asked the Minister for Finance if he is aware of the extreme hardship caused by the operation of Section 15 (2) of the Local Loans Fund Act, 1935, and if he will consider introducing amending legislation to remedy the position.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Local Loans Fund.
I am not aware that, in its general application, the provision referred to by the Deputy, which allows a month's grace before interest is charged on overdue payments, has operated harshly or unfairly and I do not propose to introduce amending legislation. If interest were not so charged, defaulting borrowers would receive a gratutious advantage over those who meet their obligations promptly.
Does the Minister consider it fair that the loan of £280 taken by a man in 1926 should, due to the death of that man and the subsequent trouble his widow and family had in paying the loan, now involve the repayment of a further sum of £355, and is he aware that the widow has been informed that she must pay a half-yearly instalment of £9 1s. 4d. until 1963, which will bring the original sum of £280 up to a total of £812? Does he consider that is something that should be allowed to continue?
I do not think what has been stated by the Deputy in the early portion of his supplementary question is quite correct. The position is governed by statute and neither I nor the trustees of the fund have any discretion in the matter. The Deputy will also appreciate that, if payments were not made punctually, the resultant interest charge to make good the default would fall on borrowers who do repay promptly.
Since the Minister states that he has no function in the matter, due to the way in which the legislation is framed, would he not consider introducing amending legislation so that exceptional cases like this could be dealt with? Surely this can be termed usury—when a sum of £280 can be increased to £812 through no fault of the borrower?
I am afraid it would not be possible to introduce general legislation to cover a few individual cases.