Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 4 Dec 1987

Vol. 376 No. 4

Consumer Information (Consumer Credit) Order, 1987: Motion.

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the following Order in draft:—

Consumer Information (Consumer Credit) Order, 1987

a copy of which Order in draft was laid before Dáil Éireann on 31st March, 1987."

Seanad Éireann approved the Order, in draft, on 18 June 1987. This motion arises because I consider it necessary to introduce a legal measure to assist consumers in assessing the true cost of credit.

The order, which will relate to credit provided to consumers only, will, (i) require advertisements that make reference to the availability and cost of credit to show the true cost of that credit by means of an annual percentage rate of charge. The APR may be shown by way of a representative example if no other means is practicable; (ii) require that, where the advertisement relates to the provision of a good or service, the cash price, the price payable under the credit agreement and the number and amount of instalments must also be indicated; (iii) require any notice-leaflet and so on, relating to loans or credit sales which is displayed at a place where a cash loan can be obtained or a credit purchase made to show the true cost of credit using APR; and (iv) set out legally binding definitions relating, in the main, to consumer credit.

The APR can be defined as the total cost of the credit advanced as an annual percentage of the outstanding amount of the credit granted. In addition to interest, the total cost of credit will also include such items as administration costs, documentation fees, compulsory insurance and so on. In calculating APR, the interest paid on a loan is expressed as a percentage in relation to the declining principal outstanding over the term of the loan. This compares with the "flat rate" system, at present used by some financial institutions, where the interest is based on the capital sum borrowed for the full term of the loan and does not allow for the fact that the principal is constantly reducing over the period of the loan: in other words, the real cost is considerably greater than that apparently indicated by the rate of interest quoted.

Generally, a rate of interest expressed under the flat rate system will only be about half the APR.

For example, take a loan of £250 with charges amounting to £50 — total of £300 — repayable in 12 monthly instalments of £25 and compare this with a similar loan repayable in a lump sum of £300 at the end of 12 months. Both of these loans have a flat rate interest charge of 20 per cent. Under the first loan, however, the borrower has the use of an average of £125 only available during the 12 month period. He is therefore getting less for his charges than the borrower under the second loan who has the use of the full £250 for the entire 12 month period. The effective annual rate of the "12 monthly instalments" loan would in fact be 41.2 per cent, while the effective annual rate of the "lump sum" loan would be 20 per cent.

Consequently there is at present a serious possibility of consumers being confused, or even misled by hidden charges, as to the true cost of the money they are borrowing. I am introducing this order to enable consumers to compare the cost of credit from different sources and consequently to eliminate the possibility of consumers being confused as to the true cost of credit.

The order will also require that, if an advertisement refers to the provision of goods or services on credit, the cash price and the credit price must be also shown, for example, "£50 deposit and 12 monthly payments of £20 — APR 20 per cent, Cash Price £267.70, Credit Price £290."

The order will not apply to free credit or, at present, to licensed banks because banks are exempted from the provisions of the Consumer Information Act, 1978, under which the order is being made. However, at present, banks generally use the APR system and with the co-operation of the Central Bank will continue to do so.

Moreover, enactment of the Restrictive Practices (Amendment) Bill, which is at Committee Stage in the House, will remove the exemption of licensed banks from the scope of the Consumer Information Act.

This order has been on the Order Paper of the Dáil since last March. It was prepared by the previous Government to deal with clear instances of abuse of people in impoverished circumstances. Those who have to rely on consumer credit are almost always people whose financial situation is very difficult, mostly people on social welfare, unemployment benefit, unemployment assistance, disability benefit and the like. They are the ones whose weekly income is so small that they cannot accumulate enough money to pay for goods when they want to get them and, as a result, have to accept consumer credit which, in the past, has tended to be at rates of interest hugely in excess of the rates of interest at which the same people could have borrowed money, for example, from a credit union or some other suitable source.

The order is therefore most welcome in that it would bring to the attention of people who are being induced to enter into consumer credit arrangements, the true rate of interest, not just on the initial sum but on the declining principal owing over the total period of the loan. It is to be hoped that people, in looking at the rate of interest they are actually being charged will, if they do not have enough money, consider obtaining it from another more competitive source such as a credit union where people usually provide assistance to one another for dealing with circumstances of this kind.

I am aware of cases in my own constituency where people are, for instance, buying their children's clothes by mail order on consumer credit, have got themselves into severe financial difficulty and found themselves without the basic necessities for daily living in terms of food and heat because of commitments entered into to obtain items like clothing on consumer credit. If those people had been wise enough and advised sufficiently well they could have obtained the money for the purpose if they had been a member of a credit union. I know I speak for all Members of this House in strongly endorsing the work of the credit union movement and expressing the hope that it will provide an alternative for people in difficult circumstances who need to buy large items like clothing or consumer durables so that they will seek the money from such a source rather than getting consumer credit unless the consumer credit is available on reasonable terms.

This order has been on the Order Paper of this House since last March. I suppose it is a reflection of the priorities of this House that it has lain there for all of this time without being debated or allowed to come into effect. Matters that affect people who are more privileged in our society, with greater access to the media and greater ability to arrange protests of one kind or another, would probably have been taken the week they were presented in the House. Unfortunately this order is of benefit to people who are relatively voiceless in our society. It is therefore interesting to note that this debate is being conducted in the presence of only four Members of the House, and in the total absence of the parties claiming to represent the least privileged in our society. This is a significant fact that should not be ignored.

Something we can discuss in greater detail when we come to deal with the Restrictive Practices (Amendment) Bill is that this delay in introducing this important measure results from the provision in the Consumer Information Act passed in 1978 which says that an order under that Act can only come into effect if it is confirmed by a debate and motion here in the House. That Act was passed by a Fianna Fáil Government but I have to admit that I was myself, as Minister of State or Parliamentary Secretary, responsible for the insertion of the requirement that such orders would need to be confirmed by a motion in the House. Frankly, in making that suggestion, I never envisaged that delays of this kind would occur. I therefore think it might be appropriate to revise this provision to allow for orders of that kind to be put through either on the basis of the normal 21 day rule or perhaps, in view of the less hurried agenda of the Seanad, a Seanad debate would suffice rather than having the order debated and passed in both Houses. In either event there is a need to look at the delays taking place.

Another possibility would be that a committee of the House would be allowed to pass such orders without the necessity of debating it in here. In the previous Dáil a committee on legislation existed which would have been quite suitable for that purpose. That has not been reconstituted in this Dáil but there is a possibility that the terms of reference of the joint committee on EC affairs which is already looking at statutory instruments of another kind might be extended to enable it to deal with obtaining approval of orders of this kind.

There are one or two observations I would like to make about the provisions of the order. It is an order under the Consumer Information Act. Therefore it relates to advertisements. As I understand it, these are advertisements publicly displayed. The Minister should consider also whether it would be appropriate to introduce an order under the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act stating that, unless such information has been provided as indicated here, the contract itself would be void. There is a possibility, given the limited resources of the Department — and I do not make any suggestion that these resources can at the moment be increased substantially — in regard to enforcing orders of this kind that it may, in fact, be ignored. As I understand it, the order simply provides criminal sanctions. It would seem more appropriate that if a person offering consumer credit fails to draw to the attention of the person receiving it the true rate of interest, the contract should be void and the person who had given the credit would not be able to enforce the collection of the loan. If that were the case, it would ensure that the giving of consumer credit on fraudulent terms simply would not occur. That would be a far more effective sanction than the provisions in regard to advertising contained in this order. I ask the Minister to consider that matter carefully.

Many people will obtain consumer credit or go looking for it not so much on the basis of advertisements but on the basis of personal contact. They may never see any of the advertisements required to be displayed under this order and may enter into an agreement on the basis of a simple conversation with the person concerned. I may be wrong and perhaps the Minister could confirm if I am wrong, but, as I understand it, this order does not apply to oral discussions between the offerer and the receiver of the credit. Am I right in that?

Then there is a case to extend the provisions to oral representation and simultaneously to say that unless the person offering the credit has positively drawn to the attention of the person receiving it the true rate of interest by, for instance, giving them a piece of paper containing the information, the contract will be void.

There is a provision in the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act, which I drafted as Minister of State although it was put through in 1980 by a subsequent Government that indicates the speed at which these things happen and which not only gives the Minister the power to require that certain contracts be in writing but also the power to require that that writing be in a certain size of type. A person entering into a consumer credit contract, possibly on exorbitant terms as to the rate of interest, should have a right to a written statement containing terms as set out in this order and those terms should be set forth in legible type, not in the conventional small print which is illegible without a magnifying glass. It is certainly so designed to ensure that people will not read it.

The Minister should use the powers he has — which, let me say, no Minister has used so far — to extend the provisions to the civil law. I must concede that while Minister for Industry and Commerce I did not introduce measures of that kind and regret I did not do so. I shall anticipate the Minister's making that point by making it for him, so that we need not get involved in who did what or did not do what and when, as the case may be. This is one of the disabilities of being a former Minister that in trying to be an Opposition spokesman invariably someone will ask why, you did not do it yourself? Having said that, there is a reasonable case for this measure. The powers do exist and I claim credit for having put the powers there in the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act.

It would be useful for the Minister, and a valuable supplement to this thoroughly welcome order, to ensure — and I sum up for the attention of the large Press Gallery listening to this debate — first, that a contract for consumer credit where the information as to the true rate of interest has not been given orally or in writing to the person entering into the contract shall be void; secondly, that those contracts be required to be in writing; thirdly, that the Minister use his powers to ensure that the writing be of a certain size so that people can read it. I argue that those measures would provide a very valuable benefit to the consumers in addition to what is here, remembering that the consumers who are to benefit under this order are people who are among the most disadvantaged in our society. I hope the Minister will be able, when replying, to give an assurance that further action along the lines I have suggested will be taken by him.

In conclusion, I welcome this order and hope that it will have a speedy passage.

I welcome this measure and hope it will succeed. In essence, it is about putting in place some form of protective system to ensure that the most vulnerable people in our society are not misled and exploited. Many of us have many examples, indeed, of that kind of abuse. Unfortunately, one of the aspects of our economic problems is precisely that, that there is an enormous number of people now who are extremely hard pressed who find themselves having to live from hand to mouth or on borrowed money. There is, therefore, fertile ground for those who want to abuse that opportunity for their own greedy needs. It is right, even if it late in the day, for us to respond as well as possible to that unfortunate threat.

The order is the minimal step we should take and I wonder whether we should go further in a number of respects. The purpose of this, essentially, is to lay before people the full facts relating to the true cost of borrowed money. If that is the case, then we must ensure that the order will be effective because it is, without any question of doubt, absolutely accurate to say that there are thousands of people at present who are in hock to financial institutions of one kind or another or to moneylenders of one kind or another and who do not fully appreciate the extent of the financial noose around their necks. They find themselves unable to extricate themselves from that predicament. Trying as they are, desperately in some cases, to raise the money to pay the ongoing instalments, they find themselves running very hard to stay precisely where they are. At the end of the day they still continue to owe a great amount.

I have met many people who after years of paying instalments which came to a multiple of the capital sum borrowed still found that they allegedly owed money in excess of the initial capital sum borrowed. Worse than that, they could not get any form of assistance, advice or access to information or to counsel which would give them some opportunity of dealing with some of the conglomerates involved here who, when it comes to the crunch, sometimes deal with people extremely heartlessly.

I wish there would be at some stage a discussion in this House on that whole area of money and its use, personal borrowings and the interest rates arising therefrom. It is not just those on the fringes of the financial markets and institutions about whom we are talking. We are talking about some of the respected names in that business, including the credit card companies, the banks and the moneylending agencies and others, many of whom have true interest rates which are extremely excessive and very hard to justify but justification is not called for because most people are not aware of it.

I do not want to delay the discussion this morning so I shall not go into this matter in the form of copious examples, but there are many one could give. Certainly, I can say sincerely and truthfully that my constituency is one of those that has suffered and is suffering the ravages of this kind of financial exploitation. I welcome the order and hope it will be effective. If some of us had our way, we might go a little further in trying to ensure that the scales are a little more balanced when it comes to dealing with some of the more rapacious elements in the business of lending money without any concern for the social consequences, the consequences on family life or other consequences. Basically, they keep those people on tap for years and milk them until they are virtually dry. At the end of the day they come down hard on them, if necessary. Unquestionably there is a need for this House and the Government to take sides in this unequal contest and I know which side we should take, obviously the side of the person who is open to that form of abuse and exploitation.

One of the suggestions that I would like to make is this. The order seems to be framed in regard to written, stated and printed advertisements. That is the phraseology used in the order itself and that is the proposal that is made. What about those advertisements or statements which are directed by means of radio or television or advertisements which are not advertisements as we know them traditionally but which essentially are making ploys and which might be open to argument as to whether they were advertisements? I seek clarification on that point because the spirit of this order is that wherever there is a communication about rates of interest the true cost should be brought home to the person who is about to embark on the borrowing of the money. Bear in mind, that in every case the person about to engage in the contract is a person who needs the money for some reason or other. They, obviously, do not have the money because if they had they would not be borrowing it. In other words, they are vulnerable and open to being seduced and sweet talked into going beyond what is right and suitable for them, although in some cases at present it is unquestionably out of necessity to keep a roof over a person's head or to keep food on the table so I can sympathise with them.

The order refers to the statement in the advertisement being given a certain kind of prominence. Paragraph 6 (2) refers to an advertisement displayed at a premises which refers directly or indirectly to the availability of credit. That is the general thrust. In view of the fact that we are likely to have a fair number of radio stations and other television stations perhaps in due course, I would like to know how we are going to deal with the challenge presented by a comprehensive range of, if I may call them, audio-visual advertisements and marketing ploys. In that context I am talking about information booklets which would not be advertisements per se but which undoubtedly in some cases would be more effective as selling aids. For example, some of the more seductive advertising by the banks is in the area of student loans but this would not come under the heading of advertising. The spirit of this order is, as I have said, to get across the true rate of interest in all cases. Therefore, if necessary I would like the order to be amended or extended to apply to all of these communication exchanges in whatever form or guise they take.

The order does not make adequate reference not just to the need for stating the true rate of interest but to ensuring that it is stated in such a way that it is either intelligible or visible. Reference is made in the order to the prominence which is appropriate. Nevertheless, I can visualise that one could have a display board in the corner of an office which gives a certain kind of prominence to the figures involved but where the overwhelming burden of the advertising thrust of the financial institution involved is such as to present that information in the small print. I would like to see the Minister making a serious assault on the fine print mentality, the over-riding purpose of which is to hide from the consumer the true effects and the full consequences of contracts and obligations entered into. Some of this fine print, without doubt, mitigates against the rights of a citizen and damages their capacity to act in law against those who might very well be engaged in this business.

I am troubled by the possibility, for example, that the minimal terms of the order could be met by a display notice put in some obscure corner of an office, perhaps behind a grill, where a person will not be able to see it and that other advertising forms would present the bald figures of the attractive net rate of interest without making any reference to the true cost of the credit involved. I am not sure whether the order is adequate in that respect although I sympathise with those who drafted it. The tables outlined at the back of the order involve all kinds of formulae. They are like a third level examination in mathematics. The point which needs to be borne in mind is that there is no point in making this order unless it is going to be effective and it gets across the information to the public. Let us see if we can abolish so far as possible the fine print which seeks to hide the full facts from people.

I often wonder whether there should be some form of temporary stay in the signing of contracts such as this. I am aware of cases where people were suddenly startled, even traumatised in some cases, by excessive demands made by corporate bodies. Indeed, this very week I heard of a case involving an elderly couple who repeatedly received extortion demands from the Revenue Commissioners which, as I was able to ascertain in an answer to a question I put in this House, were unjustified. There was not even an apology offered in that case. The point I am trying to make is that there are people who react in those circumstances by immediately going to some money-lending institution and perhaps in a semi-emotional way getting involved in obligations which are not capable of being met.

In this order there should be some provision for a breathing space between the initial contractual undertaking and the completion of that contract, even if it is only for a few days, to ensure that people would have a chance to think through the consequences armed as they should then be with all the facts in regard to the true rate of interest. Here again, I am troubled by the vulnerability of people who may suddenly find themselves as a party to a contract which in retrospect they would not have entered into had they had a chance to think in a non-emotional atmosphere outside of the environment in which people often borrow money.

I submit that under section 51 of the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act, 1980 that possibility does exist. I would like the Minister to comment on that aspect. The Minister said in his remarks that the order will not apply to free credit or the licensed banks at present because they are exempt from the provisions of the Consumer Information Act, 1978 under which this order is being made. Admittedly, the banks generally use the APR system and I am told that with the co-operation of the Central Bank they may continue to do so. However, in principle, I wonder whether it is right that there should be any exemption from one area of moneylending as opposed to any other. I am not sure whether it is justified merely by virtue of the practice which has been drawn up or by the convention which exists involving the Central Bank.

I was interested to note that the Consumers Association of Ireland for whose work we all owe a debt made that similar point. They are unconvinced that the banks should be exempt under the order. In a submission they made to the Minister's Department two years ago they said that the exemption from the Consumer Information Act of banks and finance houses licensed by the Central Bank should be deleted so that the requirements of the new order will apply to these institutions. The association did not agree that the Central Bank had been operating effectively in this area. The association said, "consider, for example, the undesirable wooing of students and others to the banking system and the practice of relegating information regarding the true rate of interest to small print notices in out of the way corners in most bank premises". I have much sympathy with the central point they are making, that the same standards should apply right across the board.

In the near future the building societies will be involved in banking practices and this will undoubtedly heat up the competitive environment in which banks and building societies operate. It will undoubtedly drive marketing managers to tear out more of their hair and get down to seeing how they can sell harder and bigger to anyone who wants to talk to them. The protective device of this order could and perhaps should be available to all people who borrow money, not merely those to whom the order is proposed to apply. Therefore, I ask the Minister to consider this exemption and see whether it is justified, particularly in view of the likely changes in the atmosphere and the competitive environment affecting the banks in the near future.

I do not know why this order should have to come before this House, and I made this point last week on a similar order. Again, it is an area of operational management which the Minister should be able to pursue without reference to having a debate here. If one of the parties involved wants to put down a Private Members' Motion or make an issue of it, fair and well. This order has the agreement of, I would say, everyone in the House. Yet, because it has not managed to squeeze into the Order Paper it has effectively been non-effective in some cases for over two years even though it was drafted initially in the term of the previous Government.

I wonder whether we need urgently some form of system here to make sure that Ministers can get on with their day-to-day job, introduce orders as they see fit and make the changes in respect of which they have a mandate so that this House can be reserved for significant legislative discussions which is what it should be about. If the Minister wants to make a change in this order in six months' time, I presume we will have to come back here. That is preposterous. I question the wisdom of using Dáil time in this way. As things stand, the Minister has to come in here and because of the way business is ordered this order, which in many respects is more significant for many of my constituents than much of the business we spent time on this week — though I do not deny that was very important — has been simply lying there. In the meantime people for whom I am responsible as a public representative have become embroiled in situations which this order might have helped them to avoid.

No number of orders we introduce here can protect people from the potential for exploitation which exists. This point is appropriate not necessarily to this Minister but in the general context. The fundamental way of arming people to ensure they do not become involved in the kind of entrapment we are talking about is through the educational process. Will the Minister consider having a chat with his ministerial colleague in Education in the context that probably there could not be a more important issue in the educational curriculum than information on the proper use of money be it in relation to savings, borrowings, house mortgage, insurance or any other area which most students have to face a very few years after they leave school? This measure is trying to deal with elements of abuse, but the fundamental way of dealing with it would be to ensure that people are armed by educational awareness to distance themselves from people who are in the business of abusing them financially. It is sad we do not do more in that respect. That is the kind of basic attack we should make to ensure that people by their own choice, using their own judgment, can make conscious, rational decisions and have the proper basic attitudes in respect of this area.

The reality is quite the opposite. I have often been startled by young people who get married after leaving school and have no idea regarding borrowing or the cost of money to buy furniture for a house or whatever. They may be aware of the root of a Latin verb but they find that they cannot cope with the real things of life and the real pressures on them because we have all failed to inculcate that awareness in them. However, I hope the order is successful.

I welcome this order. As the Minister knows, I introduced it in the Seanad when I was over there over a year ago and I was disappointed it did not come into force before now. I hope the Minister takes this as not just another order that must be got through but as the start of a real crusade to tidy up the whole area of credit and the access of consumers to a fair deal.

That started last week.

One very disappointing feature in the delay that has occurred is that even State bodies are ignoring the fact that this is on its way. I do not know whether the Minister received his ESB bill this month. I received mine, and they are offering credit and making no reference to APRs. Someone should inform the ESB, like other State bodies, that the Minister is serious about this issue. They should be leading the way and not waiting for legislation to come in to force them to give what is only reasonable treatment to consumers. When I was on the other side of this House I was interested in this issue and I tried to initiate a number of changes. One of the most important is to have a proper order dealing with consumer credit generally, outlining the sort of things mentioned in the House such as the need for written agreements and provisions in relation to early termination of agreements, outlining clearly the ownership position, giving a clear statement of site or handling charges that might come in and emphasising the right of people to records at all times in connection with their loan agreement.

This should come forward as an order of the Minister's own and not wait an interminable time before the EC gets around to getting something agreed through the intricate committees they have over there. One important aspect would be to have a cooling-off period. In the area of unsolicited loans it it crucial that consumers get an opportunity to have at least a week to reconsider. Many of the worst abuses of lending are where people have unsolicited loans. They have entered into them without adequate consideration. They have been approached when they were vulnerable coming up to Christmas or to a First Communion and they have had no opportunity either to get an agreement in writing or to have a cooling-off period built into the agreement to give them an opportunity to think again. That important improvement in this area would potentially root out a great deal of the abuse.

I want to consider how the order will deal with things like concealed collection and handling costs. I gather they will be entirely rolled up into the APR as calculated, but I would like an assurance on that point. I would also like the Minister to say how deposit requirements will be handled under this. A custom in some institutions is that if you are to get a loan you must have on deposit and continue to hold on deposit a certain sum. The effect of that, of course, is that it pushes up the APR quite dramatically. In an extreme case if you borrow £1,000 and are required to have £500 on deposit continuously, the terms of the interest rate will be calculated on £1,000 but in effect you will receive only £500. Potentially it has the power to double the rate of interest in that example.

I know that credit unions are the institutions who at present most frequently use this. It is based on the very good principle that people should have a saving record. At the same time it is important that the Minister, in specifying APRs, does not leave it open to other agencies who are not so scrupulous about their approach to lenders to use deposit requirements as a way of concealing that the true APR is much higher than the rate they quote. As I understand it, this provision would not prevent such a practice. If the Minister has not already built into the order something to deal with that I think he should consider doing so or consider what alternative powers he might have to prevent lending agencies circumventing the need to quote APRs by using that sort of a ploy.

I would like to see the Minister and his Department taking a much more up-front approach to the issue of credit and access to adequate information by families who are in credit difficulties. When I was Minister of State I initiated a move to have information leaflets available that would spell out for people the sources of different credit, how they would gain access to them, what requirements they would need to comply with and what the costs were. It is important to bear in mind that it is not an inability to pay that is at stake for people who get into the hands of moneylenders. As the Minister knows, sometimes they have to pay up to 200 per cent rates of interest. They have a proven ability to meet payments but they have not a track record or access to the more reputable areas of lending. The Minister can, through his Department, take a role in promoting access for ordinary families who do not have bank accounts and who are on a weekly wage, to get the sort of information and access to credit that they do not now have. When I was Minister of State I met with the banks and the credit unions, and the banks, in particular, expressed a willingness to change their approach in relation to small sums which admittedly is not a very highly profitable business for them. They were willing to look, on a pilot basis in difficult areas around the country, at an approach that would make lending more accessible to people who do not have a record with banking agencies and who at present are those most vulnerable to exploitative lending. I would like to see the Minister revive that initiative with the banks and see if he can put in place a series of pilot projects that would attempt to wean away from the illegitimate and drastically high-charging lending people who have genuine needs at Christmas and Communion time and so on.

I would like to refer to the whole issue of moneylending that is wrapped up with this. The Minister is in the course of preparing legislation and this is part of it. He is creating criminal offences for lending agencies, offences which under the present Moneylending Act are not criminal offences. In a very short period of time the legislation created by his Department will be the only effective legislation against moneylenders. The Moneylending Act will be passed out by the more modern provisions that he is introducing for all lending agencies. It will become a job for his Department to look at the issue of enforcement of the provisions which he is now planning not only in relation to the legitimate sector which he knows about but the area of moneylending which his Department have consistently avoided looking at.

It is a shame to see the Moneylending Act, with its gross deficiencies, languishing in the Department of Justice where I believe there is not the sort of real interest in consumer credit issues that is in the Minister's own Department nor the sort of expertise in dealing with these issues. I sincerely ask the Minister to consider taking the Moneylending Act into his Department. This is something the Minister for Justice has consistently advocated. The usual arguments provided against that is that the Minister's Department do not have experience in enforcement and the criminal offences that are tied up with moneylending. The Minister is creating criminal offences in the credit area, and he has created criminal offences in many other areas also, but that does not mean that he will become part of the Garda or that he will be in charge of enforcement. All I am asking is that the Minister who has the skills and the advice available to him to put together decent legislation to control the problem of moneylending should take on that task. That is not to take the job of enforcement away from the Garda but is to give them decent legislation so that they can do something about enforcing the law.

As the Minister well knows, the present moneylending legislation does not contain criminal offences for most of the things that we in this House regard as terrible abuses. It is not a criminal offence for a moneylender to charge 300 or 400 per cent for credit. All that means is that if the victim of that abuse took the moneylender to court the moneylender would not be able to enforce the loan. The Garda cannot take any action against that sort of practice on the basis of that legislation. They need legislation that creates criminal offences, in the way the Minister now intends doing, in many areas of credit. I ask the Minister not to close his mind to this question because it has an unseemly criminal undertone about it. I believe that it is his responsibility to create the environment where the least well off families can get a fair crack of the whip in relation to credit. He should not just confine his attention to those who are now able to deal with legitimate lending agencies. I appeal to the Minister to ensure that this order is one of a series of actions taken by him to make this a real crusade against unfair access for many families in the area of credit.

I thank the Deputies for contributing to the debate on this order. Like Deputy John Bruton I too share the concern that it has taken so long to get it to the stage of being passed through this House. This was started away back in 1974 by an advisory council but it is no reflection on anyone in the House or anyone connected with it that it has taken until now to come before the House. In 1981 the consumers' association highlighted it and it was published by the previous Government in October 1986 but it did not make it through the Dáil at that time. I was disappointed on the many occasions that I tried to get it through this House. I certainly share the views of the Deputies who said they did not know why it was put into the 1978 Act that these orders should have to come to this House for a full debate. They could quite easily have been dealt with outside the House and the opportunity could have been left open for debate if somebody wanted to question them as is the case with other orders. However, that would require amendment of the 1978 Act.

Deputy John Bruton asked about bringing a further order forward in relation to contracts and said it would get a speedy passage through the House. If I could rely on that I would be prepared to do it. I would like to remind Deputies Richard Bruton and John Bruton that the EC Directive on Consumer Credit has been agreed and we are working towards the implementation of it. I would certainly bring an order before the House if I thought I could rely on getting it speedily through the House. I hardly accept this order could have got through any earlier than by putting it in as part of the implementation of EC Consumer Directive. It has taken a long time to get it before the House and it is not for want of trying on my part that it was not before the House sooner. The same problems seem to have existed during the time of the previous Government when in October 1986 the order was there but was not passed.

The question of moneylending was raised by Deputy Richard Bruton who suggested I should take control of that area. I should like to tell him I do not have the opportunity to grab the Act governing that activity from the Department of Justice. He should know that as well as I do. I am aware that the Deputy had a question to the Minister for Justice on the matter but I did not see responsibility for the Act put on offer on that day. It is with the Department of Justice.

Perhaps the Minister will ask the Minister for Justice for that before the next Cabinet meeting or over coffee?

I will ask him and I will let the Deputy know how I get on. Departments are never too ready to throw away bits and pieces but in this case they may. The most I can tell the Deputy is that I will ask the Department of Justice about the matter.

Consistently that Department have been only too eager to get rid of it.

I do not know about that. Why is it that the Deputy, when he was in charge, did not take it if he was so eager? I should like to remind Deputy Keating who raised a number of points about banks that the Restrictive Practices (Amendment) Bill, 1987 which is at Committee Stage in the House will remove the exemption of licensed banks in relation to advertisements and bank charges. I hope we will be able to see that Bill through before the Christmas recess. I should like to tell Deputy Keating who referred to small print and so on that that point is dealt with in the order. In my view it is quite clear in the order that there will have to be prominent print.

Deputy Richard Bruton mentioned that the deposit requirement was not included in calculating the APR and he asked for clarification in regard to that matter. I have not seen the most recent ESB bill sent to our house but I will talk to my wife who usually pays our bill about the matter. I will see to it that it is brought to their notice immediately that they have to come in line when the order is passed by the House, like everybody else. Deputy Keating also raised a question about advertising. I should like to tell him that all types of advertising, in brochures, in newspapers, on radio and television are covered by the order.

It is regrettable that for something that impinges on the less well-off sections of our society we needed a long process to get this order together and through the House. Discussion on it should have started in 1974, it went on until 1981 and went through various Governments since until it was put on the Order Paper last March. I cannot say I am getting the order through as early as I would have liked or as early as I tried but at least it is through at last and we will make full use of it. This covers a very important area in relation to consumer protection and information. I have not been inactive in that very interesting area but a lot more work remains to be done. I will continue to do that work to the best of my ability.

Will the Minister consider an amendment to the Restrictive Practices (Amendment) Bill now before the House to speed up the order making powers under the Consumer Information Act? In that context is the Minister saying that he is favourably disposed to the idea of making void contracts in which the APR is not revealed as well as making it a criminal offence to fail to advertise the APR? Does the Minister agree with Deputy Richard Bruton that the APR should include deposit requirements and, if so, has he any intention of amending the present order to ensure that it does?

We will consider that. I am anxious to get that Bill through the House because a lot can be done with its existing provisions. If I were to consider amending it at this stage I wonder when I would get the Bill passed. We should be realistic about this. I would prefer to have the powers in the Bill as soon as possible and not to start drafting amendments at this stage because we would be pushing it back to God knows when.

I will draft an amendment for the Minister and have it for him on Monday. I take it the Minister will agree to such an amendment?

I am here to improve the Bill if possible. I cannot understand why it was put in in the first instance but the Deputy may have been part of that machinery. It amounts to an added burden and holds up orders in the House. I am certainly prepared to facilitate the Deputy in this regard.

If the Minister agrees to such an amendment we will not object.

What about the other Members who are not present?

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share