Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 26 Nov 1969

Vol. 242 No. 12

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Television Programme on Moneylenders.

20.

asked the Minister for Justice the number of licensed moneylenders in the State; the estimated number of unlicensed moneylenders in the country; and if he will state further to his reply of 19th November, 1969, concerning the Seven Days programme on moneylending the outcome of the meeting between gardaí and RTE representatives arranged for 19th November to discuss various aspects of this programme.

21.

andMr. Keating asked the Minister for Justice whether the further interview between gardaí and RTE representatives referred to in his reply of 19th November has taken place; and whether he has any further statement to make on this matter which has given rise to public concern.

22.

asked the Minister for Justice if in view of the concern caused by his reply of 19th November, 1969, concerning the Seven Days moneylending programme that statements given to the gardaí set out details of the way the people concerned were approached and of how they were told that they would be paid to say things and that statements on the programme were without foundation of any kind and were made solely because a person was paid for making them and because he badly needed the money, and the likelihood that these statements might be construed as an attack on the professional integrity of the RTE staff members concerned, he will state what information has been received following further investigations in this matter with RTE officials.

23.

asked the Minister for Justice if as a result of discussions between the gardaí and a representative, or representatives, of RTE he has received any information that the Seven Days programme on moneylending was deliberately contrived for television; whether the gardaí know how many unlicensed moneylenders there are in Dublin city since they feel that the estimate of 500 given on Seven Days was grossly exaggerated; if the gardaí have investigated the abuse relating to children's allowance books with a view to protecting people from exploitation; and whether in view of the concern caused he will say what action the gardaí are taking to follow up the investigations in this matter.

24.

asked the Minister for Justice whether, in view of the statement made by him on 19th November in relation to the personnel of RTE who were engaged in the Seven Days programme on unlicensed moneylenders which appears to reflect seriously on their probity, he will now make a further statement on the latest interviews between the RTE authorities and the gardaí.

25.

asked the Minister for Justice if, in view of the terms of his reply of Wednesday, 19th November, concerning a recent RTE Seven Days programme regarding unlicensed moneylending and in order to allay public uneasiness, he will consider holding a full public inquiry into the whole matter.

With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 20 to 25 together.

Speak up. We cannot hear the Minister.

Do you want Nkrumah of Ghana to hear me, or just you?

The side show is on.

May I recall to the House that what I was asked by Deputy Corish on Wednesday last was whether I was aware of the disturbing evidence disclosed by this television programme of unfettered unlicensed moneylending and of the strong-arm methods used by some of them?

My reply, in essence, was that I was not so aware because, according to the information supplied to me, the so-called evidence was worthless. I gave to the House the information I had to support that conclusion. I think the House was entitled to that information and nothing that has happened in the meantime has altered in the slightest degree the position as I then stated it.

It is being suggested that I made an attack on RTE while ignoring what is said to be the real issue, namely, that even if the programme exaggerated— even, indeed, if its evidence was fabricated for the occasion—it was a substantially accurate account of what goes on and was therefore a defensible and valuable exposure of a social evil.

I certainly would not question RTE's right to present a work of fiction in order to expose some social evil. But this programme was not presented as fiction—it was presented as fact. The viewers were led to believe, and the great majority undoubtedly accepted, that what they saw on the screen was authentic, factual evidence of a widespread moneylending racket, backed by strong-arm methods. The presentation of such a programme is of direct interest to me as Minister for Justice, because if the evidence was genuine, and if this criminal activity was in fact going on on the scale suggested, and going on openly at that, there could be no avoiding the conclusion that the Garda Síochána would stand indicted as hopelessly incompetent even after all allowances had been made for the difficulties of detection. I have direct and positive evidence that the programme was seen in that light by members of the Garda Síochána.

I, therefore, wish to make it clear that I do not for a moment accept the suggestion that this programme would have been justified as a so-called exposure even if its evidence was fabricated. To say that fabricated evidence is worthless is only to state the obvious and to speak of exposing something by the use of worthless evidence is an absurdity. In fairness to RTE, let me say specifically that they themselves have not sought refuge in that kind of argument and I feel sure that they would be the first to repudiate it.

Reference is also made in these questions to the possibility that my previous reply might be construed as a reflection on the professional integrity of RTE members concerned. I, therefore, want to point out that my previous reply concerned itself only with the complete unreliability of the evidence presented. It was solely in that context that I referred to the fact that the people who appeared on the programme were paid to say what they said. It was no part of my business, as Minister for Justice, either to criticise or to defend any of the staff of RTE and I did not do so. I dealt only with the programme and its validity.

If it is of any assistance to Deputies, may I say that I believe it to be the case that most of the people who appeared on the programme were contacted through an intermediary and some of them not even directly by him, but whether this is a point in favour of or against RTE I cannot say, because while it would be an answer to any charge that the people presenting the programme deliberately presented what they knew to be false—a charge which of course was neither made nor implied by me—it does leave them open to the criticism that, by farming out the job of recruiting prospects, they lost control over the manner in which such prospects might be approached and the inducements that might be held out to them? May I repeat that I have never suggested, nor do I suggest now, that anybody on the RTE staff deliberately propagated what he knew to be false? What I do suggest is, first of all, that the people responsible for the programme failed—and failed by a very wide margin—to observe the standard of care in seeking and evaluating evidence which anybody undertaking to put on a programme of this kind should observe and, secondly, I suggest that, whatever one's views may be as to how far the people responsible were blameworthy in this way it is unquestionable that, objectively speaking, the evidence was worthless. And when I say worthless I do not mean just that the witnesses exaggrated—I mean that nobody could rely on a word they said on that programme. This is so irrespective of what form of words was used by those who contacted them and irrespective of whether the contacts were made directly by RTE staff or through intermediaries. I shall later state why this is so, since there seems to be a good deal of misunderstanding about it.

On Wednesday last I stated that two Garda superintendents had, at the outset, interviewed a senior official of RTE and that, as far as they were concerned, his attitude about the disclosure of evidence was negative. The RTE statement subsequently issued did not challenge that as a fair interpretation of what happened and its accuracy is not at issue. That negative attitude contrasted very sharply indeed with the claim made in the programme that, though the gardaí said detection was impossible, RTE had the proofs that unlicensed moneylenders were operating openly. Nevertheless, the record will show that, when referring to RTE's attitude to the disclosure of the evidence, I spoke in a factual way and I made no criticism of the RTE attitude at that point.

Accordingly, those who have sought to convey that I criticised RTE for abiding by the journalists' code of protecting their sources both misrepresented me and missed the point of what I was saying. I was merely explaining that the Garda were labouring under the handicap that they had to carry out their inquiries without assistance from RTE. Later in my reply, however, I called on RTE to disclose what they knew. But at that stage there could be no possible question of protecting their sources because by then their sources were already known— the people concerned had been identified, had been interviewed and had made statements.

Through a misunderstanding of the terminology used by RTE, I stated here the last day that the producer could not be contacted because, RTE said, he was on holidays. I was in fact referring at that point to the person who conducted the interviews et cetera on the programme. A meeting arranged for Wednesday last with another representative of RTE had to be postponed because of the official's illness. A meeting subsequently took place and RTE were asked if they would supply certain information. They later sent word that, on certain points, they could not agree to supply the information sought but on other points a further meeting has been arranged. The points on which information was refused were not important with one exception which I shall mention in a few moments.

I have already told the House that all or practically all of the people who appeared on the programme had been identified and had repudiated what they had said on the programme and the explanation they offered for their appearance on the programme amounted in all cases to the same thing, namely they were paid for doing it. This of course related primarily to those who claimed to be moneylenders and especially those who said they were involved in a strong-arm racket but, for accuracy, I want to qualify what I said in respect of one person who was shown as a victim of a money-lending racket. That woman has been identified and has told the gardaí that her reason for appearing was that she had been told that a statement from her would provide a warning to others and she stated for that reason she would have appeared without payment. On the other hand, she also told the gardaí—what I understand did not appear on the screen—that her only encounter with a moneylender took place some couple of years back and that the moneylender is now dead.

For goodness' sake.

The point has been made both in this House and by RTE —and indeed by some commentators outside—that no significance attaches to the fact that they were paid—that it is normal practice to pay a programme fee. The House will observe that RTE, in their public statement, did not say whether the fees paid were in fact the normal amounts, though this was a point I put some stress on here the last day. Furthermore, RTE have since then rejected as irrelevant a question concerning payments over and above the level of normal programme fees though it was put to them by the gardaí that at least some participants claim to have been paid the sums they asked for before taking part in the programme—indeed, as it happens, the sums they say they were paid for appearing were double what other participants say they were paid. The refusal to disclose the actual sums paid may be understandable. However, the failure to comment on whether exceptional payments were in fact made seems to me—in view of the statements available that such payments were made—to be a matter to which I should invite the special attention of the House.

Incidentally, I did not say that drink was supplied by RTE at Montrose. It would have been quite understandable if a drink had been supplied to participants at that stage. What I was referring to was the supply of drink in a public house at an earlier stage when the participants were being recruited. The supply of drink at that earlier stage is certainly worth bearing in mind, especially when it happens that a participant states that, coupled with what he had already drunk, he was "well-jarred" when he was making his statement to RTE.

Let us, however, ignore the question of drink and—despite RTE's refusal to comment on whether payments over and above the normal fees were made —let us also assume that only standard programme fees were paid. As far as I am concerned, that makes no difference to the reliability—or rather the unreliability—of the evidence though it may be relevant to the apparent readiness of the people in charge to accept the kind of evidence the programme needed. I do not expect that the Deputies opposite to advanced the point about programme fees being paid to everybody have had occasion to ponder the implications of accepting evidence in the nature of confessions when payment has been made for them but I must express my surprise that, even at this stage, RTE, according to their public statement, seem not to see what the implications are.

There is, of course, a vital and obvious difference between the appearance on a televised programme of a member of the public who, for instance, is asked to comment on some current problem, and, on the other hand, the appearance of people purporting to be confessing to criminal offences such as we are here referring to. The vital and obvious difference is that the people on this programme were there solely because they were prepared to make certain statements in the nature of confessions—statements of a kind that were necessary for the programme. If, when they had been approached, their response had been that they knew nothing about money-lending, it goes without saying that they would not have been on the programme and would not have been able to earn the fee. Therefore, as far as they were concerned, they were faced with the choice of saying what they said and getting a fee or not saying it and not getting a fee. A statement made in such circumstances is clearly unreliable.

I do not, of course, say that payment of a fee is a proof that the statements were false though, as it happens, it is virtually certain that most of the statements were, in fact, false. What I am saying at this point is that the unreliability of the evidence should have been obvious from the outset and especially since the fee being paid was a substantial one for people who were, in the main, people who could be seen not to be well-off. The validity of the distinction I am making between fees for services rendered in the ordinary way and fees for a statement that is in the nature of a confession is, of course, well-accepted to the point of being commonplace amongst people who, in any capacity, have the job of sifting and evaluating evidence. That statements made in such circumstances would be completely inadmissible in a court of law hardly needs saying and the reason for this is not just the formal rules of evidence but the more fundamental reason, which led to the relevant rule, that the evidence could not be relied on.

Those who suggest that my object has been to conceal the social problems that lie behind some incidents of borrowing might, I think, do well to ask themselves about the possible social problems that could explain the strange willingness of people who were supposed to be involved in moneylending to appear on this show. For instance, one witness has stated that he was approached by a named person—not a member of the staff of RTE—and asked if he would take part in a programme on moneylending and there would be "a few quid" in it for him. He agreed. The gardaí can say, of their own knowledge, that this man is at present unemployed and has a wife and nine children to support. Irrespective of what in fact was said to him when he was approached, it is clear that he knew he would be paid if he produced a "confession". Can Deputies feel happy about having a man in that position faced with the temptation of knowing that by saying certain things he can collect a much-needed windfall? Another witness—a woman —tells how she was asked, again at two removes from RTE, if she would like to earn £10 and she replied that she certainly would as she was on the point of being evicted for non-payment of rent. Perhaps, it is not only moneylenders who take advantage of human need.

There may well have been other tragedies not obvious to the eye of RTE cameras. For instance, a particular woman was named in the programme as a moneylender. A young man was shown going to her door, paying 25s of what he owed her and asking if it would be all right to pay the balance later, to which she answered "yes, of course". This is what was picked up by the concealed microphone. Convincing evidence it might seem—but, perhaps, not so convincing when it is pointed out that the woman concerned is known to be a club-holder for a large firm in the city centre, that the man concerned and the woman herself both have stated, independently, that the money was owed on a perfectly legitimate transaction concerning a club-voucher, and that the man states that he had misinformed the RTE representative as to the nature of the debt because he knew he would get money if he represented it as a moneylending transaction.

At first glance it might appear that this woman has her remedy if she was misrepresented. I wonder if we in this House can feel happy with that when we learn that she is a widow in her middle seventies with a serious heart condition, with the result that it was at times extremely difficult for her even to continue speaking when the gardaí were interviewing her.

For the reasons I have given, it is clear, beyond question, that the evidence presented in the programme was, as I have said, valueless. Its utter lack of value is underlined by its repudiation later and by the fact that the Garda Síochána know a fair amount about some of the people involved and they are satisfied, of their own knowledge, that their so-called revelations on the programme were fabrications put forward for the money to be got from it.

This, as far as I am concerned, is the central issue and because on this, the central issue, there is no doubt as to the facts, I see no sufficient reason at this stage for a sworn inquiry which would serve only to clarify what seems to me to be a marginal issue relating to the extent to which those concerned with the presentation of the programme were at all interested in checking whether the stories that were being given to them were likely to be reliable. As I said at the outset, I have no reason to think, nor do I believe for a moment, that the people concerned would present as fact what they knew to be untrue.

At the other end of the scale, I am equally certain that they did present as fact what they could not possibly stand over and I feel very strongly that they should have realised that accepting such stories was, at best, an extremely doubtful exercise and one that called for much more checking than they gave it. But how far they were culpable in falling short of what the nature of the programme required —whether, for instance, they did not pause to check because basically they did not want to know—is not for me to say nor will I speculate about it. At the same time, I want to make it quite clear that I do not by any means exclude the possibility of a sworn inquiry if the public are being confused by people continuing to try to defend the indefensible.

I now turn to the question asked about the extent of the illegal money-lending problem in Dublin. The views of experienced Garda officers in all city areas have been sought and they in turn have made special inquiries that would help them to form an estimate. Their answer is that they neither know of nor suspect the existence of anything in the nature of a moneylending racket backed up by strong-arm tactics of any shape or form. And they are confident that, if such a thing existed in fact, they would certainly have heard of it even if they could not prove it.

They, therefore, dismiss as being wholly unfounded, and not just as being unprovable, the suggestion that strong-arm methods are being used to support a moneylending racket. As regards unlicensed moneylending itself, we are, of course, speaking only of moneylending by people who go in for lending money in order to collect interest on it. It will be recalled that the TV programme said there were 500 such people in the city and I said the last day that the gardaí were satisfied that this was grossly exaggerated. The Garda estimate—and I emphasise that this relates to the number of people suspected of probably being in the business and not just people who could be proved to be in it—is something of the order of 12 or 15. Giving themselves adequate margin for error they say the figure is undoubtedly below 25.

To sum up what I have said,

(1) The allegation that strong-arm methods are being used by unlicensed moneylenders is, in the opinion of the Garda Síochána, without any foundation in fact.

(2) While the gardaí know that some unlicensed moneylenders operate, their number or scale of operations is nothing like that suggested by the programme.

(3) The statements purporting to be confessions by moneylenders about moneylending and strong-arm methods can be dismissed as wholly valueless.

I suppose that is a record for a reply. It would be very difficult, within a short time, to put the relevant supplementary questions. It appeared to me in the beginning, in any case, that the Minister was approaching this matter in a more rational way——

Deputies

Question.

——and in an apologetic way——

Not a bit of it.

——when he started his reply. What he has done now in the last few sentences is to threaten——

Question.

——to threaten those who are in charge of the Seven Days programme.

Ask a question.

I want to challenge the Minister, as Minister for Justice——

We cannot have a debate on this. We can have questions but not a debate.

It was the Labour Party last night who recommended that the Seven Days reporters should be sacked, not me.

As Minister for Justice, the Minister seems to know a lot about the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. Can the Minister tell me what power he has to institute an inquiry into the workings of RTE, or of the staff of Seven Days? He said this. He threatened that if they went on like this—in the way he described it— there would be a sworn inquiry. I suggest that the activities of the Minister should be subject to——

(Interruptions.)

To get the record straight, I said——

(Interruptions.)

Deputies can keep on shouting as long as they wish, but I will still be heard. I am entitled to what they are entitled to—free speech. Everyone in this country is entitled to free speech except myself and Maurice O'Connell of the Fine Gael organisation. I said that if people outside continued to defend the indefensible, I would ask the Government to consider a sworn inquiry. From what I have put on record here the facts are there. Largely they are not in dispute. If RTE had put this on, in the first instance, as a fabricated programme no one would quarrel with it. They represented it as being factual and this is what I have to answer for to this House.

The Minister must confess that the Seven Days team did a service to this country in bringing this matter before the public. If I understood the Minister rightly, he said that there are 25 moneylenders in the city. Is that right?

I said there were certainly under 25 after the gardaí had made elaborate inquiries.

That may be so, but could the Minister say how many agents of moneylenders there are in this city?

I do not know how you distinguish between a moneylender and his agent, or how RTE distinguished between their own agents who were at several distances removed involved in rounding up all these alleged moneylenders. I have exposed what they were, according to the Garda.

In view of what has already been disclosed in this matter, does the Minister not consider that a sworn inquiry is not justified in order to allay public uneasiness?

What public uneasiness is there?

The amount of public uneasiness that has been fomented has been by the "phoneyness" of this show. People swallowed this fiction as fact. I do not know the number of people who have swallowed this. If I found that, notwithstanding the factual evidence of the Garda who found out what these people are and have identified them, the public still did not accept that these people were all "phoneys" I would consider a public inquiry.

The Minister has said that the facts are not in dispute but the facts appear to be very vague. Would the Minister not agree that the denials made by these persons to the Garda cannot be any more credible than the statements they made on television? That is what has to be inquired into.

On the credibility of these people, in some cases they were paid up to £30 and given free "booze". They gave statements with these inducements. I would prefer to accept——

I did not ask what the Minister would prefer to accept.

——the statements they gave to the Garda when they were cold sober and without being given money, than what they gave to RTE for which they were well paid and well looked after.

The Minister did not answer the question which is: are the denials more credible than the statements made on television? I do not want to know what the Minister prefers to accept. Are the denials made by them to the Garda more credible?

The Garda know these people. The Garda have interviewed these people. The Garda are able to evaluate what they have been told and the judgment of the Garda is that they have got the correct factual statements from those people.

Can the Minister say if the Garda elicit further information which would warrant a prosecution will the matter be referred to the Attorney General?

Certainly. In fact, we have been trying to get some evidence if RTE have any, but it is very strange that people who say: "We have the names and we have the proof", will not even let the Garda bring a shorthand notetaker in to see the film and take a record of what was said on the show. These are the people who are supposed to be concerned with the putting down of this.

They are only concerned with entertainment.

May I ask the Minister if, in the public interest, he would now make representations to RTE to enable everybody in this House and everybody in Ireland to see this programme by screening it again and let the people judge in a far less arrogant manner than he has judged——

(Interruptions.)

May I put it to the Minister——

The Deputy has already asked one question. Will the Deputy be allowed to make a speech?

The Deputy may not make a speech. He is entitled to put a question.

Is the Minister prepared to recommend this course of action to the people of this country and to RTE, rather than sitting in a Herr Strauss and Der Spiegel type of attitude? May I put a second supplementary to the Minister? In view of the further information he has given to the House, quite plain, quite unequivocal, would the Minister now withdraw the original character imputations which he made without qualification in respect of certain of the staffs of RTE and particularly the allegation he made that certain of the staffs of RTE bribed people with money and with, as he said, free “booze”?

It is established that they did.

The Deputy is making a speech.

It is a fact.

To try and answer a series of questions put, I have informed the House that RTE after some pressure agreed to let the Garda see a rerun of the film but they forbade the Garda to bring a shorthand notetaker to note the sound track of the film. I am informing the House of a fact and that is a fact. That is No. 1. No. 2: if Deputy Desmond is very concerned about seeing anything on RTE, what better men has he than the ex-inmates of that institution sitting beside him?

If I am being drawn into this——

On a point of order.

The Deputy is the most arrogant person in this House.

I have a point of order and I intend to make it. Would you, Sir, request the Minister for Justice in the interests of parliamentary decency, to withdraw the statement——

That is not a point of order.

If I am being drawn into this, I am entitled to answer. I have been questioned by some Deputies across there as to whether I have anything to say, and I have this to say. I commend RTE for concerning themselves in exposing social evils in their programmes.

It is about time.

I did not see the programme but I gather that this programme reached a very high technical level and that it was much praised for that. Many people believed that the people who took part in it were genuine people and that the scenes portrayed in it were factual presentations of this illegal money-lending business. All this controversy could have been avoided if RTE had said at the outset of this programme that the characters and scenes to be portrayed in it were fictitious; otherwise there is the danger that, in future programmes, no matter how laudable or commendable, no matter how much they are put forward in the public interest, they would cause a cry of "wolf, wolf", in other words, that the credibility of any future RTE programme would be brought into question. We are entitled to be concerned about that, and, when people talk about integrity and reputation, we in this House are entitled to be concerned about the integrity and reputation of the Garda Síochána.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

I yield to no one in my admiration for the gardaí, and it is for that very reason and because of the expenditure of public funds both on the Garda and on Telefís Éireann, that I felt the public are entitled to a sworn inquiry to ascertain the full facts on all sides.

That would be another day's work.

I should like to ask the Taoiseach and the Minister whether they are aware that in making these allegations that the programme was fictitious and, in the case of the Taoiseach, in saying that it should have been stated that it was fictitious, thereby implying not alone that there was an element of fiction but that RTE were aware of it—because he could not have suggested that they should have stated it was fictitious if they were not aware of it—they are contradicting the statement issued by the RTE authority? Furthermore, in view of the fact that the Minister has accused RTE of the greatest possible dereliction of professional duty when he said they failed by a wide margin to preserve standards of care that they should have preserved in a programme of this kind, is it not clear there must be a sworn inquiry.

Could I also ask the Minister what he means by saying that the statements he made are largely not disputed, when the entire statement that the programme was fictional and was put on carelessly and without checking the facts, has been disputed? It seems to me there is a complete conflict on this issue between a responsible State corporation and the Minister and the Taoiseach, and we must now have a sworn inquiry to establish the truth of the accusations being made by the Minister and the other side of the House.

The facts are not largely in dispute. It is beyond dispute from the statements that the Garda have got from these people that there is no such thing as a strong-arm racket as represented by the gentleman who appeared on this programme. There is certain information we have not got and which no doubt RTE are keeping to themselves for their own good reasons, but my statement that in a programme of this kind they did not exercise the care they should have was made in the context of this programme being presented as a factual programme, which, unfortunately, many people took to be the case. I stand over that statement, and when they now know the kind of people shown to the public as being genuine have been found to be what they are, they will probably be much more careful in future before they present some fictional work as fact. I do not know whether this programme was deliberaately designed to be a shock programme with theatrical content or whether it is still going to be held that it was a factual business.

When the Minister has finished speaking of sworn inquiries and when he has finished making lengthy answers casting aspersions upon the production integrity of people involved in a programme in Telefís Éireann, may I ask if he is not aware that under the Act establishing the RTE Authority there is a perfectly good procedure for making complaints to the Telefís Éireann Authority?

Deputies

Speech, speech.

Loathe as every Deputy in this House knows the Government to be to communicate in writing to RTE, could I ask the Minister if it has approached in writing the authority which it established under this Act and which it passed through the channels which it laid down?

The Deputy did not read the Act very carefully, because his performance on television did not preserve that balance which the Act lays down.

Is that the Minister's only answer?

I should like to ask the Taoiseach, in view of his intervention in this debate——

This is not a debate. It is Question Time.

In view of the Taoiseach's intervention in this Question Time, would he now undertake to agree with the suggestion of Deputy FitzGerald and others that a sworn inquiry into the matter should take place? Would he further undertake that the composition of the inquiring body would not be rigged in the way that the Telefís Éireann Authority has been rigged for party political advantages?

(Interruptions.)

Will the Taoiseach answer?

I do not answer vulgar abuse.

But the Taoiseach definitely encouraged it.

May I ask——

I am not allowing any further supplementaries. Question No. 26.

On a point of order.

There can be no further discussion. I have called the next question.

Top
Share