There is no amendment to this Bill.
Pawnbrokers (Divisional Auctioneers) Bill, 1943—Committee and Subsequent Stages.
Leas-Chathaoirleach
Sections 1, 2 and 3 and the Title agreed to.
Question —"That the Bill be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass".
I wish to say that it was largely on my intervention that the Committee Stage of the Bill was allowed to remain over for an interval. I found it very difficult to get sufficient evidence to help to get the Bill amended because of the very nature of this pawnbroking business. Pawnbroking, to some extent, is the poor man's banking system, but in the case of a banker availed of by the more well-to-do, whenever he forecloses, the surplus of what is realised by the sale is handed over, while in the case of the pawn it is presumed that the difference between the amount loaned on the article and the amount realised on the sale is handed over to the pawnee. We have two civic officials whose duty it is to safeguard the interests of the people who have recourse to the pawn offices, and for many years, for one reason or another, the functions and duties of these people were not performed—certainly not performed effectively. Changes came about and it is possible that the people now feel that these officers would do their obvious duty to the poor who have, as I said, recourse to these pawn offices and take steps to ensure that any difference between the amount originally loaned, plus interest accrued, and the amount realised on the sale would be handed over to the people best entitled to it.
To give you one comparatively small illustration of what I mean: Quite recently you read in the papers that there was a pawnbrokers' auction and that several hundred bicycles were put up for sale. There was no bidding at all because the maximum price in each case, the controlled price of £8 10s., was bid for each bicycle. I do not know whether any member of this House has had to pawn a bicycle, but Senators may have known somebody who had to do it. The amount loaned is not more than £1, £2, or £3. There was a substantial margin over realised in these sales, but I am not in a position to say whether the people who originally pawned the bicycles got the difference to which they are entitled according to law. It is very doubtful if the amount was handed over. To my knowledge, that goes on to a very considerable extent and the only safeguard the people have are the two civic officials—the City Marshal and the Sword Bearer. They must be notified, and should be notified, of those sales and of the amount realised at them so that they can communicate with the people who pledge the goods, so as to give them an opportunity of redeeming them.
I wish to point out that this Bill is making a very important change. Originally, there were four divisional auctioneers each of whom was restricted in his activity to a certain area. One of these auctioneers was carrying on, somewhat illegally, outside his own division for a number of years. You can just imagine a publican selling drink illegally for a considerable time being found out and the law being amended to put it right for him. That would be somewhat similar to what is happening in this case.
It is not.
A new feature is brought into the law by this Bill. The pawnbroking business is interested in new premises in Capel Street. All the pawnbrokers are financially interested in it, and it is here we are going to organise an auction mart. No one needs a very strong imagination to realise that all these auctions will be diverted to this mart because of the financial interest, if for no other reason. Having got further control over these things, it is essential that protection should be given to people who have to pawn their property and who are not in a position, when the time comes, to redeem their pledges. Such people are entitled to get the margin of difference between what was originally loaned and what is realised at the sale. If they are sold, then the people should get the difference between the amount originally lent and the selling price. I think the authorising of sales removes a check or protection which the people had through those civil officers whom I have mentioned. At any rate, our whole method of dealing with pawnbroking is completely out of date. It has been going on for 200 years, and consequently is not at all suitable to modern conditions.
The Minister admitted in the Dáil that he had consulted certain interests, and that he was convinced that the pawnbrokers were benefactors. Now, I will not go into that matter, but I will say that, while we have restricted and limited moneylenders' interest, the pawnbrokers, through their regular weekly clients, have an interest of about 50 per cent. That is not allowed under any moneylenders Act or under any other Act. That is another aspect of this matter which requires to be gone into. I could go on at great length, but I suggest to the Minister that a revision of this whole pawnbroking business is very much overdue, and I certainly hope he will agree to the suggestion made in the Dáil to set up a committee of both Houses to inquire into this whole problem.
If the Minister is not prepared to go some distance to meet that suggestion, my colleagues and myself will vote against this Bill. I think the setting up of this joint committee to go into this whole question of pawnbroking is overdue. I may say in conclusion that time will show that this Bill is a mistake. We are creating a monopoly and placing that monopoly in the hands of the people concerned in the pawnbroking business. I think, as time goes on, that will become more apparent to the Minister and to everybody concerned. I sincerely hope that he will agree to the suggestion already made in the Dáil that this whole matter should be reviewed at the earliest possible date.
This Bill is not giving a monopoly to anybody. As I pointed out here on the last occasion, it is simply confirming a position that has existed for 80 years. On the general question raised by Senator Foran as to the notification of the person who has pledged goods that they are going to be sold, that is bound to be done, and, if it has not been done, it is the fault of the officials, whose duty it is to see that it is done. I do not know if I heard Senator Foran aright, but I understood him to say that it had been done in the past.
Well, to a very large extent, the thing lapsed.
Anyway, as far as the law is concerned, they are bound to notify those people who have pledged goods—that is if they can be traced— that the goods are to be sold, and then they are supposed to be paid the difference between what they got for them, plus interest and charges, and the amount realised through the sale. In any case, that is outside the scope of the Bill. We are not creating anything new. We are not taking any powers or fees away from those two officials. We are confirming a situation which has existed, apparently illegally, for about 80 years. Everybody was under the impression that it was all right until some delver in antique documents discovered that it was not all right. We are not quite sure really, because it was not tried in the courts. I am told that to trace even the actual divisions into which the City of Dublin was divided at that time would be a matter of great difficulty. Really, the thing is not clearly illegal, but its legality is questionable.
On the question of setting up a joint committee, I agree that it is time something was done about this whole business, and I have no objection to the setting up of a select committee to enquire into the matter, but I think this would not be a good time as both the Dáil and Seanad are about to go out of existence. As I have said, I think it ought to be done and I will commit myself, as far as I can, to have it done. The Government has agreed that a comprehensive Bill dealing with the whole question of pawnbroking should be introduced. It will take some time to prepare the Bill, and I think, possibly the setting up of a select committee of both Houses would be the most desirable way of settling the whole thing. Evidence could then be given from both sides. As far as I can at this stage commit the Government to it, I will say that I think that committee ought to be set up before the introduction of the comprehensive Bill to which I have referred. There will be some trouble in getting the Bill ready, and I think it should be preceded by such an enquiry by a select committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered: That the Bill be returned to the Dáil.