I move amendment No. 85:
In page 21, paragraph (c), line 1, to delete "84 and 85" and substitute "84, 85 and 87".
I am happy the Minister agrees with this amendment.
SECTION 18.
The amendment proposes to provide the consumer with maximum protection. Sections 84, 85 and 87 relate to existing moneylending arrangements and therefore cannot apply to moneylending agreements made before the Bill is enacted. The Deputy's amendment is similar to mine and is accepted. Section 87 deals——
I must first put the question on amendment No. 85.
The Minister was about to explain section 87 which is related.
The matters are related but we must deal with them separately. When we come to section 87 the Minister may explain it.
Here we are adding section 87 to the existing list of exemptions. The Minister was about to explain what this addition means and I would like to hear her comments before we agree to the amendment.
Section 87 deals with moneylending agreements which include collection charges. The section stipulates the option to make payments at the business premises of the moneylender and in such event the collection charge would not be payable by the consumer. As the stipulation would not apply to contracts entered into prior to its imposition its application to those contracts would be likely to cause confusion. It is preferable to allow changes of this nature to be phased in as new contracts are made. The time span involved in moneylending agreements is generally so short that the confusion caused would not be warranted. Section 84 provides for a repayment book and section 85 provides for the records to be maintained by a moneylender and to be inspected if necessary.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 86 and 87 are incorrectly numbered on the principal list of amendments. Amendment No. 86 should read No. 87 and vice versa.
I move amendment No. 86:
In page 21, line 3, to delete paragraph (d), and substitute the following:
"(d) Part IX (other than section 111) shall not apply to a housing loan.".
I understand that this amendment has a similar effect to the Minister's amendment No. 87.
My intention is to ensure that certain provisions will be enjoyed by persons whose housing loans predate the enactment of this Bill. Section 18 deals with the application of parts of the Bill to credit agreements made before its enactment. My proposal will improve the information to and protection of the consumer. I accept the merit of Deputy Rabbitte's amendment and I have encompassed his proposal in my amendment.
In that event I will withdraw my amendment in favour of the Minister's amendment.
Basically we are saying these sections will have to be complied with in the case of existing loans.
Yes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 87:
In page 21, paragraph (d), line 3, after "Part IX" to insert ", other than sections 98, 101, 107 (b), 110 (6), 111 and 113,".
This amendment encompasses Deputy Rabbitte's proposal and puts it in a wider framework. In most cases legislation cannot be retrospective. However, I intend to ensure that certain other provisions can be availed of by persons whose housing loans predate the enactment of this Bill. The areas in which I propose to provide retrospection are: redemption of housing loans, insurance of mortgaged property, information on outstanding balances, value of endowment policies and disclosure of penalties and protection of the borrower on winding up. A consumer already in receipt of an agreement under earlier arrangements, should have access to the information as outlined in the amendment. It gives much greater protection to the consumer, allowing hom or her to get certain information relating to the agreement.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 88:
In page 21, line 4, to delete "commencement" and substitute "passing".
The word "passing" is used instead of "commencement" arising from an earlier amendment which proposed the deletion of the date on which the Bill comes into operation — 1 June 1994. After the Seanad debate it was agreed to set a replacement date.
In providing for retrospection, I am conscious of the need in those areas for ongoing protection of the consumer and have chosen to apply the provisions of the Bill from the earliest date, notwithstanding what was decided later in regard to commencement.
Organisations and companies will need a lead-in to realise the effect of the Bill, as they will not be aware of its provisions until it is passed. There must be some time for people to get their houses in order. The words used in the amendment would put unnecessary pressure on people. I accept the Minister's intent but it could create serious problems. I am not sure the amendment would have the desired effect in practice.
Our intention is to seek to preserve consumers' rights and I intend to apply the retrospection provisions as quickly as possible. I accept the Deputy's point that organisations and institutions will need time to become familiar with the provisions of the Bill which, because of the extensive amendments involved, will require much consideration. I understand they are preparing for the legislation, but this issue will have to be considered again on Report Stage.
Even the Director of Consumer Affairs will need time to examine the legislation. Perhaps the more appropriate way to deal with the matter would be by way of regulation.
The thrust of the amendment seeks to bring the provisions into play as quickly as possible. A lead-in time for institutions, persons and bodies and, not least, the director who will have the major responsibility for the enforcement of the legislation, should be allowed under regulation. He is already in active consultation with the Department and, quite rightly, is demanding this and that as he will have the power under the Bill. I accept what the Deputy said but I am inserting this provision because it is in tandem with what he did earlier. We will have to look again at this and deal with it by way of regulations.
Will we look at this again on Report Stage?
Yes.
I would prefer if the commencement of this Act was phrased along the following lines: "before such date or dates as may be specified by regulations by the Minister after consultation with the Director".
I am anxious to keep the spirit of the first amendment which I accepted while at the same time being sensible and practical about the implementation of the legislation. I see clearly that there could be conflicting views in some instances. I undertake to have a full discussion on that matter and the necessity for different types of regulations.
What is the meaning of "commencement" as in the Bill?
We propose to delete the word, "commencement".
I appreciate that but if there is a difference worthy of debate what does "commencement" mean?
As I see it "commencement" would mean that the Bill is now in force. The question that arises is that if the Bill is in force can it be enforced? When the Bill is on the Statute Book, it is in force but to have it enforced we must ensure that everybody has the requisite information, machinery and all other arrangements to enforce it.
I do not recall the term "passing" as one we frequently use. I would have thought the term "enacted"——
Or enforced.
Frequently in a Bill there is a commencement date.
At the outset, probably wishful thinking on our part, we set the commencement date at 1 June 1994, which was too early.
In Part I, the interpretation section, I do not see a specific provision for a commencment date. To be honest I cannot follow the difference between——
On page 8, section 1 (2) states: "This Act shall come into operation on the 1st day of June, 1994".
On that point Chairman, we spent 15 minutes discussing the word "deliberate". I do not wish to disrupt the progress of the Bill but I suggest the word implementation is the best word in the context, that is, that the Bill is enacted and implemented.
Deputy Cullen has made a good point on the transitional period and it is important that the Minister uses this transitional period to ensure that everybody understands fully the implications of the Bill. The point the Deputy is making is that during that transitional period he would not like to see frivolous or vexatious claims being made or applications to the court to disrupt the progress of the Bill on the grounds that the provisions of the Bill were not fully understood.
My understanding is that during an earlier debate the Minister agreed to substitute another commencement date at a later stage for the date specified in section 1 (2).
What I said is that this would be done after we had our debate in the Seanad.
Yes, but the Minister now appears to be going back from ordering a commencement date under section 1, which I thought was the agreement, to saying that it will be from the date of the passage of the Act. It is a slight change but the original formulation where the Minister would specify a date before we left the House was a better one as everybody would know where they stood.
We understand from the Attorney General's office the commencement date would be the date on which the Bill would be in force and must be complied with. We have to insert the word "passing" because as yet we do not know when the debate on this Bill will be completed and if the debate so far is anything to go by it could take some time. That does not take away from the fact that we will bring in a realistic commencement date at the close of the debate in the Seanad — if there are not Seanad amendments to be debated in this House — which there may well be.
That brings us full circle.
It is not in conflict with our proposals to insert a commencement date. The commencement date means that the Bill must be enacted by that date and clearly there would be some difficulties in regard to institutions and bodies. At the point we set a commencement date, we will be able to make regulations under it allowing for a lead in time. We have to use the word "passing" as we do not yet have that date because it will be set at the end of the Seanad debate.
It will be open to us on Report Stage to consider an amendment which will set out an appropriate date and, presumably, the Bill will get a speedy passage through the Seanad.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 89:
In page 21, line 4, after "Act" to insert "unless the terms of the credit agreement will run for five or more years from said commencement".
This amendment was linked to Deputy Rabbitte's earlier amendment. Long-term loans, if they are going to run for more than five years after the commencement of the Act, should have to comply with the new provisions and, effectively, be treated as if they were new loans. The Minister has made substantial changes in respect of house loans — the ones we would really be concerned with — and, therefore, I am not that worried about them. Do Parts III and IV deal with credit and hire purchase agreements, in particular long term hire purchase agreements?
We will be dealing with that issue when we come to that section. I take the Deputy's point. What the Deputy is seeking in this amendment has in the main overcome by the amendments Deputy Rabbitte and I tabled. The Deputy was putting a limit on the five years retrospectivity.
I was applying it also to the loans covered in Parts III and IV of the Bill. Is the Minister happy that no loans under Parts III and IV would be of such duration that the restropective provisions should apply?
I note the Deputy's point. However, the loans covered by Parts III and IV are generally short term and I think housing loans are the only long term credit agreement encompassed by the Bill. We have covered them reasonably adequately in the earlier amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 90:
In page 21, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following subsection:
"(2) The Hire-Purchase Acts, 1946 to 1980, shall continue to apply to any hire-purchase agreement or credit-sale agreement (within the meaning of the Hire-Purchase Act, 1946) made before the passing of this Act which is still in force after its passing notwithstanding the repeal of those Acts by section 20.
The amendment is procedural and ensures that the provisions of the Hire-Purchase Acts, 1946 to 1980, will continue to apply to hire purchase agreements made before the passing of this Act, notwithstanding that we have in this Bill repealed those Acts. Congruent with repealing the Acts, we are leaving in place the provisions of those earlier credit agreements entered into by the Acts.
It seems sensible that we do not demolish previous provisions.
We cannot do that.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 18, as amended, agreed to.