Select Committee on Enterprise and Economic Strategy díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 6 Sep 1994

SECTION 1.

Mr. R. Bruton

I move amendment No. 193:

In page 44, subsection (1), line 32, after "Director" to insert "having taken due regard of any objection by a third party to the issue of a licence,".

This amendment relates to occasions when the Director of Consumer Affairs is examining applications of prospective moneylenders. The amendment seeks to ensure that before a licence is granted, the Director would take due regard of any objection by a third party to the issue of the licence. Under the proposed legislation, the Director of Consumer Affairs has discretion to refuse to grant a licence if, in the opinion of the Director, the applicant is not a fit and proper person to carry on the business of moneylending. If the Director is to form such an opinion, there must be some procedure whereby third party comment and views may be made known so as to inform the Director of misdemeanours which may render the person unsuitable to carry on the business of moneylending. That is why Deputy Rabbitte and I tabled a late amendment seeking that the application of a person applying for a moneylenders licence be advertised in the newspapers. It should be like the planning system where people are aware a person has applied. If there are reasons relating to the gardaí or which consumers wish to bring to the attention of the Director, there should be an opportunity for them to be heard. It should be left open to the Director to establish a method to hear a third party objection.

Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise and Employment (Mrs. O'Rourke)

I take the point made by Deputy Bruton, that there should be a mechanism whereby third party objections may be heard prior to the granting of a licence. Obviously, during the course of his business, the Director will know many of the applicants from his investigations. This is a reasonable amendment, which I am prepared to accept.

Mr. R. Bruton

I thank the Minister for accepting my amendment.

Miss Quill

I am unclear about what this amendment would add to the rights of the consumer, in what way it would make the Director of Consumer Affairs more efficient in the discharge of his duties or in what way it would make the business of legal moneylending more efficient and amenable to the public. We are taking a major step forward in matters of consumer affairs with the appointment of the Director of Consumer Affairs. He will become — I understand he already is — a leading expert on matters relating to moneylending and matters which deal with all aspects of credit in that respect. In the course of becoming an expert, he will accumulate masses of knowledge from all sources to enable him to discharge the functions we are giving him.

There is no reason why a citizen cannot make an objection in the manner envisaged in this amendment. If this amendment is accepted — the Minister has said she will do so — it would require the Director to take heed of any objection whatever the motivation; it might be a vexatious complaint or one from a rival in the business who wants to put an existing moneylender out of business. If the Director fails to do so he would be open to a risk of legal attack. A third party could resort to this if he felt his view had not be taken into account. This amendment is unnecessary. The list of grounds for refusal of a licence is comprehensive and cannot be ignored by the Director. I do not foresee how "Seán Citizen" could for any good motive anticipate other grounds which have not been included in the Bill. When this Bill is implemented, people will be free to contact the Director in his office at any time about the activities of any moneylender. The Director will take these things into account when granting a licence which is when these objections should be taken into account. If this amendment is accepted, it will be impossible for the Director to ignore a spurious complaint. It is appropriate that the Director only take into account well-founded objections when granting a licence. That is the proper way to proceed with the implementation of this Bill.

I see no merit in accepting this amendment because it would slow up the work of the Director and foul up his job. If the Director had to deal with objections from the public for spurious reasons, or for no reason, we would probably be called on to give him additional resources which we may not be able to provide. It is a foolish amendment and I appeal to other Members to give their opinion. Will the Minister reconsider her response in the light of what I have said?

At the end of the day we are attempting to pass legislation which will best serve the needs of the consumer. However, we must have legislation which can be implemented and which is enforceable. When we set up an Office of the Director of Consumer Affairs, we must ensure it does not get so bogged down and overburdened with spurious complaints that it is not possible for the Director and his staff to discharge their duties under this Bill. I appeal to the Minister to think again and to consider the effect of this amendment if it becomes law.

The day-to-day activities of legal moneylenders will be monitored by the office and staff of the Director, the proper people to do so. The job should not be given to any person with casual or malicious motivation. Why should we set up a parallel procedure so that anybody with or without motive may set themselves up as monitors, file complaints and require the Director to waste valuable time taking their third party complaints into account?

The Director will have the information he needs at his fingertips. He will be the best versed citizen in matters of consumer credit and the operation of legal moneylending. Nobody will equal him and that is what is at the heart of this Bill. We should have faith in the way he will discharge his duties and in his office. We should pass legislation which will work well. I plead with Deputy Bruton to think about what I have said and try to convince me, and other Members, what practical purpose will be served by the implementation of his amendment. Who will benefit from it and what will be the overall benefit to consumers? I remain to be convinced and I ask him to withdraw this amendment.

Mr. R. Bruton

I rarely heard such a hysterical reaction to a modicum of opportunity given to consumers to comment on an application for a moneylenders licence. The Deputy suggests it will be impossible for the Director to ignore vexatious or spurious objections. I have never encountered an official body which finds it impossible to ignore spurious objections when dealing with applications. It is quite common for spurious objections to be raised and dealt with in the appropriate manner by the Director of Consumer Affairs, planning authorities and many other bodies.

The Director is obliged by the Bill to form an opinion as to whether an applicant is a fit and proper person to carry on the business of moneylending. When a person applies for a licence he or she will fill out an application form in accordance with the legislation. The Director will not have local knowledge as to whether this person, for example, has engaged in abuses. Such material information might influence his decision as to whether he should grant a licence. Many groups working in our community deal daily with the problems caused by moneylending. The gardaí, for example, deal with suspected cases or cases where there has been trouble. It is important that people have the right, either directly or through a group acting on their behalf, to bring to the Director's attention matters which they believe to be material to the applicant's suitability to be a moneylender. The Director clearly has a responsibility to dismiss vexatious or spurious information. However, he also has an obligation to take into account detailed local knowledge that could not be available to him other than through sources such as third parties.

Deputy Quill must not have given consideration to this. In virtually any instance where licences are being renewed there is an opportunity for third parties to raise objections to the way an applicant has been conducting his affairs. The Director will not, as the Deputy suggests, monitor the day-to-day activities of each moneylender. That is not his duty. He has a supervisory duty. There will be, perhaps, thousands of such moneylenders in operation. I am confident that the Director will dismiss out of hand spurious or vexatious objections. However, I am also confident that, if serious matters are brought to the Director's attention, he will examine them and take them into account.

What is being sought will not greatly complicate the matter. I do not envisage a rash of third party objections. However, the public will have the opportunity — short of approaching the Director and resorting to the courts — to bring to the Director's attention matters of which he should be aware. There are too many abuses in this area which we want to prevent recurring. We also want the public to have confidence in those who become legal moneylenders. The objections raised by Deputy Quill do not have sufficient foundation to alter my view that this is a worth-while improvement.

Mr. Crawford

I support Deputy Bruton's efforts to clarify and improve this Bill. He has put enormous effort and thought into his proposal. It is rational and realistic. I also compliment the Minister on her positive attitude towards an amendment which will improve the Bill. I cannot understand Deputy Quill's objection. The amendment simply allows people to raise questions rather than be obliged to take legal action. We have enough experience of such cases in the recent past to wish to avoid them at all costs. It is easier to close the door while the horse is in the stable. I ask that Deputy Bruton's amendment be accepted.

Mr. R. Burke

We are dealing with the overall role of the Director in addition to third party objections. I am concerned about the effect this will have not only on moneylenders but on a section of our community which has acted very responsibly through the years represented by the Irish Pawnbrokers' Association. There are only four or five members in the association now and they are concerned with this issue and the issues raised by Members.

They operate as moneylenders when lending sums which are above the present pawnbrokers' limit which I hope the Minister will raise from the £500 specified in the Bill. The increase will have an effect on the amendment we are discussing. The limit is too small and should be increased to a minimum of £10,000 which will be index linked to reflect the changing value of money. At present pawnbrokers operate under the 1964 Act which gives better protection to customers than is the intention in this legislation.

Some of the problems outlined by Deputy Quill which Deputy Bruton seeks to tackle in the amendment affect pawnbrokers. The Minister should take this opportunity to examine the limits. The present limit will create greater problems for consumers than an increased limit of £10,000. In the UK the limit is £15,000. It represents only 5 per cent of the overall business of members of the Pawnbrokers' Association but it is an important 5 per cent. Their business is changing and has changed dramatically since the introduction of the 1964 legislation. The Minister should listen to the representations made on their behalf.

We will have an opportunity to deal with this in greater detail on the Sixth Schedule. I mention it now so that the Minister can give us some indication of her thinking on the matter.

Miss Quill

I agree with Deputy Bruton that there have been abuses in the moneylending sector. However, they occurred in the area of illegal moneylending. In this Bill we are discussing the role of the Director of Consumer Affairs in dealing with legal moneylenders.

In the course of our delibarations it has been my impression that we are talking about legal moneylenders as if they were illegal moneylenders. In some of the amendments it appears that we want tougher measures for legal moneylenders than for illegal moneylenders. There is little in this Bill with the exception of my amendments which we will discuss later, that gives greater powers to the Garda. There are few additional powers to curb or to curtail the activities of illegal moneylenders.

Mrs. O'Rourke

That is not true. That is absolute nonsense.

Miss Quill

They can act entirely outside the law in their lending, the rate of interest they charge and in recovering loans. They are the ones for whom we must frame very tough laws. We need another set of procedures to regulate and control legal moneylending. We must have a different approach. In this amendment the words "having taken due regard to any objection by a third party to the issue of a licence", are included. The Director must have due regard to any objection without qualification. Will we require the Director of Public Prosecutions to consider an objection whether or not it is supported by evidence of any kind? If we are, we will slow down substantially the workload in his office.

I do not see any merit in this amendment. The Director of Consumer Affairs will have a detailed knowledge of the collected credit sector. We should leave to him the discretion to deal with this matter and we should recognise and admit that there is no real merit in this amendment and that accepting it may involve a risk. The third party, finding that his objection has not been taken into account, may resort to an action against the Director and that would put the Director in an invidious position. We should seek to avoid that. We should think the implications of this amendment out very clearly.

Chairman

When the next speaker has concluded I would like to put the amendment. If Deputy Quill desires, she is free to submit an amendment on Report Stage. The body of opinion seems to be in favour of accepting the amendment and the Minister has indicated that she will accept it.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I reserve the right to reply.

Mr. Sheehan

I too support this amendment. There is nothing to fear from it. I am amazed to hear Deputy Quill stating this could have serious implications for legal moneylenders. The public must be safeguarded. Properly authorised moneylenders need not fear any action by virtue of the fact that this amendment is incorporated in the Bill. Deputy Bruton's amendment is a safeguard to which the public are entitled. The wording "having taken due regard of any objection by a third party to the issue of a licence", means that a third party will have a right at all times to place statements on record and the Director will be obliged to take these statements into consideration. I cannot see anything wrong with including safeguards for the general public who will pay the bill. The person taking the loan from the moneylender will pay and is entitled to be safeguarded. I have great pleasure in supporting this amendment which I hope the Minister will accept.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I indicated that I accept this amendment. It makes sense. I sought to improve the Bill by proposing amendments and accepting those proposed by interested Deputies. If an amendment served a purpose and was common sense I have been willing to accept it.

I do not know why we need high drama for a very simple amendment. Deputy Quill said that the Director of Consumer Affairs is or will be the best versed person in the country on consumers' interests and on legal moneylending. One person cannot know everything, but surely a person with such vast experience as he has will be able to separate the wheat from the chaff, the spurious from the sensible. A person like him with a trained disciplined mind and with staff who are trained likewise will in the nature of his daily work be the recipient of complaints from all types of people and it is up to him at all times to decide which complaints will be pursued and which will not. I strongly emphasise that the central core of this Bill is to differentiate clearly the legal moneylenders from the illegal moneylenders. It is incorrect of Deputy Quill to say that this Bill contains nothing which will make that difference. The section we are discussing shows very clearly what the licensed moneylender must do to gain his or her licence and the way a licence will be renewed each year etc.

Deputy Burke pointed to the need to look at raising the old pawnbrokers' limit of £500. That will be discussed when the Sixth Schedule is being debated. We do not have sole right to decide these matters and at present my officials are in consultation with the Department of Justice on this matter as the Deputy knows. I am aware that the limit in the United Kingdom is what the Deputy stated and the Pawnbrokers Association made a strong case to me on the matter. We will bear in mind what the Deputy said when we come to the relevant provision.

Mr. R. Burke

Is it the Minister's intention that we would have the advice of the Department of Justice in advance of dealing with this matter on Committee Stage or must we wait?

Mrs. O'Rourke

We have received advice from the Department of Justice. We have asked it for more advice and that will be forthcoming.

Mr. R. Burke

We will be able to deal with it on Committee Stage rather than on Report Stage?

Mrs. O'Rourke

Yes. This matter is referred to in the Sixth Schedule.

Miss Quill

I will submit an amendment on Report Stage.

Amendment agreed to.

Chairman

Amendments Nos. 194 and 196 are related and may be discussed together.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I move amendment No. 194:

In page 44, subsection (1), line 35, to delete "District Court area or areas" and substitute "district court district or districts".

As the moneylender's licence is intended to cover District Court districts the amendment is primarily for consistency, and convenience to the Director. To involve the Director in investigating and checking a licence in respect of the far greater number of areas of which there are approximately 247 as against the districts of which there are 23 would create an onerous and needless task. I ask the committee to accept amendments No. 194 and 196.

Miss Quill

Why did the Minister tie in the administration of this law with the District Court districts? We are taking the area of consumer complaints away from the courts altogether. We are setting up a new institution.

Mrs. O'Rourke

When a person applies to the Director for a licence to be a moneylender, he or she will get it in the District Court. The title was adopted as a matter of convenience but, it can only be obtained in the designated area. If an application is made in another District Court district, the application must be made in that area also but the knowledge gained regarding a person's suitability——

Miss Quill

Does the Minister consider that these areas are convenient? I understand that there are 33 District Court areas. They were not drawn up with a view to trade and commerce, but in previous days and with different functions in view. Now that new laws are being enacted by the committee, new institutions should also be created and a new culture whereby citizens will advance their complaints in a different way, rather than proceeding to court. Perhaps the Minister should have considered new areas and districts which would be more in line with areas of trade and commerce and better serve the purposes of the Bill and the administration of its provisions.

Mrs. O'Rourke

The Director has assured us that this provision would best suit his business. The Department of Justice informs us that there are not 33, but 23 District Courts and 247 areas. The provision was made for the convenience of everybody within the market place, those who are applying for and those granting a licence. This was the only purpose of the provision; it was straightforward and did not have an ulterior motive.

Amendment agreed to.

Chairman

Amendments Nos. 195 and 197 are related and may be taken together. Is that agreed? Agreed. In the absence of Deputy Rabbitte amendment No. 195 is not moved.

Amendment No. 195 not moved.

Chairman

Amendment No. 196 has already been discussed with amendment No. 194.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I move amendment No. 196:

In page 45, subsection (2) (a) (iv), line 1, to delete "District Court area" and substitute "district court district".

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. R. Bruton

I move amendment No. 197:

In page 45, subsection (2), between lines 3 and 4, to insert the following:

"(v) a copy of an advertisement in one of the newspapers circulating in that area of the applicant's intention to apply for said licence and giving such other details as the Director may require,".

This amendment is similar to amendment No. 195 in the name of Deputy Rabbitte and its purpose is to provide that a notice by way of an advertisement in a newspaper circulating in the area of the applicant's intention to apply for a moneylender's licence would be made in such form as the Director may decide. The application for a moneylender's licence is a matter of public interest. In this respect I am pleased that the Minister has accepted that third parties would have an opportunity to raise relevant and cogent comments regarding such applications. If consumers are to have that right they must, equally, have some system of knowing that the application has been made. The amendment goes hand in hand with amendment No. 193, which has been agreed, and which provides that some form of notice be made available to people locally.

Miss Quill

Would the requirement contained in the amendment add to the cost of money transactions and, if so, would that cost be passed on to the consumer in turn? If this were the case I could not support the amendment.

Mrs. O'Rourke

Is Deputy Quill asking if the applicant for a moneylender's licence will pass on the cost of the advertisement to the consumer? I hope he would not.

Miss Quill

My question is directed at Deputy Bruton. Is this the way it will work out in practice?

Mr. R. Bruton

Two or three lines in a newspaper appear in respect of any application for planning permission. The cost is not significant in relation to the overall business and certainly not significant in the context of a fee of £1,000, which may or may not be in prospect. It is essential that such a provision exists to make the consumer aware that a person is making an application, and that if there are reasons that person is not suitable the consumer then has an opportunity to raise objections.

It is common practice that statutory notices of this kind are made, for example, it is expected that ordinary consumers and householders will make them if they wish to add a porch to their house. It is, therefore, not an unreasonable expectation for somebody wishing to operate in the business of moneylending to make such an advertisement.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I accept the amendment as it naturally follows from amendment No. 193.

Amendment agreed to.

Chairman

Amendments Nos. 199 and 198 are alternatives and may be taken together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Miss Quill

I move amendment No. 198:

In page 45, subsection (2) (b) (i), line 8, to delete "a fee of £1,000" and substitute "a maximum fee of £1,000 or a lesser fee where deemed appropriate by the Director of Consumer Affairs".

When submitting this amendment I was concerned that the business of legal moneylending would be made so expensive as to put the transactions of money-lenders out of the reach of ordinary people, especially poorer people. If that were to happen the inevitable result would be a growth in the activities of illegal money lending.

At all times in the Bill it is necessary to strike a fair balance. It must be acknowledged that legal moneylenders serve a legitimate purpose and a real need in society, including the requirements of people who do not have access to banks, building societies or other lending houses. While we seek to control and contain moneylenders ensure that they always operate within the law and in the best long term interests of the consumer, we must nevertheless not seek to put or demand a scale of fees which may put some existing moneylenders out of business or which may inhibit potential moneylenders.

My concern in this instance is in respect of small operators, especially in villages, towns and rural areas who may have a small number of clients, a small amount of capital to invest and a small turnover, but who nevertheless serve a real need in their communities. By imposing a scale of fees that is too high there is a danger of putting people, who already practise in this way, out of business. Alternatively, people who may wish to go into the business in these areas may be prohibited from so doing because of the cost of the fee.

My amendment proposes to ". . . delete ‘a fee of £1,000' and substitute ‘a maximum fee of £1,000 or a lesser fee where deemed appropriate by the Director of Consumer Affairs'." The Minister should consider my remarks, and leave a certain discretion in the matter of setting fees with the Director of Consumer Affairs.

Mr. R. Bruton

I support the idea that the fee of £1,000 may, unwittingly, be set too high. The seminar by the European anti-poverty network made some comments on this matter and drew the attention of the committee to the fact that the proposed licence fee of £1,000 was significantly higher than the current fee. It suggested that this may prove counter-productive since, in principle, it is better to have lenders operating within the law, especially with the proposed new regulations. The network has also drawn the attention of the committee to the danger that this measure would drive some of the small operators underground or that prices could be forced up. In addition, it points to the fact that under section 8 of the Bill, the committee licences credit intermediaries at costs of between £250 and £500.

The same case is made by the Coolock Community Law Centre which operates in my constituency. It is worried that the deliberations of the committee may have the effect of discouraging moneylenders from operating in the legal market, where there are good protections for the consumer, and that this should be reconsidered.

I have no objections to the Minister opting for a lower fee, to be specified in the legislation, or some kind of scaled fee related to the size of the business. The way this could be done is at the discretion of the Minister. Amendment No. 199 in the name of Deputy Rabbitte and myself suggests a fee of £500 but the Minister feels that this is not the best way to proceed I would accept other variants of this. We have clearly been warned by people familiar with the moneylending system that £1,000 may be too high. We should take account of this and try to make sure that as many people as possible come within the law.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I thank you, Chairman and the Deputies who proposed these amendments. I am not disposed to change in this matter and will not accept the amendments. The fee provided for in the Bill is greatly in excess of the present fee. We must bear in mind that at present a person seeking a licence must go to court and give up his or her time for the length of the hearing. In many cases the collector credit people have complained to me about the inconvenience of travelling from one court area to another. The person must be legally represented and we all know how much legal costs are now. Under the Bill none of this will be necessary. The application will be made to the Director of Consumer Affairs. We have set out the fee in the Bill. It is proper that fees be set in legislation and altered by regulation should the Minister of the day see fit to do so. The proposed fee is greatly in excess of the present fee for licensed moneylenders but they will have the convenience of making the application to the Director as distinct from going to a court with all its accompanying costs, delays, upsets to work schedules and so on.

When we were drafting the Bill we considered very carefully the fee we propose to charge to intermediaries and took the view that a person applying for a moneylender's licence is the principal in that business. An intermediary is acting for some other group, company or organisation and, therefore, is not the main principal in the business. This is why we proposed a different set of charges for intermediaries. The point has been made that this may drive people to deal with unlicensed moneylenders and limit the number of people who can operate legally and satisfactorily because of the extent of the fee. I will ask the Director to monitor this matter. I do not think the fee will be found to be excessive over time but if this does happen the fee can be altered by ministerial regulation. The fee as proposed is the one for which I am continuing to make the case.

Miss Quill

I listened carefully to the Minister but I still have a deep fear that setting the fee too high will facilitate big operators in the business but inhibit smaller ones. There will not be lively competition because there will be few traders in the business. Too high a fee will be a real barrier to entry to the business for the small trader. It will create geographical pockets where there will not be any legal moneylenders. If we do this we will leave the way open for illegal moneylenders to fill the vacuum, to move in and ply their merciless trade. If this were to happen it would be a cruel outcome of legislation which is so well intentioned by the Minister. We hope the Bill's outcome will be healthy and helpful for all consumers but by setting the fee too high the Minister may kill competition in this business. The smaller fee proposed in Deputy Bruton's amendment is infinitely more sensible.

Traders who service a number of districts may find the Bill's requirement so high that some areas may not be served by legal moneylenders. We cannot ignore the cumulative effects of the proposed fee on traders who want to serve a number of District Court areas, which are very unnatural from the point of view of trade in commerce. These effects will be such that a number of areas will not be serviced at all. I have grave fears for the outcome of this in practice. I again ask the Minister to consider this. She has kindly said that she will wait and see how the provision works in practice and will be prepared if it emerges——

Mrs. O'Rourke

I do not think it will emerge.

Miss Quill

If the fee has the effect I predict, it may be too late because people will be driven out of business. I ask the Minister to think carefully about the implications of setting a scale of fees which is too high. This might seriously undermine the overall objectives of the Bill. If this were to happen, it would be a cruel irony. For example, there may be fairly big operators with perhaps 2,000 collected credit customers in areas just beyond the margins of heavily populated districts. Some 95 per cent of each operator's customers may be in one District Court district and the remaining 5 per cent in an adjoining district. Would it be worthwhile for such operators to pay an additional £500 to service 5 per cent of their customers? I do not think it would. The Minister should think carefully about the scale of fees which will be laid down in the Bill. She is right to say the scale must be laid down. I was incorrect when I said that fees should be left to the discretion of the Director of Consumer Affairs. They must be laid down in the Bill or in regulations made by the Minister deriving from the Bill. The Minister should think carefully about what would happen in a situation where 5 per cent of an operator's customers were in a District Court area for which he would be required to pay another £500. The inevitable result would be that it would not be worth his while and would not make any economic sense to pay the additional £500. It would then become a no go area for legal moneylending and, inevitably, become a free area for illegal lenders.

Mrs. O'Rourke

There will be no free area for illegal moneylenders.

Miss Quill

The danger will be there.

Mrs. O'Rourke

The purpose of this Bill is to see that in an evolving way illegal moneylenders are done away with. I listened to the arguments of Deputy Quill and Deputy Bruton, who are taking an immense interest in the Bill. I am not disposed to accept these amendments. The fee as laid down is reasonable. If it is found not to be reasonable in its operation it can be altered by ministerial regulation. I understand the misgivings of people involved in collector credit. People in any sphere of life do not like to see their fees rise. The inconvenience of attending court and legal fees, which are considerable, increasing all the time and over which there is no control, will be dissipated. If, during its operation, this provision is deemed to have been faulty or disadvantageous to consumers in any way — I do think this will be the case — we will agree to rectify it by regulation or ministerial order.

Mr. R. Bruton

I welcome the Minister's willingness to review this at a later date but am a little disappointed that she seems to be presenting her defence as if we are saying on behalf of moneylenders that the fee is too large and more than what they are used to. It is interesting that the two most trenchant cases made against the £1000 fee come from the anti-poverty network and the Coolock Community Law Centre, both of which deal with highly disadvantaged groups. It is not a case of saying that this is a high business charge and that we should be cutting it.

The Minister said they are consolidating applications and that if people have licences in several districts they need to make only one application — although she did not advert to the fact that they have to pay £500 in respect of each other district.

Mrs. O'Rourke

They do not have to attend and they do not have to pay two fees.

Mr. R. Bruton

I admit that but it is not just the £1,000. They have to pay an additional £500 each time.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I know, I accept that.

Mr. R. Bruton

I also draw the Minister's attention to the scrappy evidence which we have on moneylending from the Combat Poverty Agency's study. It carried out a survey in a north Dublin suburb and found that of 464 people surveyed, 66 people — 14 per cent — had current loans with moneylenders. There were 38 different moneylenders lending to those 66 people, most of whom were used by only one or two respondents. Essentially, the evidence is that the majority of moneylenders are very small operators. Only three companies out of the 38 were quite widely used and were large establishments.

The present pattern, from what we know of it, seems to be a small scale operation. We are trying in this Bill to get these small scale operators to act within the law which this report manifestly shows they have not been doing to date. It shows that both licensed and unlicensed operators were not acting within what we would regard as reasonable behaviour in relation to their lending operations. We are trying to bring these people into legitimate lending.

We need further commitment from the Minister as to how she will assess — and this will be critical — the effect of this. The European anti-poverty agency in Dublin predicts that it will drive some of the smaller operators into the black economy and worsen the situation for low income consumers. The Minister must give us some assurance as to how she plans to monitor this quite real fear by groups which are intimately familiar with the moneylending area. If people are driven underground into the black economy it will be very difficult for the Minister to become aware of that fact.

If the Minister is to stick to her view — and I am sure that she has the numbers here today to ensure that she can — she should give the House some assurance as to how she will monitor this because it is a genuine fear which has been brought to our attention. We would want to see in a year's time, for example — if this has been operating for 12 months — that the Minister would be able to point to a specific report by the Director of Consumer Affairs where he had established to reasonable satisfaction that this high licence fee had not brought about the predicted ill effects.

Mr. Briscoe

I am new to this debate but I cannot see, by any stretch of the imagination, why £1,000 is too much for anyone setting up in business of this nature. People who operate illegally will do so anyway, irrespective of whether the charge is £200 or if there is no charge. I accept the Minister's assurance that if she finds, in the light of experience, that £1,000 is too much or that it is in hurting people who need this service she has the power to adjust the figure downwards.

I am surprised — maybe I am just missing something — that a £1,000 fee is deemed too high for someone setting up in business when their other legal fees and appearances in court are waived. It is a much more simplified method of applying for a licence. I predict that, irrespective of what charge the Minister introduces, there will still be people attempting to lend illegally. We want to make sure that those people do not get away with that.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I made my feelings and beliefs clear on this when I spoke. It is not a matter of having the numbers for a vote — I am genuinely not approaching this Bill in that way. It is not a matter of one-upmanship or trying to down anybody dealing with collected credit. So far I have tried to be fair to all sides in this debate.

However, I honestly put it to the House that what Deputy Richard Bruton is proposing — and Deputy Quill supports — is a difference of £500. If a business could not withstand £500 — which is what the Deputy is saying because he is putting forward a fee of £500 and I am saying £1,000 — I do not think that that business has much chance of lasting. In day-to-day terms we are talking about £500 for a business.

I know that the business is not a highly profitable one and that legal moneylending is a very necessary part — for good or ill — of people's lives, as we have all accepted in this debate. However, we are talking about a difference of £500. I put it quite plainly to the Deputy that if a business cannot withstand that amount of money it does not have the correct operational efficiency and mechanisms to stay in business.

Mr. R. Bruton

That may be all very well for established businesses but our evidence is that the 66 people borrowing from moneylenders in north Dublin were dealing with 38 different people, most of whom were very small operators. Our evidence is that the business of moneylending, whether we like it or not, is operated by very small operators who may lend money to only a handful of families.

Are we consciously making the decision that we do not want to see that type of network in place but instead have larger companies — and there were three larger companies? The Minister seems to be saying that in future those 38 will be reduced to three big companies in that area. Is the Minister happy that is the best way to proceed in the interests of the clients of the moneylending industry? What worries me is that the people who represent the views of those borrowing from moneylenders take an opposite view.

I do not feel that it is worth pushing this to a vote but the Minister should at least give us some assurance that in 12 months' time she will be able to point to a satisfactory survey — perhaps again dealing with the agencies which came together for that network seminar — which shows that the ill-effects which these agencies predict have not come about. We need some sort of assurance because one cannot decide by fiat to change the whole existing structure and not give the small operators, to whom applicants seem to turn in practice, a chance to continue in a legitimate way.

Miss Quill

I ask the Minister to consider very carefully the position of a licensed moneylender operating in a core area and paying the £1,000 fee but who has also established a business in a series of District Court areas immediately adjacent to the core area and will be required, under the provisions of this Bill, to pay £500 for each one of these areas, despite the fact that they may have only a tiny scattering of clients in those areas.

Can the Minister envisage what will happen in that situation and agree that the likelihood is that the operator will cease trading in fringe areas? They will be left without a service which has become essential to a number of people and without which they would not be in a position to provide shoes for their children going back to school in September or clothes for First Communion. If the services of the legal operator are forced out of such areas, or such pockets as I have described in different District Court areas, what does the Minister think is likely to happen?

These people have built up a relationship with and a dependency on legal moneylenders. They are not likely to go to banks and have no tradition of doing so — perhaps they might not even be welcome there. What will happen to these people when the Bill becomes law? Will they be deprived of this service? I predict what will happen — they will fall prey to illegal moneylenders, who will see the weakness in the operation of this Bill and exploit it. It is in their nature to do so and if anyone thinks they can be put underground overnight he does not know how they operate, how embedded they are in certain areas, how clever and cunning they can be.

I plead with the Minister to foresee all the implications of this scale of fees and to respond. Perhaps we can visit this area again on Report Stage.

Mrs. O'Rourke

The Deputy can visit it as often as she likes. I am not given to speaking in anger but I will not put the Bill on its head. We are now invited to cry for the predicament of people engaged in the legitimate, legal business of lending money.

Miss Quill

By whom?

Mrs. O'Rourke

Let me finish. The tone in which this amendment has been put forward leaves me increasingly——

Mr. R. Bruton

The Minister is ignoring those two points.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I am answering Deputy Quill. I have listened and kept my patience on this matter. The Deputy is ignoring that, heretofore, collectors of credit had to appear in every District Court area. I met their representatives on four occasions and they stressed the disturbance to themselves, their agents, and to those to whom they paid legal fees in going to court. They will now not have to do that. The time involved, the disturbance, the effect on their business and their legal fees are now put to one side.

Miss Quill

That is a major advance.

Mrs. O'Rourke

The Deputy spoke about the collector of credit who will operate in a given area for which he applied and received a licence to operate as a legal moneylender. She asked what is to happen the 5 per cent of his customers in another area and immediately painted the black picture that they would fall prey to illegal moneylenders.

Markets have a way of sorting themselves out — we are all told to embrace the market ethic, although I believe unbridled market forces can have adverse effects. However, if a moneylender has a certain number of customers in another area, in a properly regulated licensing regime licensed moneylenders will emerge and we all hope the others will fade into the shadows. A licensed moneylender will take up the slack and will be disposed to add to his or her business in the other District Court area. I can speak about this amendment all day but I have made my decision clear from the beginning and it remains my decision.

Deputy Bruton strongly argued for a mechanism and I agree with that — I said it when I spoke originally. I suggested three years because I think 12 months might be too soon for anyone to see whether business had been affected by the payment of such a fee.

Mr. R. Bruton

Some businesses might show the effects.

Mrs. O'Rourke

That is possible. I will ask the Director of Consumer Affairs, when a licensed moneylender makes an approach to renew his licence, to issue me with a report as to whether this fee has been found to be onerous.

Mr. R. Bruton

The Minister is missing the point. If this is a network, it is not a seminar of people engaged in moneylending. They were engaged on the consumer side.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I met those people; I met both groups.

Mr. R. Bruton

If the Minister is conducting a survey it would be better not to survey those who have used the legal mechanism and have found the fee too high, because anyone will say a fee is too high and it can be dismissed as special pleading.

Mrs. O'Rourke

Yes.

Mr. R. Bruton

The Minister should survey those same anti-poverty groups which came together to discuss moneylending problems for low-income families. Perhaps in 18 months' time they can be reassembled through the Office of the Director of Consumer Affairs to see if the predicted problems — of people going into the black economy and continuing in an illegal way — occurred and whether the high fee was a big factor.

Mrs. O'Rourke

Following this debate I will ask the Director to convene such a meeting and review the findings.

Mr. Sheehan

This debate is interesting. Under an anti-poverty heading, a case has been put forward for the reduction of the £500 fee in respect of each additional District Court area in which an applicant proposes to engage in moneylending, as well as a case for the reduction of the initial fee of £1,000. I ask the Minister to clarify this because it seems nonsensical. If a moneylender pays £1,000 for a licence for a legal moneylending business, I cannot see the justification for a further £500 for an additional licence in an adjacent District Court district.

Estate agents pay an annual fee for their licence and can operate throughout the country, indeed throughout the EU. Bookmakers can deal with clients throughout the country. Whether one comes from Malin Head or Mizen Head, one can go anywhere in the country and place a bet with a bookmaker who had paid a licence. Surely a moneylender who has paid for a licence should be entitled to deal with clients from any part of the country. It is nonsensical to confine a licence for moneylending to a District Court area — I see no justification for it.

It would greatly alleviate the position if the Minister agreed that when a moneylender pays £1,000 for a licence, he should be entitled to deal with any citizen within the jurisdiction of the State. That would go a long way towards solving any anomalies outlined by Deputy Bruton and Deputy Quill. Why confine a moneylender to a District Court area? Some clients might live in an area where it might not be attractive for moneylender to pay for an additional licence. If the moneylender has paid for his licence, he should be entitled to work with clients from any part of the country.

Mr. M. McDowell

Will the Minister outline her understanding of section 81 (2) (b) (ii), which states: "a further fee of £500 in respect of each additional District Court District in which the applicant proposes to engage in the business of moneylending?" What if I lend Deputy Quill £500 or £1,000? She lives in Wellington Road in Cork but then moves to Macroom.

Mrs. O'Rourke

She moves to Macroom?

Mr. M. McDowell

If I have my office in Patrick Street in Cork and she moves to Macroom should I stop visiting her at home to collect the money or am I entitled to continue going to Deputy

Quill's new residence to collect my weekly amount due? The situation will arise that people in Dublin will move to Bray or people in Bray will move to Arklow. People will move in and out of a District Court area. Should one write that off or apply for a new licence? Can one collect credit?

This argument could be largely artificial if it was understood that where somebody proposes to engage in the business of moneylending is where they propose to establish their base of operations and deal with the vast majority of their customers. However, if somebody comes from outside their area or somebody inside their area moves outside and requires collected credit, it should not require a separate licence of £500. One should not commit an offence by knocking on the door if somebody has moved from Dublin to Naas and one says one still wants one's money.

Mrs. O'Rourke

My common sense will answer the Deputy's question. I do not have the benefit of the Deputy's legal brain.

Mr. M. McDowell

I am not being negative.

Mrs. O'Rourke

It strikes me that if I had an address in an area, borrowed money from a legal moneylender and then moved house, the legal moneylender would be entitled to get his money until that loan was paid. However, if one chooses to re-engage in the process, with a new loan from one's new address, one, in effect, is in a new district area.

Mr. M. McDowell

If that is the case, it underlines the artificiality of the position. It shows that somebody can send a collector to another person's door and collect money, even though they are not licensed in that area, because the agreement was originally made in another area.

I agree with the Minister's common sense view. However, what if I have a business in O'Connell Street and a woman or man who lives in Naas comes to me over a number of years? They always pay me in O'Connell Street on their way to work in Dublin before returning to Naas that evening. Does it mean if they retire or whatever that they must discontinue doing business with me or not receive any new loans from me, whom they have known for many years, because I can no longer agree with them or can they come to Dublin and ask me to collect it? Can they effectively make the agreement at my office in writing and have collections outside the District Court area?

Mrs. O'Rourke

The Deputy asked about a person from a mythical Naas address coming to the business premises in Dublin. This is allowed for in the legislation, "in the District Court area in which he is operating".

Mr. M. McDowell

My question concerns where he proposes to engage in the business of moneylending. I am not trying to put trick questions to the Minister.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I will not be tricked into anything. However, I am quickly losing my patience. The Deputies are fully entitled to pose questions and I will stay here all day. I will stay until Christmas, as I said previously on several occasions, but I am quickly losing my patience with mythical situations. These may or may not arise and I am sure they will provide fruitful legal work at a later stage.

Mr. M. McDowell

It is exactly that situation with which I am trying to deal.

Miss Quill

It is what we are all trying to avoid.

Mr. M. McDowell

For example, what if somebody sends a letter to a moneylender based in Dublin, saying that they wish to borrow from the moneylender at his address in Dublin? The person lives in Kilcock and asks the moneylender to arrange to collect the money from them every week at Kilcock, although they are borrowing in Dublin. Is that covered by the Bill?

Mrs. O'Rourke

My instincts are correct but I will not be hung legally on a hook in relation to this matter. Does the Deputy's question relate to the position if one wrote from an area outside the Dublin district area and one went to Dublin to collect one's money?

Mr. M. McDowell

If one wrote to Dublin and said "lend me the money".

Mrs. O'Rourke

I do not think that the collector could go to one's door in Kilcock and continue to collect the money there. In effect, one would continue to make repayments at the business premises of the person who gave one the money, in the district area in which they gave it.

Mr. M. McDowell

Would it be legal to deal with somebody from an office in Dublin without a moneylender's licence in Dublin? Could one have an office where one dealt with correspondence from a large number of places around the country and sent out cheques?

Mrs. O'Rourke

Not without a licence as a moneylender.

Mr. M. McDowell

Without a Dublin licence?

Mrs. O'Rourke

Without a licence within the Dublin district area.

Mr. M. McDowell

That is my point. In which respect is one carrying on the business of moneylending? If one carries on the business in Dublin by correspondence with a person outside the District Court area in question, can it be said, merely because one collected from them, that one is engaged in the business of moneylending at the time that one collected? This is the issue.

Mrs. O'Rourke

Obviously, if one collected money, one is doing so on the basis of a contract already entered into; one is not collecting it from the clear blue sky. The collection process is the continuation of the contract process of giving the money.

Mr. M. McDowell

I am not attempting to trick the Minister but it seems to me that we could dispose of the amendment——

Mrs. O'Rourke

We are talking about the money. This arose because there was concerted and sustained contributions from Members about the licence fee.

Mr. M. McDowell

I wish to go one stage further. If what the Minister says is correct and what I am saying is foolish, what about the option she gives to people to go to the premises? If somebody does not have the option, the Minister is really saying that they will not have the option to say that they will pay at one's premises in Dublin or collect it at one's house in Kildare. The moneylender must say no. He will say that if he sends somebody down to Kildare, Minister O'Rourke will send the Director of Consumer Affairs after him. The person cannot deal with him.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I must have a dreadful reputation. The reason for giving the option to go to the business is that it suits some people in large towns, although there are very few. It would be a burden on the ordinary person, borrowing money from a legal moneylender, to get on the train and travel to Dublin, Cork or Limerick. There are very few collected credit premises outside a couple of major cities. Most of the business, therefore, is done at the door.

Mr. Kirk

Will a person be able to apply for a moneylending licence in different District Court areas?

Mrs. O'Rourke

Yes.

Mr. Kirk

Will there be any restrictions?

Mrs. O'Rourke

He or she must fulfil a number of criteria.

Mr. Sheehan

Pay £500.

Mr. Kirk

Apart from that——

Mrs. O'Rourke

There is no physical restriction, apart from an extensive list of criteria which one must follow. There is no bar to size or scope, providing one meets the criteria and pays the fee.

Mr. M. McDowell

Anticipating the day I am sent that large brief to advise the moneylenders on this issue, if a man on O'Connell Street supplies credit to somebody by arrangement at his office, over a telephone or by letter——

Mrs. O'Rourke

At his office.

Mr. M. McDowell

——and issues his cheque from that office and carries on the business of moneylending at that point, not where the person receives that cheque. He does not carry on the business of moneylending if he sends somebody to the door to recover that amount of money at a later stage.

If one creates an offence — which we are doing — of unlicensed moneylending where somebody deals with a person at one address and collects at a second address, one will have a hard case very quickly because there is a volume of such arrangements. The questions is whether it will be a legal contact. Some smart alec, whether in the local citizens' advice bureau or otherwise, will say one need not pay because they cannot collect any more.

Mr. Sheehan

Why make it mandatory for a moneylender who has an official licence for a fee of £1,000 to pay an extra £500 if his client approaches him for money outside his District Court area?

Mrs. O'Rourke

Is Deputy Sheehan aware that under existing moneylending legislation there is a requirement whereby a person must present himself or an agent and a solicitor in each District Court area in which he chooses to ply his trade. That is in existing legislation which we are now simplifying by placing it in the hands of the Director of Consumer Affairs who will be the licensing authority. However, the need for separate fee payment in each of the District Court areas in which one works remains, although one does not have to present oneself, one's agent or solicitor to act on one's behalf.

Mr. Sheehan

The Minister must agree with me that——

Mrs. O'Rourke

I do not agree with Deputy Sheehan.

Mr. Sheehan

——a moneylender operating in a remote rural area covered by a District Court, but which has no legal moneylender, for example, a moneylender from Schull operating in Skibbereen, will be obliged to pay an extra licence of £500 to deal with two, three or four applications from a remote area outside his jurisdiction. As Deputy Quill said, a moneylender would not be interested in doing so.

Mrs. O'Rourke

If he is marketgeared, he will pick up much more because there are 23 large District Court areas. He or she will not go into an area to service three or four customers. There will be another legal moneylender in that area. I presume they are in an organisation and know each other's area or remit. I do not agree with Deputy Sheehan's proposition. I agree that the Director of Consumer Affairs should convene a forum at which those who deal with people who borrow from legal moneylenders would be able to give their opinion as to whether they were disadvantaged by this fee.

Miss Quill

That should have been done in advance of drafting this Bill.

Mrs. O'Rourke

How could it be? The Bill has not yet been passed.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Amendments Nos. 199 to 202, inclusive, not moved.

Mr. M. McDowell

I move amendment No. 203:

In page 45, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following subsection:

"(7) The Director may extend the period of a moneylender's licence provided for in subsection (6) for such period as the Director considers necessary to enable him to discharge his functions under this Act.".

The licensing system in the Bill completely moves away from the mechanism in the old Moneylenders' Acts. To require the Garda Síochána to formally report moneylenders in each district would serve only to impose an unnecessary extra burden on resources, but that is not to say that local informal reporting of difficulties should not taken place.

This amendment deals with the question of renewal. The following framework is suggested as appropriate: first, a requirement to lodge applications for licences at a specified interval before the expiry of any existing licence; second, that any existing licence should automatically continue in force until the Director has made a decision as to whether to grant or refuse a further licence; and third, that in the event of a refusal to grant a further licence any existing licence should automatically continue in force for a period after the refusal and that if an appeal is lodged that existing licence would automatically continue in force until such an appeal is determined or withdrawn as is the case in the licensing laws subject to such conditions for the protection of consumers that the Director may believe fit to impose.

Section 94 must be amended to make it clear that these provisions would apply with any necessary modifications to licences granted under the 1933 Act. I am interested in the Minister's view on this and whether those whose licences expire in the middle of a legal dispute are grounded or may continue trading.

Mr. R. Bruton

I have misgivings about this. Annual renewal is an important check to ensure that the moneylender is operating according to his licence and that things are satisfactory. I understand Deputy McDowell is saying that the licence could be for five years depending on what the Director may say. The amendment states: "The Director may extend the period of a moneylender's licence provided for in subsection (6) for such a period as the Director considers necessary to enable him to discharges his functions under this Act". It seems that the Director could give a ten year licence and that he is happy with that. I also have misgivings about what Deputy McDowell said, which was not included in the amendment.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I am nonplussed by that.

Mr. R. Bruton

If under section 81 (9) the Director suspends, revokes or varies the terms of the moneylender's licence, from what Deputy McDowell said, it would remain in force while an appeal was going on. The Director could have serious reasons to seek to suspend or revoke a licence and for someone to appeal that and to remain in force, even with serious problems arising, would not be very satisfactory. I have misgivings. Would that not just make it extraordinarily difficult for the Director to revoke a licence without getting entangled in a lengthy legal battle throughout which time the offending party would continue to operate unimpeded?

Mrs. O'Rourke

The rigour and authority of a yearly licence is the best way to proceed.

Mr. M. McDowell

Subsection (14) of section 81 states: "Where the holder of a moneylender's licence makes an appeal under subsection (11), he may make an application to the court to have a revocation, suspension or variation of the licence suspended until the appeal is determined or withdrawn". What happens——

Mrs. O'Rourke

There are amendments relevant to that. The Deputy is speaking about a refusal as opposed to a revocation?

Mr. M. McDowell

Yes, I am talking about a refusal to give a new licence — if one is in trade for seven years, for example, after which one is refused a licence at the annual court.

Mrs. O'Rourke

We will deal with that in later amendments.

Chairman

We should move on because we could very easily become confused.

Mrs. O'Rourke

Revocation is dealt with in subsection (14). Are we not dealing at present with refusal in subsection (11)? There are two separate subsections and they are both dealt with under the Act and amendments to it.

Mr. M. McDowell

Subsection (14) deals with three things: revocation, suspension or variations.

Mrs. O'Rourke

Yes.

Mr. M. McDowell

It does not deal with outright refusals.

Mrs. O'Rourke

That is dealt with in subsection (11).

Mr. M. McDowell

Yes. However, that does not deal with the issue. The issue is that the person's licence is expired.

Mrs. O'Rourke

Yes.

Mr. M. McDowell

The person has gone to one District Court judge who has refused the new licence.

Mrs. O'Rourke

The District Court judge will not be responsible, the Director is responsible.

Mr. M. McDowell

If the Director refuses the licence what does the person do?

Mrs. O'Rourke

He is out of business.

Mr. M. McDowell

Until the appeal is heard?

Mrs. O'Rourke

Yes.

Mr. M. McDowell

Is that not very harsh?

Mrs. O'Rourke

It is correct.

Mr. M. McDowell

A decision can be appealed. If a person is put out of business staff are laid off, premises closed and telephone lines disconnected. That does not happen when one gets a licence from the Revenue Commissioners.

Mrs. O'Rourke

We are dealing with this in the context of 12 months. A person refused a licence must await the result of the appeal — one has the right to appeal — and set up business again. Is the Deputy proposing a prolongation of the 12 months while the appeal is being considered?

Mr. M. McDowell

If the Director refuses a licence to a large business in Dublin with a large number of collectors it seems very harsh that the business must close down until it can appeal.

Sitting suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.15 p.m.

Mr. M. McDowell

The point could be addressed in the following way. Where a large business is refused a licence by the Director and it has been engaged in business up to that point, there should be some provision whereby pending an appeal to the Circuit Court the licence can continue in force until the determination of that appeal, unless the Circuit Court otherwise orders.

It could be possible to have a substantial business with substantial books, substantial collections to be made and creating significant employment which might have a genuine difference of opinion with the Director of Consumer Affairs. If such a company is to have a genuine right of appeal to the Circuit Court it seems to me that some provision should be made for such a company to continue in bona fide trading until the determination of the appeal, unless it has been behaving so badly that the Director can advise the Circuit Court that if an appeal is made it would normally have a right to continue trading, but in view of facts supplied such a status should not be granted.

The issue is what would happen to the indebtedness of such a moneylender, who could have £200,000 out on loans at the time the licence was not renewed. The Bill is structured in such a way so as to grant a new licence every year, much like a card for descrambling a television. The card is not renewed but a new card is issued. The same criterion applies to the licences for moneylenders. A person applying on day one is placed in exactly the same position as somebody who has been trading for 30 years.

Given this, some kind of continuity is reasonable in the case of somebody who has a large business, and who, for whatever reason, does not get much notice from the Director of Consumer Affairs that his licence is not going to be renewed, or gets an adverse decision on the last day of his old licence. The company is suddenly in a position——

Mrs. O'Rourke

And it may not have known until that moment. Is that the point?

Mr. M. McDowell

He may be involved in a hot and heavy dispute with the Director up to that point about whether the complaints were true or false, or some other issue. On the assumption that he has a bona fide ground of appeal it would appear unfair that his business be closed down pending such an appeal. I have drafted a suggested amendment, to insert the following new subsection after section 81 (11):

Where a person has been granted a licence in respect of a particular district court district or districts, applies to the Director for a licence to take effect from the expiry of the licence granted to him, and is refused by the Director under subsection 11 and appeals to the Circuit Court against such a refusal, the first mentioned licence shall continue to have effect until the Circuit Court determines the appeal, unless the court, on the application of the Director, shall otherwise order.

The same criteria should not be applied in the case of an existing business as in the case of somebody walking in off the street, who has never been heard of before and who cannot trade until matters have been resolved.

Mr. R. Bruton

While I did not agree with Deputy McDowell's original formulation of his amendment, there is some logic in his point regarding a refusal leading to the termination during the period of appeal. It is interesting that under section 14, where the Director may decide to revoke a licence, and normally this would be considered to be a much more serious case than a simple refusal at the time of renewal——

Mrs. O'Rourke

Where he did not wait until the year had expired.

Mr. R. Bruton

Such a person appears to have the right to return to court and seek to have his licence restored until the appeal is heard. If the more serious offender has that right on prima faciegrounds, Deputy McDowell has a point in suggesting that the person who gets a refusal after a number of years in opertion should have a similar right.

Will the Minister advise on the procedure following a revocation? Is there an orderly wind down of business and what happens to the outstanding loans, some of which, presumably, were recognised as quite legal and fair at the time they were made? Perhaps other offences have been committed with regard to other loans which caused the revocation, but will the Minister advise on the procedure for those who entered in good faith into good contracts which were not offensive to the law?

Mr. M. McDowell

The business of moneylending is defined in the Bill as providing credit. It is not necessarily the case, and this echoes what the Committee was discussing earlier, that collecting credit is engaging in the business of moneylending. Even if a licence was revoked, this does not mean that it is the end of the debt book and that the moneylender can say good-bye to all the debts due to him.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I presumed that the moneylender would continue to collect all his money, or that the courts would decide on what would happen to uncollected debts in such instances.

Mr. M. McDowell

The implication of the debate by the Committee this morning is that the business of moneylending is not carried on when the moneylender is trying to collect credit which has already been provided, because moneylending is defined in the Bill as the provision of or the outgoing of credit.

Mrs. O'Rourke

The other side of that is the collecting in.

Mr. M. McDowell

Getting in the money is not providing the credit; it is getting it back.

Mrs. O'Rourke

It is part of the duties of the moneylender. It is the corollary of what the Deputy speaks of.

Mr. M. McDowell

It works both ways. If Deputy Bruton is correct and there is a danger that if a moneylender's licence is gone his book debts evaporate, because they are uncollectable, on the basis that to collect them would be to engage in the business of moneylending after the licence was revoked, then the point made by the Minister this morning is correct, that a licence would be required if the moneylender went outside the District Court area to collect the money in. However, if the business of moneylending is merely defined as supplying the credit, collecting it back, after the licence has expired or in a place which is not within the District Court area where it was supplied, does not create such a problem.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I also reflected over lunch. My officials advised me that the Attorney General had insisted on these provisions. I then considered that, leaving aside the Attorney General and others, there is a system of justice which, in a general sense, presumes innocence until proven guilty. In addition, the right of appeal is built into the system. For example, the provision allowing an appeal for a waiver regarding the payment of water rates in a rural county allows that the water not be cut off pending consideration of the appeal by the county manager or whoever.

I have only heard Deputy McDowell's suggested amendment this afternoon; I have not had the opportunity to read it. With no disrespect to Deputy Quill, the amendment appears more water tight than that——

Mr. M. McDowell

As a gentleman I must accept responsibility for drafting that amendment.

Mrs. O'Rourke

Deputy McDowell's suggested amendment is more elaborate, yet more water tight in that I understand it would be for the court to decide whether the licence should be renewed or not. However, as this is bringing the matter into another arena, I undertook to ask my officials to communicate with the Attorney General on this point and then to return to the issue.

With reference to Deputy Bruton's point, I cannot see that one has a right of appeal in respect of a revocation. A revocation should be invoked only in response to a heinous crime, yet when a renewal of a licence is not granted, which means that the applicant was dithering towards not being a good licensed moneylender, a right of appeal is not allowed.

In view of this odd situation, and in view of the advice by my officials that the Attorney General insisted on this, I have requested that a letter in my name be drafted to him making these points and requesting his response.

Chairman

I take it that Deputy McDowell's suggested amendment is not being proceeded with and that Deputy Quill is not pressing her amendment?

Mr. M. McDowell

That is correct.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Chairman

Amendment Nos. 204 and 205 are related and both may be taken together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I move amendment No. 204:

In page 46, subsection (8) (d), line 9, before "Revenue" to insert "current".

This has been dealt with earlier under amendments Nos. 63 and 64, and it will be considered again under amendments Nos. 246 and 247. They are all drafted on the basis of what is reasonable. In the Bill, the grounds on which the Director may refuse a licence is that the applicant had failed to provide a tax clearance certificate in respect of himself or his business dated within three months prior to the date of application. The amendment proposes to change this to a current certificate, first on the grounds of what is reasonable regarding the matter of being out of date, and second, that the practices carried out in the office of the Revenue Commissioners may change so that the Bill is elastic enough to adapt to such change. We had a long discussion on this matter when we debated amendment Nos. 63 and 64. The amendment seeks to insert "current" before "Revenue".

Amendment agreed to.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I move amendment No. 205:

In page 46, subsection (8) (d), lines 10 and 11, to delete "dated within 3 months prior to the date of application".

Amendment agreed to.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I move amendment No. 206:

In page 46, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following subsection:

"(9) The holder of a moneylenders licence shall only engage in the business of moneylending in the name specified in the holder's licence.".

The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that where a person engages in this business, they only so engage in the name specified in the licence. This is to prevent a person holding a licence from embarking on a number of differently named ventures. Operatives or agents using names other than that of the licence holder might well trade under the umbrella of the moneylender's licence. I do not want to use the word "names". The first the Director of Consumer Affairs would know of this ghostlike operation would be when he receives a complaint from a third party to which we agreed this morning but at that stage the licence holder may disown the agent. We wish to ensure that agents and operatives for moneylenders always trade under the name inscribed in the moneylender's licence. The amendment arose from a case brought to our attention in the Department.

Mr. R. Bruton

May I ask a question which bears on the two amendments? If moneylenders have agents who entirely run their businesses on their behalf and are effectively the managers of the businesses, are such agents subject to the tax clearance procedure or does it apply solely to the applicant? If a moneylender intends to sublet the management of the business to an agent, is the Director informed of this or can the Director subsequently apply this procedure without the fitness of the agent having been in some way examined? A number of moneylenders, because of the £1,000 fee, may decide to club together for the purpose of making a single application and may have a number of agents. We should be confident that any agent who manages the business of moneylending is a fit person.

Mrs. O'Rourke

The licence is in the name of the person who applies for it. The Deputy is speaking about any person acting on behalf of a licence holder.

Mr. R. Bruton

I am not talking about an employee — any moneylender may have employees — but about a moneylender who franchises out the management of the business in, say, Coolock to someone else.

Mrs. O'Rourke

The licence is granted to the person who applies for it. A person who collects money must carry an authorisation form at all times. We have not envisaged a situation where there would be contracting. The licence is in the name of the applicant, be it the name of a person or a company.

Mr. M. McDowell

The Minister's amendment, with which I agree, might or might not be improved by inserting the words "or names" after "name" so that someone might be licensed to operate under different names on one licence. One could call one's service on the southside of the city by one name and one's service on the northside by another name. I agree with Deputy Bruton's worry in this regard. The criterion for refusal in subsection (8) (e), which is "that the applicant or any person responsible or proposed to be responsible for the management of his business in relation to moneylending is by order of court disqualified from holding a licence" should also apply to subsection 8 (f), which provides that the applicant, or any person to be engaged in the operation of the business on behalf of the applicant, is not a fit person.

Mrs. O'Rourke

Normally a person operating a company will judge his employees and will not have them if he does not deem them fit to carry out his business.

Mr. M. McDowell

I accept that. Deputy Bruton is correctly anticipating what may happen. A "baddie" who has not been disqualified under subsection 8 (e) by a court from holding a licence but, nonetheless, is known to the Director of Consumer Affairs to be a complete shark——

Mrs. O'Rourke

Is he in the employment of a company?

Mr. M. McDowell

He is in the ostensible employment of a little old lady or man as a general manager or whatever. The issue is whether the person engaged as an agent in a business should also be a fit and proper person and whether it is a ground for refusing a licence that somebody is engaging for the purpose of his or her business a person who ought not be so engaged.

Mrs. O'Rourke

We are going into very muddy waters here. We are going into employment matters in speaking about who is to be the judge of a fit person.

Mr. M. McDowell

Under subsection 8 (f) if the applicant is not a fit person, the application can be refused. If the applicant's general manager has 40 convictions for theft, it should be open to the Director to say no on the grounds that he has a strong objection to the people employed by the applicant. Subsection 8 (e) is confined to people who have been disqualified by the courts. Both of these subsections should be looked at again wih a view to extending 8 (e) to 8 (f).

Mr. R. Bruton

Subsection 8 (e) presumes that the Director knows who will be responsible for the management of his business but the application does not oblige the moneylender to tell the Director who is responsible. The Director will have difficulty in even deciding under subsection 8 (e) because he will not be told who will be the agent.

Mrs. O'Rourke

The subsection refers to "the applicant or any person responsible or proposed to be responsible for the management of his business".

Mr. R. Bruton

There is no obligation on moneylenders to tell the Director who they propose.

Mr. M. McDowell

I can imagine the Director writing to an applicant to say it has come to his attention that the applicant is employing very unsavoury people and that if the applicant proposes to retain certain employees, who would not be suitable to be applicants themselves, he will refuse to grant a licence to the applicant unless the applicant indicates to him that these employees will not have hand, act or part in the management of the company. Otherwise men and women of straw will be drawn into the business and people of apparently impeccable character will be fronts for the more thuggish elements.

Mrs. O'Rourke

It would be an odd company which would continue to employ someone who is so manifestly improper.

Mr. M. McDowell

Recently we have had some insight into the underworld in Dublin. Apparent owners, applicants and licensees of even licensed premises may have absolutely no influence over the manner in which a company is run. Somebody can appear to be the applicant and totally above board.

Mrs. O'Rourke

The Deputy is talking about a different matter. He was talking first about whether an agent authorised to carry out the business on behalf of the moneylender was fit or proper.

Mr. M. McDowell

I am talking about management or agents. If a respectable person employs a heavy who causes a problem, this should be a ground for revoking the licence.

Mrs. O'Rourke

It is a very big intrusion into another area. Paragraph (e) states:

. . .that the applicant or any other person responsible or proposed to be responsible for the management of his business in relation to moneylending is by order of a court. . .

Clearly, a complaint would then be made. In a situation where there was, as the Deputy says, a "heavy" collecting on behalf of the firm, clearly that would be the source of a complaint to the Director of Consumer Affairs. Is that not what we allowed for earlier, that a third party could make a complaint to him if they felt that the business was not being run correctly?

Mr. M. McDowell

I am just saying——

Mrs. O'Rourke

I do not know what the Deputy is saying we should do about it now.

Mr. R. Bruton

The presumption in subsection (8) (e) is that the Director knows who the management are.

Mr. M. McDowell

Or can find out.

Mr. R. Bruton

Yes, or can find out. There is no obligation on an applicant to tell that. It looks quite difficult for the Director even to enforce subsection (8) (e) because unless he is told exactly who are the agents who are going to manage the business, he will not know whether they have been disqualified from holding a licence. There is a problem there. If the Minister was to deal with the objection she would be saying in subsection (8) (f) that the applicant or the person proposed to be responsible for the management of his business is not, in the opinion of the Director, a fit person etc. That is how the Minister would formulate——

Mrs. O'Rourke

I do not know how it would be possible to cover every employee of every licensed moneylender.

Mr. R. Bruton

I was certainly not proposing that, but I did feel that it would not be very satisfactory if the person responsible for the management of the business was an unfit person. It would be a different matter if it was one of the collection agents. I suppose one gets to a point where one cannot police everything.

Mrs. O'Rourke

One cannot include everything.

Mr. M. McDowell

I am not suggesting that there should be policing in advance. However, I am suggesting that the Director should be in a position to write a letter, for example, to Deputy Quill, who is an entirely respectable licence holder or applicant for a renewal of a licence, saying that if that scoundrel McDowell has anything more to do with the management of the company — he has now appeared suddenly as a general manager or as an agent — the Director will revoke the licence.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I am sure that the Director has the right anyway. We do not need to provide for the Director to have the right to write to anybody. It would form part of his judgment when the time would come for the renewal of that licence as to whether the licence holder was carrying out his business in a fit and proper fashion. Surely, that would embrace the point which the Deputy is raising.

Mr. M. McDowell

Looking at paragraphs (8) (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e), with the exception of paragraph (8) (e) there is not any way of looking around the person who is the applicant to see——

Mrs. O'Rourke

Who is behind him.

Mr. M. McDowell

——who is, in fact, running that business on a day-to-day basis. That is the only point which I am making. If the Minister is happy that the law should stand as it is that is fine. However, I think that Deputy Richard Bruton's point could be met by amending subsection (8) (f) to read: that the applicant, or a person likely to be responsible for the management of the business, is not a fit and proper person. That is all that I am saying.

Mrs. O'Rourke

The licence is given in one name — whether it is a single name or a company name — and clearly that person is responsible and brought to law if something goes wrong.

Mr. M. McDowell

I fully accept that. However, for example, in the licensed drink trade in Dublin there are requirements that an applicant be of good character and the Garda can oppose a licence.

Mrs. O'Rourke

We have that coming up.

Mr. M. McDowell

I accept that and it is also in this Bill under paragraph (f). However, the Garda cannot say that the chief barman is a gangland man who is using a little old lady or man from Ranelagh or Rathgar to pose as licensee. That is the only issue I am making. It is very easy to come up with somebody who is unimpeachable but who is, in fact, employing somebody else or allowing their business to be managed by somebody else who is not unimpeachable.

Mrs. O'Rourke

The test point for all of that will be whether that person goes for their renewal they are judged to be fit to continue to conduct the business of moneylending. Presumably, the Director will take many matters into account when that comes about.

Mr. M. McDowell

His grounds are set out in subsection (8).

Mrs. O'Rourke

That is right, there is a list of them.

Mr. M. McDowell

I do not know on which of those grounds, given that all of the objections to character seem to be personal to the applicant, the Director will say that if the general manager of the business was the applicant he would be refused and, therefore, he is not going to grant the licence.

Mrs. O'Rourke

Subsection (8) (f) states: "the applicant is not, in the opinion of the Director, a fit and proper person to carry on the business of moneylending". One is certainly not a fit and proper person to carry on the business if one is employing staff who are not fit and proper people.

Mr. M. McDowell

That is the $64,000 question — does the Minister think that it does mean that? If she does, there is no need——

Mrs. O'Rourke

Nobody has advised me of that. I am again giving my interpretation as I see it. If one is in the business of collecting money legally, it is surely to one's advantage to employ fit and proper people to do it.

Chairman

We have had considerable discussion on the point.

Amendment agreed to.

Chairman

Amendments Nos. 207, 209a, 210 and 212 are related and may be taken together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I move amendment No. 207:

In page 46, subsection (10), line 24, before "revoke" to insert "suspend,".

The insertion of the word "suspend" in subsections (10) and (12) and "a suspension or" in subsection (15) is for uniformity with subsection (9) where the Doctor is empowered to suspend, revoke or vary the terms of moneylender's licence. The reference to suspend/suspension was omitted from subsections (10), (12) and (15).

Amendment agreed to.

Miss Quill

I move amendment No. 208:

In page 46, subsection (11), line 34, after "decision" to insert "and the grounds for such refusal or decision".

This is just a simple amendment but a very necessary one. This section quite properly makes provision for an appeal in the case where a licence has been refused. It goes on to state that the Director will notify the applicant for the licence of his decision to refuse the licence. However, there is provision made for the Director to set out clearly the grounds for his refusal. It is most important that the Director should be required to do that.

This section quite properly makes provision for an appeal. If an applicant for a licence is to frame an appeal against the Director's decision, that applicant is entitled to know the grounds for the decision to refuse the licence. Surely, the basis for the appeal and a number of the fundamental arguments, will be based on the grounds of the Director's decision in the first instance.

It is grossly unfair on the one hand to leave it open and to make provision for an unsuccessful applicant to appeal and, on the other hand, not to ensure that that applicant is entitled to all the information which he needs to enable him to frame the basis of what he would hope would be a successful appeal. I ask the Minister to accept my amendment, the effect of which would be that the Director would set out clearly in writing the grounds for his refusal.

Mr. R. Bruton

I am not a lawyer but I would not have thought it would be normal for the Director to set this out in the detail Deputy Quill is suggesting. I would have thought that in practice the Director, would indicate the reason was contained in section 81 (8) (f) or (g); either that the applicant is not a fit and proper person to carry on the business or the cost of credit charged is excessive. Perhaps one would not expect the Director to go beyond that.

Mr. M. McDowell

That is all that is being required.

Mr. R. Bruton

I see.

Mr. M. McDowell

The Minister conceded that someone whose licence is revoked should not be treated better than someone who is refused a licence.

Mrs. O'Rourke

That was more to do with the justice of the matter.

Mr. M. McDowell

Under section 81 (10) if there is a proposal to revoke one's licence one is given the reasons, so there is no reason why if one is refused a licence one should not be given reasons. In case there is any doubt about the issue Deputy Bruton mentioned, Deputy Quill would be quite happy to have the amendment state under which ground in section 81 (8) the application was being refused.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I expect that is what she means by that. I accept the amendment but I think it is superfluous — I do not mean that in a nasty way. Anyone giving a decision would surely say the application was refused on certain grounds or which ground was contravened. It may be superfluous——

Miss Quill

Nonetheless I see grounds for it.

Mrs. O'Rourke

——nonetheless if it gives clarity and comfort I accept it.

Mr. M. McDowell

It also ties down the appeal to the ground of the original refusal.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I expect the Director would give reasons anyway; he would not just say no.

Amendment agreed to.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I move amendment No. 209:

In page 46, subsection (11), line 35, after "days" to insert "of receipt of notification".

This is for purposes of clarity.

Amendment agreed to.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I move amendment No. 209a:

In page 46, subsection (12), line 40, before "revoke" to insert "suspend,".

Amendment agreed to.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I move amendment No. 210:

In page 46, subsection (12), line 44, before "revoke" to insert "suspend,".

Amendment agreed to.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I move amendment No. 211:

In page 46, between lines 45 and 46, to insert the following subsection:

"(13) In an appeal under this section the Director shall not be awarded or ordered to pay costs.".

The purpose of this is to ensure the Director will not be inhibited from refusing, suspending, revoking or varying the terms of a moneylender's licence because of consideration of the costs which might accrue against him in the event of an appeal. Similar provisions exist in other legislation. The provision equally ensures an applicant will not fear an appeal against a decision of the Director solely on the grounds of cost. Amendments Nos. 66 and 250 are of a similar nature.

Mr. R. Bruton

What did the Minister indicate this means in relation to an applicant?

Mr. M. McDowell

It works both ways.

Mrs. O'Rourke

An applicant will not be afraid to take an appeal on the basis that he would not alone have to pay his own but also the Director's costs.

Amendment agreed to.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I move amendment No. 212:

In page 47, subsection (15), line 9, before "a revocation" to insert "a suspension or".

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed: "That section 81, as amended, stand part of the Bill".

Mr. R. Bruton

Section 81 (5) provides that the moneylender shall display in a prominent position in his business premises a copy of the licence and the terms and conditions attached thereto — this is in the place where the holder enages in the business of moneylending. However, on many occasions the business of moneylending is carried out at the door. Is it not curious that we are requiring the notice to be in the business premises but not in the hands of the moneylender?

Mrs. O'Rourke

He has to carry an authorisation.

Mr. R. Bruton

That does not contain the terms and conditions.

Mrs. O'Rourke

How would he carry that on his person? Where there is a premises, he will display the licence, terms and conditions. When he does business at a client's door, he carries an authorisation stating he is a collector of credit and that the firm has a licence from the Director.

Mr. R. Bruton

I do not know how extensive any terms might be but presumably it would be of interest to a consumer to see what the maximum charge licensed for the moneylender were. It would be useful if a consumer could ask if the moneylender's licence specifies the charges and interest.

Mr. O'Rourke

It might not be physically feasible to carry a licence to every door.

Mr. R. Bruton

Displaying this at the business premises will be scant value to most clients, in practice. By definition, most of this business is not done on the premises.

Mr. O'Rourke

Presumably the authorisation means the person is bona fide. The Deputy is speaking about the terms of the credit agreement, which will be worked out and must be contained in the terms given to the consumer when entering an agreement with a moneylender. The fact that one has an authorisation means there is a licence behind it. One does not just assume that, one knows it. The authorisation represents the licence.

Mr. R. Bruton

Yes, but the licence does contain information of considerable interest to the consumer, such as the charges the moneylender is permitted to levy, the itemised statement of the APR and perhaps restrictions to the licence, whatever they might be. If the framers of this legislation believed it was of value to the consumer to be able to inspect the licence in the premises, logic demands that someone coming to a door as an authorised moneylender should have the same copy as would be prominently displayed in the office.

The consumer may not be in a position to examine the collection charges in detail; nonetheless we should encourage consumers to ask what charges the Director has permitted the moneylender to levy. It would not be a major imposition to ask an authorised person to have a copy of something displayed in his business premises. What is envisaged in the use of the phrase: "the moneylenders shall state restrictions to the licence"? Is this related to advertising?

Mr. M. McDowell

I am interested to hear the answer to Deputy Bruton's last point. We should be practical, however; most of those who borrow from moneylenders will not ask for time to study the licence. This is not going to happen. Presumably the book which will be supplied to them will have sufficient information for them to work out what they can and cannot do.

Regarding subsection 8 (g) and relating that to section 46, it is of some significance that section 46 (1) envisages judges in particular cases having regard to whether the cost of credit is excessive. I wish to have a statement of policy as to the position if a district judge keeps laying down the line that 55 per cent, in his view is excessive. What effect will that have on the Director of Consumer Affairs? Is he to be bound by judges' views in cases or is he to continue to exercise his own judgment independently under (g) on this issue?

Mrs. O'Rourke

The Deputy is asking who is the boss.

Mr. M. McDowell

Who will decide? Is the Director to say that he has seen ten agreements cast down by various district judges because there was excessive amounts but he still believes that 85 per cent is reasonable?

Mrs. O'Rourke

I think the Director will listen and observe. He will consider what various judges have said, take it into account and then give a decision.

Mr. M. McDowell

He will not be bound by them?

Mrs. O'Rourke

No, I do not think so because he grants the licence. In terms of first principles on that matter, this is how I would see it.

Mr. M. McDowell

The moneylenders would be most concerned that the Director should continue to exercise his own independent judgment of the issue. In relation to section 46 decisions in particular, by definition they are personal to the parties involved and they take circumstances into account.

Mrs. O'Rourke

Surrounding circumstances, such as literacy in particular.

Mr. M. McDowell

The licensed moneylenders in particular would be anxious that it should be stated that the Director, although he is entitled to listen to the views of the Judiciary regarding individual cases, must exercise his own separate discretion in arriving at his view.

Mrs. O'Rourke

That is my understanding. When I met various groups, the collector credit people put the point to me that, by their nature some of the judges——

Mr. M. McDowell

Populists.

Mrs. O'Rourke

——were somewhat erratic on some occasions and one would be subject to those vagaries. I distinctly recall the conversation. In my judgment, the Director would listen, observe, note and make up his mind.

Mr. M. McDowell

Independently.

Mrs. O'Rourke

Independently.

Chairman

Is the question agreed?

Mr. R. Bruton

The Minister did not reply to the point regarding carrying the permitted conditions.

Mrs. O'Rourke

Carrying one's licence?

Mr. R. Bruton

Perhaps the point is dealt with later in the Bill where it states that the Director has the power to specify the form of the authorisation. Perhaps this covers my point. However, if there are specific restrictions imposed in the licence on that moneylender, the consumer should have an ability to see them.

Mrs. O'Rourke

The repayment book goes into great detail as regards what must be in it and what the consumer must know. The Director also has the right to shape the type of authorisation.

Mr. R. Bruton

For example, when a moneylender gets a licence, they will give an itemised statement of the APR that they will charge. They will state the interest rates that they intend to charge. When somebody comes to the door and asks the consumer for 85 per cent, the consumer may want to ask to see the licence, to see that they are entitled to charge 85 per cent.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I presume the terms of their agreement will be known.

Mr. R. Bruton

My point is that somebody may come to the door and say "here is the lending agreement, I am looking for 85 per cent" and the consumer may say "surely the Director does not allow you to charge that much". The consumer should then be entitled to ask to see if the Director sanctioned such rates.

Mrs. O'Rourke

The Deputy is talking about three separate areas. First, the licence holder if he has a premises, must display his licence. Second, the authorisation the collector carries in his pocket can be produced to show that he is an authorised agent of such a firm. Third, is the repayment process or the agreement entered into.

Mr. R. Bruton

I am not talking about the agreement. When one gets a licence, one of the matters stated on it will be the rate one is entitled to charge.

Mrs. O'Rourke

Yes.

Mr. R. Bruton

When somebody comes to the door, the consumer should have a right to know what charge has been authorised by the Director. If the Director authorised 85 per cent, they cannot look for 95 per cent.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I ask the Deputy to examine section 84, which deals with the repayment book.

Chairman

The Deputy is moving ahead. He is referring to a subsequent section.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I am addressing the Deputy's point.

Mr. R. Bruton

I accept that my point may be addressed by the Director under section 82 (4).

Question put and agreed to.