Sean Barrett (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank Senator MacSharry for raising these issues, and indeed Members on all sides of the House. This is an important debate where the Seanad reaches out to help those in serious need because of what has happened to finance and banking in this country. In contrast, half of the bank rescue fund was paid to Anglo Irish Bank, which was a bank for approximately 18 people. Tens of millions, billions of euro were paid out in that case and the system was so dysfunctional that it left many people victim to the money lenders, as Senator MacSharry and the Minister said.

It must be a concern that the Minister said there has been only one prosecution for illegal money lending. It is a far greater problem than that suggests. We have lost out of the system and weakened institutions which would be of value to the people whom Senator MacSharry is helping with his legislation. I commend the Credit Union Movement and the great work of people such as John Hume in promoting those, the Money Advice and Budgeting Service, MABS, the Free Legal Advice Centres, FLAC, and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Defence, Deputy Shatter with the Personal Insolvency Act. We have to act against intimidation. Senator Michael D'Arcy was most concerned in Wexford at the heavies, quasi criminal groups, who call around to collect tractors and so on, in a period when some of his farming neighbours were in difficulties.

We need to look at the institutions we have lost such as thrift associations and savings clubs. The Trustee Savings Banks were banks for low income people to try to put money by. If one can do it, learning how to work with credit is a major advantage in trying to run households and develop the wider economy. Banks used to do things like promote thrift and savings in schools, but they became obsessed with lending to the 18 people in banks such as Anglo Irish Bank. Building societies used to be mutual benefit societies, part of the wider co-operative movement where people got together to buy each other's houses. One of the building societies that now has a financial sector name was originally the Dublin Working Men's Mutual Benefit Building Society. People got together to help each other to manage their financial affairs.

I commend the Society of St. Vincent de Paul. We need banks with a human face and we have not had those. They have been so busy running around with the people who bankrupted the country. The low interest rate policy that is so widely believed in by so many international economists deprives low-income people with small savings of some income so that we can promote property bubbles and fund massive borrowing by really rich people. That is a form of inequality in society that we have to address.

I had not heard of the 117,000% interest rate that Senator O'Keeffe has just drawn attention to. The Irish Times of 7 March 2013 reports a 300% interest rate on loans. Sinn Féin last year sought to introduce a cap of 40%. Legislation in Canadian limits interest to 60%, Spain 10%, France and Belgium 20% and Germany 18% to 20%. We need to address the inequality in the access to funds for renegade builders and ordinary citizens, particularly at the low end of the scale. In the Irish Examiner of 26 June 2012 Mr. Brendan Dempsey of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul is quoted as saying "nobody will give evidence" in cases against money lenders. The Minister has acknowledged that. Are we naive to think people would even go to the Garda? It may be that these people are so isolated, fearful and separated from the rest of society that even gardaí would be regarded as establishment figures.

We must deal with loan sharking and money lending. We must promote the democratisation of society's saving so that low-income people can participate in what is part of a developed economy, the ability to borrow money, use it wisely and pay it back.

I wonder if the fine of €1,500 is a bit small compared to the illegalities and the criminality that Senator MacSharry is attempting to combat with his Bill. I commend it warmly, and all Members of the House must, because this is a real problem for people who are socially deprived and it has to be tackled. Sometimes we are all more interested in removing income limits or universalising a benefit, which is really extending something from very low-income people to the rest of society, who may be well-off. However this is a measure designed to deal with low-income people who require better institutional assistance and the restoration of some of the bodies that used to help them in this regard.

I commend the Government for rescuing the Credit Union Movement from the difficulties we saw it in because we need to get credit and help to people with their financial affairs. Mr. Micawber was mocked in the glory era. Who wanted to balance the books like that? Governments and countries do not do it but households have to do it and we should assist in any way we can. I commend Senator MacSharry again.

I welcome the Minister to the House. I commend Senator MacSharry and his colleagues for bringing this important issue to the fore through the Criminal Justice (Unlicensed Money-Lending) Bill 2013. Other colleagues have spoken eloquently about the real trauma, fear and intimidation that takes place in the unlicensed or illegal moneylending sector where people are forced to pay enormous rates of interest, as illustrated by Senator Susan O'Keeffe. All of us would unequivocally condemn those practices and have full sympathy for the motivation behind the legislation. All of us are agreed on the need to ensure the issue is dealt with rigorously through the law.

In his contribution, the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter, was very clear that a consequence of accepting the Bill would be to create a duplication and a dangerous blurring of offences. We all appreciate the motivation but the provision in section 2 to condense two different offences that are currently on the Statute Book, of demanding money with menaces on the one hand, blackmail extortion, and that brand of offence with this very separate offence of unlicensed moneylending is a dangerous blurring. The Minister has pointed out that section 98 of the Consumer Credit Act 1995 deals with the unlicensed moneylending aspect of that particular offence and gives the Garda very extensive powers to stop, question or search and remove documents or money from people without warrants where it reasonably believes that such documents or money may be in that person's possession for the purpose of moneylending. Extensive powers are already in place. The penalty was increased in 2005 for that offence up to five years imprisonment or a fine of €100,000, which is entirely appropriate.

Section 17 of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994 deals with the separate offence of blackmail, extortion and demanding money with menaces. It provides for a heavier penalty, which is correct, because that is a more serious offence and an offence of a different nature, of imprisonment for 14 years on indictment. Under the Criminal Justice Act 2007 we have the ability to provide for monitoring and protection orders where people are subjected to harassment on an ongoing basis by moneylenders. There is a strong argument, given the nature of the debate, for codifying the offences. An issue I have often addressed in the House with the Minister, Deputy Shatter is the lack of codification and the unsatisfactory nature of our criminal law. In order words, we have to look to different statutes. On the face of it the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Order does not appear to have anything to do with blackmail. It deals specifically with public order offences, such as, drunk and disorderly in a public place and so on, therefore, it is arguably not the appropriate place to find an offence of blackmail or extortion. Similarly we might ask why there is a separate Act for dealing with monitoring and protection orders and why criminal law is not codified in a much more coherent manner. That is a much bigger issue. It is certainly an issue that Senator Jillian van Turnhout and I have addressed in the context of child sexual abuse offences where one has to look to a whole range of statutes to find what the law is on offences of sexual abuse against children. There is a bigger issue here about placing offences in an appropriate and accessible place. I know that is what the Senators are seeking to do in this Bill but, as I have said, it would duplicate existing law.

A further valid point was made by the Minister, which was picked up by Senator Sean D. Barrett and others, which is the difficulty in securing convictions. That has nothing to do with the offences on the Statute Book because one could have any number of offences. The difficulty has been getting people to come forward. First, there is a lack of complaints to the Garda which could trigger investigations and prosecutions and, second, even where an offence is suspected and the Garda has commenced investigation and taken a prosecution there is a lack of willing witnesses who will come forward and give evidence and testify and swear up, so to speak, in criminal cases dealing with illegal moneylending. The reality is that people who are in vulnerable positions and who have been subjected to the type of practices the Bill seeks to deal with are often not willing to come forward to give evidence for obvious reasons. The Minister is right to say that the real challenge for policymakers and legislators is to ensure people have viable alternatives available to them in order that they do not have to avail of these unscrupulous lenders. The Minister referred to MABS. Senators mentioned other efforts such as the CAILM initiative in Sligo. Clearly these are the best way to ensure people do not fall into the hands of moneylenders.

I appreciate the Minister's comments that he considered accepting the Bill and that he was not going to oppose it for the sake of it because it is a Private Members' Bill. We have had a good record in the past year or so of having Private Members' Bills accepted. It is important that we would not, as a matter of course, oppose Private Members' Bills. Whether they come from Government, Independent or Opposition Senators it is important that each Bill is scrutinised on its own merit and, in fairness, this one was so scrutinised and a clear rationale put forward for opposing it.