Pearse Doherty (Donegal South West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State will be well aware that I tabled a number of amendments on Committee Stage but I have decided to retable only a few of them on Report Stage, one of which is connected to this issue but is not being taken with this amendment. There is a deficiency in the legislation regarding the issue of moneylenders. I recall the Minister of State's remarks on Committee Stage in terms of getting the legislation up and running and then considering how it will affect moneylenders. While I note what Deputy Michael McGrath seeks to do in his amendment, and there is an argument that identifying moneylenders would involve a separate section in the legislation, which would be a good approach, I have an issue with the threshold of €500 because it would not capture lending by moneylenders. As I mentioned on Committee Stage, Provident, the largest moneylender in this State, advertises loans from €100 to €500 on its website. The wording in the amendment provides for a loan in excess of €500, but on Provident's website loans are offered up to €500 and it would not be possible to get one in excess of €500. Therefore, I would be cautious about that aspect.

The principle underpinning the amendment is the right one. Amendment No. 5 ties into this amendment. Even with the inclusion of my amendment or that of Deputy McGrath, the Bill would not deal effectively with the issue of moneylenders. The problem is that the providers have only to consult the register. There are moneylenders who want to lend and are willing to take the risk because the APR is very high. Also, they will call to the door of the borrower every week to collect the repayment of the loan. That is not intimidating in the sense of illegal moneylenders but when a provider calls to a borrower's door every week to collect the €5 repayment, the provider is likely to get back the money as against the borrower making a lodgement to a financial institution, be it the credit union or some of other institution. The issue is not only that the provider should check the register but that the other section should be amended in terms of the requirement to report loans. Even with the inclusion of these amendments, the provider would not have a loan that is less than €500. The problem is that moneylenders will want to lend money because they will believe they will get a good return and even if they check the register they do not have to do anything about it. They can note that the person is over-indebted but all they have to do is check the register, and that is where there is a weakness in the legislation. I support the principle of Deputy Michael McGrath's amendment. The threshold of €500 is too high and I will deal with that in my later amendment, but the principle is good in terms of identifying moneylenders as a unique area.

I know from Committee Stage that the Minister of State is unlikely to accept these amendments but I would encourage his officials to consider drafting a section that would deal with the issue of moneylenders. I had a conversation with a newly appointed Sinn Féin councillor to Donegal County Council, who was co-opted to the council last Monday, and one of the first issues about which he spoke in the council was that of moneylenders calling door to door in estates in Donegal and the burden that places on individuals. I would encourage the officials to draft a section dealing with the issue of moneylenders if the Minister of State is not willing to accept these amendments.

See this speech in context