What does the Minister envisage in this section? The Minister is being given the power to decide that certain classes of persons shall not be regarded as engaging in the business of moneylending. Does she envisage some defects in the definitions which she may have to tidy up subsequently or is this a power which could potentially lead to patronage where people can be deemed not to be moneylenders even though by every other standard they are?
SECTION 95
Question proposed: "That section 95 stand part of the Bill."
No, it is a provision of the old Moneylenders Act. There is nothing untoward in it.
Can the Minister give an example of a circumstance in which she would decide to prescribe by regulation that a person is not to be regarded as a moneylender even though they fit the definitions as outlined?
It was a provision in the Moneylenders Act, 1933. When we were drafting this Bill and consulting with the Attorney General and the parliamentary draftsman, they drew sections from the old Act which they believed should be included in the new Consumer Credit Bill. I have a note on it here because I also queried it as it seemed vague. I was told it was a necessary part of the Moneylenders Act.
Were there any prescriptions made under the 1933 Act?
I was not informed of any.
I think that at one time I came across something about insurance companies being exempted.
There is nothing of an untoward nature implied in the section.
Is the use of the male species in subsection (2) line 1 politically correct?
The Minister for Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Taylor, is introducing a Bill to deal with these references.
Question put and agreed to.
I thank the Minister and the Members of the committee for their contributions to the debate.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
The Select Committee adjourned at 4.30 p.m.