not only in Dublin but in other urban areas. It is also well-known to charitable organisations and social workers as well as to the Garda Síochána that it is invariably difficult and usually almost impossible to get evidence to support a prosecution. The difficulty is not the threat of violence or other reprisals, which is not a factor as far as the Garda Síochána are aware, but the fact that those who borrow money in this way very often do so without the knowledge of other members of the family, especially husband or wife, and they are not willing to do anything that would reveal the transactions to their families, not to mention having them made public Accordingly, it is widely acknowledged that the problem should be approached as a social and educational one rather than a police problem.
To say that the problem exists is not to say that it exists on anything like the scale suggested by the RTE programme referred to in the question The programme mentioned a figure of 500 unlicensed money-lenders— meaning people carrying on a business of money-lending. As far as the Garda Síochána are aware, this figure is grossly exaggerated. However, the gardaí decided to investigate the allegations made in the programme and two Garda superintendents have had an interview with a senior officer of RTE whose position is such that he must be taken as speaking for that organisation. As far as the Garda Síochána are concerned, his general attitude to the question of disclosing evidence was a negative one, though the Garda officers were given an undertaking that all film and other records relating to the programme will be kept safely by RTE in case they are later required by a court order to produce them. The Garda officers were given the address of the producer of the programme but were told that he was on holidays and probably was not available for interview by the Garda Further Garda attempts to contact the producer have not succeeded so far.
The Garda have themselves, however, been able to identify and interview all or practically all the people who appeared in the programme, whether as alleged money-lenders, agents, strong-arm men or victims of a money-lending racket, including those who were supposed to be disguised. All have made statements to the Garda, most of them written statements. All explained their appearance on the programme in much the same way, namely, that they were offered money if they would take part in this programme and were in fact paid fees of varying amounts, the usual one being £20. In at least one case, an extra fee is alleged to have been paid to a participant for bringing along another person willing to take part in the show. Statements given to the Garda set out details of the way the people concerned were approached and of how they were told that they would be paid to say these things. Incidentally, the ease with which all these people were identified by those who knew them is a sufficient comment on the claim that they had to be disguised for fear of reprisals.
A matter of particular concern to many viewers was the appearance on the programme of a man, with his back to the camera, purporting to be disclosing that he was a moneylender and that he employed others to beat-up and injure defaulting borrowers. He also referred, on the programme, to a car owned by a defaulting borrower having been burnt. The more sceptical viewers no doubt asked themselves why a man such as this should agree to appear on a TV programme if indeed his story was genuine, and I now want to say specifically that this man, like the others, has told the Garda that his statements on the programme were without foundation of any kind and were made solely because he was paid for making them and because he badly needed the money.
Some of the people concerned have, I understand, criminal records. That some of them may, some time, have had something to do with money-lending is a possibility. What is a certainty, however, is that if people like this are paid fees for making statements on television, these statements are, at best, quite valueless as evidence and, as I have explained, are according to themselves now, nothing more than a tissue of lies.
There is evidence that drink was supplied to some of those who took part in the programme, as well as money payments.
I am informed that a further interview between gardaí and RTE representatives has been arranged for today. I trust that the authorities there will appreciate that, by putting on a programme of this kind, they have incurred certain obligations, including the obligation to disclose honestly whether the programme was deliberately contrived for television.
Does the Minister not agree that it is time some people in Telefís Éireann stood up and were counted? I should like if the Minister would enlighten the House as to who was responsible for getting these groups of people together—these agents and strong-arm men? Would the Minister not agree that there was an invasion of people's privacy by means of placing hidden microphones in houses and so on and that the people in Telefís Éireann are falling down badly on their job by putting across to the public programmes such as this? Would the Minister not also agree that producers and researchers in Telefís Éireann should declare beforehand their views, whether they are Leftist, Maoist, Trotskyites or Communists——
A Deputy
Or Fianna Fáil.
——and that the people should know this and should know the type of programmes being put across?
I have given the House the facts in so far as I have been able to ascertain them up to this point in time. The interpretation of and comments on these facts are matters for the House. My information is that the people who appeared on this programme were got together by a paid agent of Telefís Éireann. The question raised about uncontrolled invasion of privacy and the use of hidden microphones by persons answerable to nobody and carrying on this type of trial by television is a matter that I know is giving some concern to some people.
Could the Minister state whether, before making these allegations against RTE in this House, he communicated the allegations to RTE and sought comment from them on the allegations as distinct from information from them about the event depicted in the programme?
I am stating in reply to Deputy Corish's question the facts as elicited from these people who appeared on the programme.
(Interruptions.)
I am answering a question from Deputy Dr. FitzGerald. One at a time, please. These are the answers given by these people whom the gardaí interviewed. The gardaí, as I said, went to Telefís Éireann to try to get their assistance in ascertaining whether the allegations in this programme were true. They met with non-co-operation there. That is the position up to this point in time. I have no doubt that in the course of a week or so we will have further information on these issues. What I am stating here are the facts as elicited by gardaí, or at least the statements they have got from all these people who were supposed to be described in this programme.
Since Deputy Corish is not here may I ask the Minister, arising from his long and highly emotionally charged reply——
On behalf of the criminals.
(Interruptions.)
Let the Deputy speak.
——is the Minister not aware that it is perfectly normal journalistic practice in any medium—television, press or other—to pay people for information which one gets from them or services they render?
One does not tell them what to say.
May I suggest to the Minister that his dislike of the sort of exposé programme which is under question here derives much less from the high moral tone which he takes up than from the fact that exposé programmes of this kind are not congenial to the Government or the Fianna Fáil Party?
They are not congenial to Deputy Crowley. He wants to close down Telefís Éireann.
In reply to the Deputy's question, I have stated that these alleged moneylenders and so on who were produced for the public edification on this programme have stated that they were paid sums of up to £20 and also given drink for their performance. I understand from a Deputy of this House that the standard fee for a Deputy of Dáil Éireann to appear on Telefís Éireann is £10. I do not want to make any further comment on that.
May I ask the Minister and through him may I ask the Taoiseach, whether they consider it appropriate to pillory RTE in this House without giving them a chance to consider the allegations made against them on the word of people whom the Minister in the same reply has described as criminals?
The words of the gardaí. The gardaí are not criminals.
The producers of this programme produced certain people whom they sold to the public as being public enemies, as being engaged in this racket. Would the Deputy ask them did they check their veracity before putting them on this particular programme?
Question No. 53.
It was the Minister who described them as criminals.
What would the Minister for Justice expect unlicensed moneylenders and strong arm thugs would tell the gardaí if they were asked were they engaging in those activities? What would he expect they would tell them?
I expect if they were paid £20 they would tell these people anything they wanted to hear.
May I ask is it the effect of the Minister's reply that a decision has been reached, in relation to whatever disclosure took place on television, that there will not be a prosecution? Is that the effect of the Minister's reply?
My reply is an exact answer to the question put down by the Leader of the Labour Party. I have given the facts here to the House as ascertained by the gardaí. There are inquiries going on by the gardaí. I have come to no decision as to what action might ultimately be taken when my file has been completed on this matter.
Question No. 53.
Would the Minister agree that the question was put down to elicit information on a matter of public concern? Would the Minister agree that in reply he has concentrated on a particular programme on Telefís Éireann? Is it the Minister's intention, judging from the contents of his reply, to superintend such programmes in future on Telefís Éireann? Is that the Minister's intention?
The Deputy's Leader put down a question and the Deputy is evidently cribbing because he got a factual answer to the question which was put down.
I am calling Question No. 53. We are running behind time.
May I put one final supplementary? Notwithstanding the disclosures here by the Minister this afternoon does he still deny there is unfettered money lending of an extortionist nature in operation in Dublin and throughout the country well worth scrutiny?
If the Deputy reads my reply he will see I started off by telling the House what the position about that is and the difficulties in dealing with this abuse. I do not think it will help to deal with the abuse by putting on what appears, at all events, on the existing evidence, to be a phoney programme.