asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he is aware of the hearing of an application for a certificate for a moneylender's licence at Wexford District Court in September last on behalf of a person (details supplied) in County Wexford during which evidence was given that the applicant has taken a children's allowance book as security for a loan; the action he intends to take arising from this evidence; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Moneylender's Licence.
6.
The information furnished by the Deputy is the first intimation that the Department have had about the occurrence in question. A full investigation of the case has since been carried out and the Department are satisfied that no loan was given in the particular case and accordingly that an allowance book had not been used as security. In the circumstances no further action is warranted.
I wonder if the Minister is speaking about the correct case? I refer to a report in The Wexford People which said that in evidence in an application for a renewal of a moneylender's licence the postmistress concerned refused to pay the moneylender because he was not the correct person to receive the money. Clearly the book was valid and money was due on it.
Taking an allowance book or pension book in pawn or as security for a loan is an offence under the Social Welfare Acts. Where cases come to light they are investigated and prosecutions are taken where appropriate. The Department were not aware of the case outlined by the Deputy until the parliamentary question was raised. However, the matter has been fully investigated and the circumstances were fully examined. On the evidence available the allowance book was not taken as collateral for a loan and, therefore, there is not sufficient evidence available to support a prosecution in the case against him.
We seem to be at cross purposes here. The report in The Wexford People clearly states that the woman in whose name the allowance book was said in court, presumably under oath, that she had given the allowance book to the moneylender for him to collect the money against a loan he had advanced to her, and that the postmistress on the last occasion on which he had tendered the book had refused to pay the money to him because she considered he was not the person who was entitled to the money. In summing up the case the judge said that the only unsavoury aspect of the man's conduct was the taking of a children's allowance book from a customer.
As I said, on the evidence available the allowance book was not taken as collateral for a loan by the person described as a moneylender. The matter came before the courts by way of the application of the person concerned for renewal of the moneylender's licence. The application was granted. The social welfare officer established that the holder of the children's allowance book worked for the moneylender but that she did not borrow money or seek a loan from him. The claimant did obtain money from this gentleman's wife and at some stage gave her book to her to effect repayment. This was an informal private arrangement and the book has since been returned to the claimant, who has continued to draw the allowance since then.
There have also been media reports alleging moneylending offences in Galway but no specific complaints have been made which would enable action to be taken in the matter.
A Cheann Comhairle——
This is the last question. There is much repetition and we cannot have a trial here.
According to the newspaper report a witness in court stated under oath that she had given her children's allowance book to the applicant for the moneylender's licence and that he had collected the money as a monthly repayment on a loan she had received. Yet the Minister tells us that according to the inquiries of the Department's inspector no loan was advanced. Is the Minister satisfied that the Department are acting responsibly in allowing this type of practice to continue? They are in effect allowing these people to get into the clutches of moneylenders. Does he not feel that some effective action should be taken to ensure that people are not caught up in this way and that bland replies which contradict sworn evidence in court are not adequate? Does he not consider that firmer action should be taken to stop this practice?
When cases come to light they are investigated and prosecutions are initiated where appropriate. The Sunday World on 6 January 1985 carried a report alleging widespread offences of that nature on the part of the postmaster at Shankill post office. This case has been investigated by An Post. The Director of Public Prosecutions was consulted and he advised against prosecution. The latest prosecution was in 1983 in the case of a midlands finance company.
My information in this case is that payment was not made to this person and that the postmistress refused to cash the orders in the book. The claimant herself subsequently cashed them and has continued to do so.