I move:
To delete all the words after the words "public importance" and substitute:
1. The extent and prevalence of illegal moneylending in the State, that is to say, the number of illegal moneylenders in the State, the annual amount of money loaned and the total interest charged by them, the manner in which loans are secured, the number of people borrowing from illegal moneylenders and the practices of the said illegal moneylenders in securing repayment of loans.
2. The validity of the "7 Days" programme in relation to the extent of illegal moneylending in Dublin.
3. The authenticity of the statements of the Taoiseach and the Minister for Justice in Dáil Éireann in relation to the extent of illegal moneylending in the State.
This whole business originated from a Parliamentary Question which I tabled to the Minister for Justice on 19th November. It was obvious to the House because of the type of question tabled on that particular occasion that the question was directed towards what was described as a social evil that is extensively practised; it was directed specifically towards moneylending. The question was prompted by a programme, entitled "7 Days", presented by Radio Telefís Éireann. Now I and the members of my party have tabled an amendment to the Taoiseach's motion which, in effect, means the deletion of all the proposals in his motion and the substitution of another motion ensuring that the focus of the inquiry will be on the evil that I pinpointed in my question, that of moneylending in this city and in other parts of the country.
We believe, and this was our view when the Taoiseach announced the establishment of the inquiry on the 2nd of this month, that this inquiry should be focussed on the evil of moneylending. We did not anticipate when the original question was tabled on 19th November the reaction of the Minister for Justice. As far as I am concerned, the reaction of the Minister for Justice on that particular occasion, as far as moneylending was concerned, seemed to be one of complacency and this was admirably demonstrated in the type of reply he made. At column 1263 of volume 242 of the Official Report, the Minister said:
It is, of course, well known that some unlicensed moneylending goes on, not only in Dublin but in other urban areas.
He went further at column 1264 and again he brushed the matter off by describing this as another "social and educational problem rather than a police problem". He refuted some of the allegations made in this particular programme with regard to moneylenders and, as I said, generally attempted to play down the evil we tried to expose in my question on that date.
He had other things to say, not about moneylending but about the particular programme itself. He said the problem was exaggerated. He said, in his criticism of the particular programme and those in charge of it, that the participants had been paid and given drink, as if they had been bribed to appear on the programme, and given drink in order that they might say things that had been dictated to them by the team. One of the peculiarities about the Minister's reply on that particular occasion was that he was so ready and so geared to accept the statements of participants who gave information to the gardaí but was not prepared to accept the statements of the self-same people who gave information on the "7 Days" programme with regard to moneylending.
Now, I do not want to be contentious, or raise another sort of storm, but I became somewhat suspicious when I read the Official Report of 19th November. In case anybody wants to make a point against me, I was not in the House on that particular day. I was, as I say, somewhat dismayed and very surprised and, afterwards, somewhat suspicious when it appeared to me that the cat was let out of the bag by a Fianna Fáil Deputy who, relating his remarks to the "7 Days" team and the people in Radio Telefís Éireann, talked about Leftists, Maoists, Trotskyists and Communists. It appeared to me that the intention of the Minister was to avoid the problem of moneylending and to concentrate his attack on the "7 Days" team.
We find ourselves in the position now —this we have protested over the last few weeks—in which what was raised genuinely as a social evil by me has become an attempt to pillory the "7 Days" team and, may I say, cut down Radio Telefís Éireann and the RTE Authority. It has become an attempt to try to create, whether deliberately or not, doubt in the public mind as to the credibility of the journalists who work for Radio Telefís Éireann. This has very serious implications for the news media, particularly for Radio Telefís Éireann, which is and has been described as a semi-State company.
I do not think there should be this witch-hunt into any particular section of Radio Telefís Éireann or into any of the individuals in it. We could, I suppose, have many more public inquiries if we were to have some control over the news media. We have none over the newspapers, but there is some control over Radio Telefís Éireann under the provisions of the Broadcasting Act. I assume there is also control over the Government Information Bureau. I am sure that they may, at times, whether innocently or otherwise, have been regarded as guilty—perhaps that is not the really apposite word to use—of distortion of news or of being misleading. We should, therefore, be very careful in interfering with this delicate mechanism described as the news media, particularly as it applies to Radio Telefís Éireann which, we are told, has a pretty fair degree of autonomy.
On 26th November, again in reply to a question by me, the Minister for Justice appeared to backtrack, for want of a better word; I thought he would have withdrawn some of his statements, which appeared to me malicious on 19th November in his attack on the "7 Days" team, but instead he commenced to raise more doubts in the public mind, not alone about the "7 Days" programme but about Radio Telefís Éireann generally. Because my second question on 26th November related to moneylending, he played down that particular question. In a very, very long reply, extending over 17 minutes, he said there were only 25 moneylenders, or less, in Dublin; finally, he came down to saying there were between 12 and 15. He may be accurate in this but, when we talk and think about moneylending problems, we do not think only in terms of those who have licences; we are talking and thinking in terms of the agents and subagents of these moneylenders who have fleeced the people in this city and in other parts of the country.
As the Taoiseach said in his opening remarks here, he decided on 2nd December that an inquiry would be established. Because of some of the remarks he made at Question Time as to the lateness of our amendment, it is valid to say that, though the Taoiseach announced the proposal to establish this inquiry on 2nd December, the actual proposals were not published until 13th December so, if anybody is remiss it is the Taoiseach, the Government, or whoever is responsible for this particular motion who must take the blame.