I propose that the Moneylenders Bill be referred to a Special Committee of eleven members of this House for the purpose of amendment.
Moneylenders Bill, 1929.
I am afraid I cannot agree with Deputy Little's proposition. It seems to me that this is eminently a Bill which should go before a Select Committee which would have power to inquire into the whole matter and, if necessary, to call witnesses before it. This Moneylenders Bill is a matter, I think, that requires the fullest consideration. The Bill, as introduced, is the British Act with practically no amendment. It does not follow at all that that Act would be suited to the requirements of our country, and I would submit to the House that there should be a real, searching investigation into the methods of dealing with such abuses as exist in this country. In order to do that, I would submit to the House that it would be necessary to have a Select Committee. For instance, I heard the other night on the Second Reading debate, certain speeches made which seemed to show that there were evils here that this Bill does not cope with. I would suggest to the House that a Select Committee that would go into the whole of this question and see what the evils are and how far this Bill is capable of coping with them would be the wisest course.
I do not want to take up the time of the House, but I think we have not been fairly treated on this matter. This Bill was on the Order Paper before Christmas and it has been printed since before Christmas. So that the Minister had time to have made up his mind on the matter long ago. Now after he has agreed to the principle of the Bill— after he has agreed to the Second Reading—he comes along with a suggestion that is not in the nature of legislation at all. I would like to see the Bill as perfect as possible, and if the Minister could give us an assurance that the inquiry would be expedited I would be agreeable. There is really little for the Committee to do. Moneylending conditions apply very largely to cities and the conditions here are almost the same as in Liverpool and other cities. The adaptation of British legislation is a simple thing at present because we are so close to the old regime when Bills applied automatically to the country.
May I inform the Deputy that my suggestion is that the Bill be sent to a Select Committee of the House instead of a Special Committee? A Select Committee would have greater powers than the Committee he suggests. As regards the suggestion that I have wasted time, this is the first opportunity I have had to suggest a Select Committee.
I understand that a Select Committee holds an inquiry and makes recommendations. Does the Select Committee hold an inquiry and then amend the Bill?
It can do both. The principal difference between a Special Committee and a Select Committee is that the Select Committee, as the resolution would state, would have power to send for persons, papers and records, which means that a Select Committee can take evidence, and it can, if it so desires, hear counsel. It can then report to the House without amending the Bill or it can amend the Bill. The main difference is that it can hear evidence and hear counsel.
Provided the Committee is given power to make amendments, I am satisfied.
That is the Standing Order.
This is really opposed business, and we will have to put Deputy Little's motion on the Paper and have an amendment from the Minister for Justice.
I will put forward a motion.