Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Jim O'Callaghan for his contribution which focused on the definition of the amendment which contains the term "usurious". He rightly pointed out that subsection (2) deals with that issue and defines it as the rates, the simple interest rate or the nominal interest rate. He made the point then that there is the second step which has different rates and has the term "no later than three years", which would mean that the transitional arrangement would cease to exist after three years. However, the issue of "no later than three years" raises the question of whether it could go before that. Deputy O'Callaghan made the point about having to come back to the House to deal with this. That is why subsection (7) is in the amendment. It allows for the Minister to make regulations to adjust restrictions to the cost of credit to the consumer under a moneylending agreement, including those specified in subsections (1) and (2), which are the two subsections the Deputy referred to. We have tried to deal with that there. That allows the Minister, if he or she so wished, to change subsections (1) and (2) in terms of the rates or in terms of the period that they take effect.

The wider issue here is to get the legislation right, and there are ways of doing that. As I said, I have been here and done that. I recognise the Government has legislation now that is going to the House for Second Stage debate. I am not a fool. For three years when I was pursuing this legislation, that was not happening. There was a vehicle here which we put to the Government. The Government could amend this and do whatever is required, not tie us up with two separate sets of pre-legislative scrutiny and two sets of Committee Stage. This is going to pass. There is no way to stop this passing Committee Stage today. That is the problem we are involved in. I presume the Minister of State is going to vote it all down, but there is no final vote on Committee Stage of the Bill. We differ significantly on the rates, but both legislative measures have similar proposals in terms of the amendments. The Minister of State talked about collection charges, which we will come to momentarily. The issue of collection charges, as the Minister of State recognises, emanated from the consultation that happened in respect of this legislative measure.

There is a big fundamental difference between this Bill and what the Government has before the House, and I am sure the Minister of State is well-briefed on the legislation he is taking before the House. I will give an example of what my legislation would do for a borrower who borrows €1,000 over a 12-year period. The interest rate would go from €560 down to €360 in the first three years and down to €180. What will the Minister of State's legislation do for the same level of borrowing?