This matter first arose when a Moneylenders Bill was introduced as a private measure in 1929. After going as far as Second Reading in the Dáil, it was referred to a Select Committee of the House. That Select Committee, which was representative of all Parties, examined the question very closely and in very great detail and a considerable volume of evidence was given before it. They reported back in, I think, December, 1931, but before their recommendations could be embodied in a Bill, the Dáil dissolved and, consequently, the Bill had to be re-introduced. Before much progress was made, however, the Dáil again dissolved and we are now in the position of trying to get it through. It is not, I trust, a contentious measure. It is a measure which has been accepted by the Government and which is carrying out in every way the recommendations made by that Select Committee. We have followed all the recommendations made and embodied them in this Bill. I think that the evidence tendered before that Committee should satisfy us that a necessity exists for such a measure. In 1927, a Bill was introduced and passed in the British Parliament on practically similar lines to the Bill now before the House for consideration. A Bill on practically the same lines has also been passed through the Northern Ireland Parliament. The main difference in the Bills is the rate of interest. In the British Act and in the other Act, the interest is fixed at 48 per cent. The recommendation here was that the interest should be 39 per cent., and that is the provision embodied in the Bill.
Moneylenders (No. 2) Bill, 1933—Second Stage.
You could float a loan on that.
I do not know how exactly they work that out, but from the evidence before them the committee was, apparently, satisfied that that was the rate that should be fixed. It would not be for me to say whether that was wrong or otherwise. The position with regard to moneylenders was an unsatisfactory position. It was based practically entirely on the Act of 1900, and experience and the evidence given before the committee have shown that it did not provide sufficient safeguards. Moneylenders had to apply for the licence and, provided they paid the fee, the Revenue Commissioners had no power to refuse a licence. There were no special grounds that would enable a licence to be refused provided the necessary fee was paid. In addition, the licence had not to be renewed for three years but, under the provisions of this Bill, it is provided that a moneylender must apply to the Revenue Commissioners, and if the period of the licence is less than a year, expiring on 1st July, the fee is £10, and for the whole year, expiring on 31st July, £15. The fees to be paid are set out in the Finance Act. Having got a certificate from the Revenue Commissioners, the moneylender has to go before a district justice and various grounds on which he can refuse a licence are set out.
Deputy Mulcahy in the Dáil put forward certain amendments—he suggested them on Committee Stage and moved them on Report Stage—but those amendments could not, in the form in which they were at the time, be embodied in the Bill without consequential amendments. I, however, undertook to have them embodied together with the necessary consequential amendments. These amendments, which dealt with the question of Irish nationals, are now embodied in the Bill. The amendments had relation to the grounds on which a district justice could refuse a licence. There is also provision in the Bill for suspension and the forfeiture of moneylenders' certificates, and it provides that particulars must be furnished to any person who has had a loan setting out the interest due, the principal, and so on. The Bill imposes restrictions on moneylenders advertising and, in that connection, I might mention that before the Moneylenders Bill was first introduced, a Bill dealing with the question of canvassing and advertising by moneylenders was introduced by the late Deputy Bryan Cooper. That is being embodied in this Bill, which also sets out the form in which moneylenders' contracts must be made out. I do not think there is any other matter to which I need refer at this stage, but if any Senator would like any matter cleared up I can deal with it at a later stage.
I think the Bill generally will be acceptable. I query the 39 per cent. as being too high but as it was recommended by the Committee I am not sure that we ought to go very far in the direction of reducing it. There are two small points to which I would ask the Minister to direct some attention between now and the Committee Stage. It has been submitted to me—I cannot say by responsible organisations of any kind but by individuals—that it has been the practice of moneylenders in Dublin, and, perhaps, some other towns, to use the Sunday as the day on which to go down to the wife and press for their instalments, having a better chance of catching the husband at home on that day and, in that way, coercing the wife into paying up. I have been urged to get an amendment inserted to make it an offence not merely to carry on business in the sense of lending out money but to collect or to attempt to collect money on a Sunday, Christmas Day, Good Friday or St. Patrick's Day. I have also been asked whether it would be possible to make an offence the deduction of the first instalment of interest at the time of the lending of the original principal. That is a device—in fact, a trick—whereby borrowers are led to believe that they are paying a certain rate of interest when they are, in fact, paying a much higher rate than appears on the surface. I have no very definite amendments in mind in regard to these points but I raise them as requested for the Minister's consideration as to whether it would be possible to amend the Bill to prohibit these practices.
I will have the matter inquired into but I think that the practice of calling on Sundays would be open to the interpretation of carrying on business. Collection is as much a part of the business as the actual lending of the money but I will have the matter looked into. As to the question of the high interest, the rate of 39 per cent. is given to the court only as an idea and it does not bind the court to allow the 39 per cent. As the law stood under the 1900 Act, the court could not interfere unless it was satisfied that the transaction was harsh and unconscionable and that the interest charged was excessive but the court can still hold, in the circumstances of any transaction, that although the interest was under 39 per cent. the transaction is harsh and unconscionable and the interest charged is excessive. I think that meets the point that Senator Johnson has in mind.
Cathaoirleach
Would Thursday suit you for Committee Stage, Senator?
It would suit me.