|
|
|
|
MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA(Minutes of Evidence)Dé Céadaoin, Bealtaine 14, 1930.Wednesday, May 14, 1930.The Committee met at 11 a.m.
DEPUTY JASPER T. WOLFE in the Chair. Chairman.—The Secretary has received a number of communications, some of which make an offer of evidence. It would be well that the public should know that it is open to any individual to communicate with the Secretary giving a resume of his proposed evidence. If the evidence is relevant to the matters at issue, the witness will be heard by this Committee. That statement presupposes that public time will not be wasted. If irrelevant evidence is tendered, it will not be heard. But if individuals desire to offer evidence even of cases involving personal hardship, the Committee will be pleased to hear them. Deputy Little.—I think we should, if possible, make some provision for people who may be reluctant to allow their names to appear on the record. The people who suffer most are the people who will not desire to have their cases made public. Chairman.—I am sure the Committee will agree to ask the Press not to disclose the name of a witness in any case where the witness desires, for personal reasons, that his name should not be revealed to the public. Deputy Little.—Could we have some arrangement made by which a witness would be identified in our own record by a letter instead of by his name, in certain cases? This is done in the courts of law. The Committee would, of course, be satisfied as to the bona fides of the witness. Chairman.—I think the Committee can keep the name strictly confidential. Deputy Conlon.—Can the Committee keep the name off the record altogether? Chairman.—If necessary, I think the name can be kept off the record. It would be a source of grave danger to an individual concerned with moneylending transactions to give evidence. We have received some letters giving particulars of individual transactions. One of these letters illustrates the difficulties with which this Bill will have to deal. One correspondent calculates the interest which he says he is paying. He calculates the amount at about half what he is really paying. The interest amounts to about 75 per cent. on his calculation. It would take some time to calculate the actual rate of interest, but it is about twice as much as the sum calculated. The Bill has to deal with people of that type who enter into contracts which they do not understand. Mr. Samuel Horwich called and examined.1. Chairman.—You are one of the Committee of the Dublin Credit Traders’ Association?—I am. 2. You are a registered moneylender?—I am. 3. You have carried on business since 1912 in Dublin?—That is right. 4. What percentage of the moneylenders of Dublin are members of your Association?—I do not know how many moneylenders there are in Dublin but we have about 80 members. 5. I do not desire that you should think that we are casting any reflection on your bona fides, but would there be any objection to giving the Committee a list of the members of your Association?—I could not say that. 6. Was your Committee formed for the purpose of considering this Bill?—No, it was not. The Committee was formed about three years ago. There was then some trouble in the city owing to a certain organisation. A few of our members were molested and certain people came into offices and took away ledgers and books. 7. I merely wanted to know whether or not your Association was formed for the purpose of this Bill?—It was not. 8. Am I right in saying that, generally speaking, your Committee is not opposed to the provisions of the Bill?—Not entirely. 9. You agree that there should be a Bill controlling the transactions of moneylenders?—Yes. 10. You have objection to certain sections of this Bill?—Yes. 11. Would you tell the Committee, shortly, your objections to the Bill?— They are set out in the memorandum. 12. Your first objection is that there is no definition of “true name,” which description appears in sub-section (2) of section 1?—Yes. 13. That sub-section states that “… a moneylender’s excise licence shall be taken out by a moneylender in his true name and shall be void if it be taken out in any other name, but every moneylender’s excise licence shall also show the moneylender’s authorised name and authorised address.” That is the clause to which your Committee object?—Yes. 14. What is your objection?—Our objection is that we do not understand exactly the definition. We have not got a definition of “true name.” Take my own case. I have been in this country for forty-two years. My name is spelt Horwich. Abroad it was spelt Horevitz. 15. That would create serious trouble in Dublin. We would never be able to spell it?—That is the reason it was changed. Nobody could spell it. When you were asked your name for business purposes, the person to whom you gave it could not spell it and we could not spell it ourselves, because abroad children are not taught to spell. 16. You suggest a definition of “true name”?—We suggest that it should be the name by which a man has been known in this country for at least ten years. 17. Your next objection is to section 7?—Yes. 18. That deals with the form of moneylending contracts?—Yes. My own personal experience is that we have a great number of women with businesses of their own who carry out transactions on their own account. A great many of them do not desire that their husbands should know that they have borrowed money, because if they knew that they had money they would like to have some control over it. 19. Your suggestion really amounts to this: That the words “by the borrower and her husband” should be struck out of section 7?—Yes. 20. Do you wish to give any reasons? —I have given the reasons. A great many of the women concerned are doing business on their own account. Some of them are practically the sole support of the family. The husbands are doing nothing and where the husband knows that his wife has a few pounds loose money left over he likes to have a say in the matter. 21. Do you, in fact, lend money to married women having no separate income?—We do. 22. Is that out of good nature?—We find that the money is usually required for household purposes. I have never had any trouble as regards transactions with married women. 23. You do not threaten that you will tell their husbands?—I have never been in a Court since I came to this country and I have never sued a customer. 24. Have you ever written to a husband in respect of a debt due by his wife? —No. I find that where a husband is a bad mark you often get the wife to pay, but where the wife is a bad mark you never get the husband to pay. Chairman.—Section 11, which is the interest section, is peculiarly worded at present. Deputy Little.—There is a misprint in that section. In line 29, the word “forty-eight” is a misprint for “twenty.” The word should have been “twenty” in both cases. Chairman.—An amendment will be put down to section 11 to change the word “forty-eight” where it occurs to the word “twenty.” Deputy Little.—That will be done. 25. Deputy G. Wolfe.—That makes the position worse from the witness’s point of view?—It means the extinction of the small loan business altogether. The word “forty-eight” would be bad enough. 26. Chairman.—Would it be asking you to divulge any trade secrets if I were to inquire what the average losses of Dublin moneylenders are in respect of bad debts In the term “bad debts” I include costs spent in the attempted collection of these debts—It would be 2/- out of 5/- There is 5/- interest charged and 2/- goes in losses and expenses. 27. What would the percentage be?—Forty per cent. of the interest. 28. Of every £100 that you lend how much never comes back?—Ten pounds, including the expenses which you mentioned. 29. You are able to run at present with a gross loss of ten per cent.?—Yes. 30. You speak of your own office as regards that?—If I put it in my own way, I would say that it is five per cent. loss and five per cent. expenses. 31. Deputy Briscoe.—I am afraid the answer is not quite clear. The Chairman’s question was with regard to the capital lent, and the answer refers to the interest?—Out of the 5/- per £ that we charge in interest, 2/- goes in expenses and losses and 3/- remains as a profit. 32. Chairman.—We may be able to get the figure from your accountant afterwards. I should not be surprised if you had under-estimated your losses?—I find I make 3/- in the £ on a transaction. 33. Would you give the Committee, shortly, your objections to the rate of interest provided by section 11? You suggest, first of all, that it would put all the small moneylenders out of business?—It would barely cover the actual losses. 34. Could you tell us at all what has been the effect of the English Moneylenders Bill, which provides for 48 per cent.?—I do not quite know, but I did hear that a good many of the small loan people had to give up. 35. And assuming that to be a fact, you say that if they are not able to carry on at 48 per cent. you will not be able to carry on at 20 per cent.?—We would not be able to carry on. Our case is worse in this respect, that we have more expenses than they have. We have the expense of collecting that they have not. 36. Do you not think, contrasting this country with England, that you would have less bad debts here than they have in England?—There would be more bad debts here than there would be in England. My experience is that there is little redress here on account of the insecurity. In England if you lend a man only five pounds you find the man has a nice little house that he is proud of and that he looks after. Here if you lend a man five pounds you have no redress if he does not repay you. 37. Have you any personal knowledge of that?—I have. 38. And your personal knowledge is that the English moneylender, who in some cases has been found unable to carry on with 48 per cent. has a lower percentage of bad debts than the Dublin moneylender?—It may be because their turnover may not be the same as ours. 39. I think you will find that it is a little more than yours. As regards section 13, which deals with the limitation of time for proceeding in respect of money lent by moneylenders, you suggest that that should be deleted?—Yes, we do not follow it. We do not understand it at all. Our association cannot understand this section. 40. In other words, you think that a moneylender is a man who should be allowed to give time, if he wants to, the same as any other creditor?—Yes, in fact more so, because we often lend to decent people, and they take a long time to pay. This year they may not have the money but next year they may have. 41. Minister for Justice (Mr. FitzGerald-Kenney)—I am not clear on part of your evidence. You say the ordinary rate of interest you charge is five shillings in the pound?—Yes. 42. That is 25 per cent.?—Yes. 43. Why cannot you carry on with 25 per cent. instead of 60 per cent.?—It would require a tremendous amount of capital. 44. When you say 25 per cent. I take it you mean 25 per cent. per annum?—No, 25 per cent. per transaction. 45. You may charge 25 per cent. for a week’s transaction?—Oh, no; it takes 30 weeks. Usually the return is twice a year. 46. Deputy G. Wolfe.—You say in your statement: “That in the case of loans not exceeding ten pounds there should be a permitted charge of 5/- in the pound, the repayments to be spread over a period not less than forty weeks.” Five shillings in the pound spread over forty weeks, even assuming that there were no gradual repayments, would amount to 33 per cent?—No, the profit on the year’s working is below 33 per cent. Deputy Bennett.—Five shilling in the pound spread over 40 weeks would amount, roughly, I think, to 33 per cent. Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney.—More, because the whole £10 would not be out. Deputy G. Wolfe.—I am assuming that if there was only one payment it would amount to 33 per cent. If there were gradual payments it would amount to anything. Chairman.—It would be a great deal more than £10. 47. Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney. — What would be the proportion of your capital which you lose in bad debts—that is, money that you never recover? What proportion of the money lent do you never get back?—One in twenty we never get back at all. With the expenses of collection included it is one in ten. 48. That is to say that supposing you lend £1,000 out at interest during the year you get £900 of that back?—Yes. Deputy Conlon.—Plus interest. 49. Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney.—Yes, but I am talking of capital only. You say in your memorandum: “If the words in the section are retained it may lead to married women traders who finance their business by capital obtained from moneylenders being forced to live apart from their husbands.” Are there any women or other traders who finance their businesses from capital lent by moneylenders? —We will take the street traders for one. I do not think that there is a street trader in the city who trades on any other capital than money borrowed from moneylenders. 50. If they are able to pay at that great rate of interest——?—I put it to you this way: if a woman requires £10 for stock, which is about the average they require, and supposing they do not get it from one but from two people and that for that £10 they pay ten shillings a week and 2/6 a week interest, I do not think that is very excessive. There is only an overhead charge of 2/6 a week on their stock, which I do not think is excessive at all. How many people have £100 stock and have to pay £2 a week in rent and other expenses? These people have only £10 in stock and their only overhead charge is 2/6 in interest for their stock. 51. We are only trying to get the facts. Your evidence is that the majority of street traders trade on borrowed money? —Absolutely, and in most cases these traders are the sole support of their families. In nine cases out of every ten their husbands do nothing for them or they only earn enough to keep themselves, while the women are keeping the homes with the money borrowed. 52. Deputy Little.—Would the greater part of the money you people lend be to these women traders? Of the class of women that we are dealing with—married women—would you say that fifty per cent. of the money you lend is lent to street traders?—Quite. In my experience that is so. 53. Of the other 50 per cent.?—All sorts of people—tram drivers and working people of different classes. Deputy Wolfe.—Deputy Little is talk-of women alone. 54. Deputy Little.—Yes, I am speaking of the married women. I am dealing with the last piece of evidence you gave. Here is the kind of abuse that one wants to get rid of; a moneylender comes into a house and offers to lend a married woman money. Perhaps there is a little boy there with no boots and he says: “That little boy would be better if he had a pair of boots,” and by one way or another he induces that woman to take a loan. She is afraid to tell her husband, and as time goes on the debt accumulates, the matter gets on her mind and the moneylender is able to prey upon her fears and anxieties to get a great deal more money out of her than he should?—I cannot say that that has been so in my experience. I do not know what other people do. I am giving evidence on 18 years’ trading in Dublin, and the fact that I have been carrying on for 18 years proves that I would not carry on business of the kind you speak of. 55. I have had people coming to me and telling me of cases of this kind. I know of one case where a woman is actually in the lunatic asylum owing to anxiety that was preying on her mind. What I would like to put to you is this: If you wish us to amend this Bill what remedy would you supply for this kind of evil trade?—If the facilities afforded to them have been abused facilities given to other businesses can also be abused. Supposing people get furniture, they may pawn it, use the money and not be able to pay. All facilities with regard to money may be abused. 56. You are arguing the question. I want if possible to get from you a definite remedy for an evil within the four corners of this Bill, which merely deals with moneylenders, against the practice of moneylenders going into the houses of married women, inducing them to take money, and then preying upon them by working on their fears?—It should be made a criminal offence. That is good enough for anybody. Touting or inducing people to take money should be made a criminal offence. That in itself would be good enough, and I cannot see any other way of dealing with it. 57. Deputy Doyle.—Do you approve of the principle that married women should be encouraged to borrow money without the knowledge of their husbands?—I find that the small loans have been made good use of. I have never had any trouble, or any trouble with the husbands over debts. 58. Is this confined to the small traders?—Absolutely, from one to five pounds. Now and then there may be a loan up to £10; that is to say, the husband may also have a loan of £5. 59. Has it come to your knowledge that a sum of in or about £100 was lent under such conditions?—No. 60. Deputy Briscoe.—When you speak of lending £10 or £5 and charging 5/- in the £ interest, I take it that you are speaking for the whole eighty members of your association, that they all act in the same way?—Well, I could hardly answer that. I take it that it is accepted generally. 61. Supposing I went to you for £5 and that 5/- in the £ is the interest that is nominally charged, would not that 5/- be deducted immediately from each pound and I would get only £3 15s.?—Not in every case. 62. But generally speaking?—Generally speaking it would. It is only in the first transaction that the 5/- would be deducted. In a second transaction it would not be, because I would be dealing with an old customer. 63. So that it does not mean 25 per cent. or 33⅓ per cent. every time? It means that in fact it is 6/8 in the £ that is charged in the case where 5/- is deducted?—Fifteen shillings would be given instead of a pound when the 5/- would be deducted. It is only in the first transaction that the interest is deducted. After that it is not. 64. When you are lending no money I take it you mean the renewals. With regard to the renewals the position, as I understand it is this: If I borrow £5 as a first transaction I am actually given £3 15s.?—Yes, and you owe £5. 65. The transaction would be called a £5 transaction?—Yes. 66. And I would only get £3 15s.?— You would get £4 but first loans are only made for £1 or £2 in the great majority of cases. 67. I would have to pay that back at the rate of 4/- a week?—Yes. 68. After, say, ten weeks had elapsed if I came for a second loan I would not be given the second loan until the first loan had been completed?—Yes. 69. In order to complete that second loan you would lend me a fresh £4, out of which you would deduct the £2 still owing?—You would be owing £3 at that rate. 70. Well, supposing 15 weeks had passed?—It would not be enough. 71. In your particular case?—In a case of a renewal where the balance owing might be a pound, that pound is long overdue in lapses of payments. 72. Then when that would be either due or overdue it would be deducted from the fresh loan?—Yes, or you might bring the pound to the house. 73. It would be deducted from the new loan?—It might be. 74. If a further loan were given £5 would be the amount due again, although in this case the person would only receive £3?—That pound is supposed to be brought up. If there is a pound of a balance that is only allowing for five lapses, but in cases like that it is usually ten weeks. That is why we are working it up to forty weeks. 75. Would you care to express an opinion as to whether you think the renewal system is something that should be stopped, or that it should be allowed to go on as it is?—I understand you would not allow under the Bill to charge for weeks of non-payment. In that case the pound that is the balance due would be long overdue. 76. I do not think that you quite got my question. I am asking you your own opinion. Do you approve of the renewal system?—I do in this respect that it is often very useful until the whole amount is paid up. For instance, if a party wants £3 and he still owes £1 out of the previous £5 loan and he has to wait for four more weeks he should be allowed to pay that pound and get the fresh money. Under the Bill he would be debarred from actually paying the full amount to us. 77. I am trying to get a clear explanation of this matter, as I have had many complaints, and so had other Deputies, from people who borrow money. We know this thing exists. The first transaction was explained, where the full amount of money and interest has not been repaid, and where a borrower finds himself in need of a loan. The attitude taken up then by some moneylenders—I will not say all of them—is that they will not lend any more until the amount that is owing has been repaid. If they give a fresh loan whatever is owing is deducted? —That is the usual case. 78. On the money which really never changes hands interest is charged?—But the money is already due. 79. I want Deputies to understand this matter, and I want to be fair. If a balance is due, and if a further £5 is borrowed, only £4 is given, while £1 will be retained to clear up the balance. As a matter of fact only £3 is given to the borrower?—Yes, but if repayments had been made regularly the full money would have been paid. We are not charging extra for the £1 which ought to have been repaid. It was a balance due on lapsed payments. 80. Is that done?—It should not be done. 81. To your knowledge is it done in the case of regular customers when they want money?—A regular customer would not take it. It is only done in the case of people whose payments have lapsed, or who pay once in three weeks. I refer to people who, when asked to pay 5/-weekly, only pay 2/-, with the result that, after six months, they still owe money on the loan. 82. You do not object to the Bill stipulating that no new transaction should be entered into until a previous one had been completed?—That is quite right. We have to do it, but under protest. We cannot help it. People come and tell us that they cannot pay, that they want £2, when they still owe perhaps a balance of 10/-. If we do not give the £2 we might as well wash the balance off our books altogether. 83. Have you any knowledge of people who want bigger amounts, say £25 to £50, where the moneylender, instead of giving the amount himself, goes to a bank and guarantees a bill, charging a premium for his signature?—I have only heard of such things. 84. Deputy Cooney.—I understood you to say that this organisation was formed three years ago?—Yes. 85. Were you at the formation?—I was. 86. Do you hold any official position in it?—An honorary position. I am supposed to be treasurer. 87. Have you rules governing membership?—Not at all. 88. It is open to all?—To anyone in the business. 89. You admit that there are undesirable types trading as moneylenders in the city?—I heard of them. What would you call undesirable? I would like a definition of that. I would call undesirable persons those who go round lending a shilling and charging 3d. 90. Deputy Little gave instances, which you condemned, of persons going around?—That is in itself an offence. 91. Would you permit such undesirables in your profession?—No. 92. Nevertheless, this organisation of yours is open to all people who trade as moneylenders?—If a case came to the knowledge of the Committee I think it would be dealt with. A case has never come up and we have never had any complaints. 93. You accept any applicant for membership?—Usually we know them all to be people in business for years. 94. How long are the 80 members in your organisation?—Three years. 95. All of them?—Yes. It is not a case of an annual subscription. We called a meeting three years ago of all the people in the business, and we formed ourselves into an association. 96. Can you tell me how many ladies are engaged in this business in the city? —I have heard about a half-a-dozen, but they are not members of our association. 97. None of them?—None. 98. In the evidence you submitted today does that represent the views of your organisation?—I think so. I firmly believe it is right. 99. Deputy G. Wolfe.—In Section 11, you suggest an amendment that the words “twenty per cent.” should be changed to “sixty.” That obviously refers to per annum rate. You say that there should be a permitted charge of 5/- in the £. I take it that the 5/- would be deducted from the original transaction?—It would not be deducted from the original transaction except in cases dealing with a £1 or £2. 100. Even in the case of loans on graduated payments?—Yes. 101. If a borrower finds himself after three or four weeks in a position to pay off the full amount is there any rebate made in the interest?—We would not tolerate that, because it would be considered only a bait to get a bigger loan. 102. There is no rebate?—No. 103. Is there any rebate if a person repays a loan before the 40 weeks?—There would be if that finished the loan, and if another one was not wanted. 104. Is it the definite practice, where persons find themselves able to pay the amount sooner than was expected, to give a rebate?—It is, but it is not usually the case. 105. Deputy Cooney.—Is it not customary when lending money to ascertain the means of livelihood of the applicants and how they intend to repay?—It is, but in most cases—in the small trade particularly—it is done by recommendation. If you have a good customer who pays regularly and if that customer recommends another person you act on that recommendation. 106. You say that 50 per cent. of the business is done with street traders?— Yes. 107. Have you sufficient knowledge of the business to know that out of the money they borrow they are able to pay the interest and still make a profit?— Absolutely. Their only overhead charges are 2/6 weekly. Supposing £10 is borrowed there is only 2/6 weekly to be paid as interest. I suggest that 2/6 weekly for overhead charges is not excessive. They get a living out of it, and the fact that they have done so for years proves that they are making good use of the money. I think there is hardly a street trader but depends entirely on the moneylender. When we think that £3 or £4 is enough to lend a person, when £10 is asked for, they may get £3 or £4 more elsewhere. You would not think 2/6 a week an excessive charge on £10 worth of stock? 108. Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney.—You say that you only deduct money on the first transaction. Supposing a person borrows £5, you give them £4?—Yes. 109. Assuming the money is paid back in 40 weeks, and if that person after two or three weeks again comes for the loan of another £5, do you give the borrower £5?—Yes. 110. You make no deduction?—No. 111. You say that all the street traders are financed by moneylenders?—Yes. 112. Do they ever get out of the moneylenders’ hands? Take the case of street traders who started with you 18 years ago, and who are still trading, have they ever got out of your hands?—If they get out of one they go into another. I know that we get finished very quickly when they stop paying. 113. Chairman.—Your suggested amendment of section 11 is that “forty-eight” should be changed to “sixty”?—Yes. 114. You want a proviso regarding loans not exceeding £10 that there should be a permitted charge of 5/- in the £. Supposing that were permitted, and a person wanted to borrow £10, how much would the borrower receive?—£10. 115. No. What would you give in cash?—If you wanted £10 you would get it, agreeing to pay £12 10s. at 5/- weekly. 116. You have not read your statement, because you suggest that it should be repaid at the rate of 5/- weekly, to be spread over 40 weeks?—We suggest 40 weeks. 117. Would not your suggestion to repay 5/- for 40 weeks mean that £8 would be given and £10 repaid?—It does not say so. The amount there should be 6/weekly. There is a mistake there. 118. Is it that I should get £8?— Repayable at 6/- weekly. 119. Are we to take it that loans not exceeding £10 should be repaid by 40 weekly instalments of 6/-?—Yes. 120. Deputy Briscoe.—Do you lend money on post-dated cheques?—No. I have heard that it is done, but that is an office trade. 121. You do not do business by promissory note?—No. 122. Deputy Cooney.—Has your organisation lady members? Do you approve of ladies trading?—It has never come before us. 123. Do you approve of it?—Personally I do not approve of it, as it would be an encouragement to some people to do business. I find that they compete keenly in this respect. I put it to you this way, that a woman can get better business than a man. I do not approve of it, but I cannot stop it. Lately I find that they are great competitors. 124. Deputy Briscoe.—Could the Committee be furnished with a list of your members?—I could not promise that. 125. Is there any objection? You say that there are 80 members?—There are. I would have to go to the association and ask about that. I could not give it. 126. What would be the objection?—I could not tell. I could not very well give it without permission. 127. Deputy Little.—There seems to be some confusion about the method of repayment. If you lend £10 the amount would have to be paid back at the rate of 6/- for 40 weeks?—Yes. 128. That would represent paying back the £10 plus £2?—For interest. That is right. 129. You say that 60 per cent. would be a reasonable rate?—Yes. 130. Do you mean 60 per cent. per transaction or 60 per cent. per annum? What does the average loan work out at, say that you lend money to 50 or 100 people in the year?—I could tell you only in this way, that out of the 5/- interest we charge there is a profit left of 3/-. 131. I am approaching the matter in this way: certain people come to you and you regard them as normally secure borrowers?—Normally insecure. 132. What rate of interest would you charge?—5/- to the pound. 133. Per transaction?—Yes. 134. How does that work out per annum?—On the capital outstanding? 135. For the normal borrower?—I make it 62½ per cent. 136. You have a type of people to whom you charge more?—No. The charge is uniform all round. 137. Is there anyone to whom you charge less?—No one. 138. You have to arrange your rate of interest at the highest possible rate so as to deal with the worst kind of insecure borrower?—We have to take them on the average. The rate is uniform, and it has been uniform for many years, which proves that it is right. Everyone charges alike, and that is proof that that was required in order to make it pay. 139. That may also be the reason why that particular profession is so unpopular with the general public?—It is unpopular but it would be unpopular if only 1/- in the pound was charged. We know customers with whom we are unpopular when we ask them to pay back our money after 12 months, when it is overdue. We are satisfied if we get our money back in such cases. 140. From the point of view of public unpopularity your attitude is that you might as well be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb?—No, the fact has to be considered that there is a uniform rate. If this business was such a grand thing you would find people with more capital who would do with less than that. The fact that the people in the business do it at the same rate proves that it is necessary to do it at that rate. 141. Deputy Cooney.—Are there any other officers of your organisation here to-day as witnesses?—Yes, but I do not know if they are ready or not. 142. Deputy Briscoe.—You spoke of transactions of post-dated cheques being carried on only in office trade?—Yes. 143. We may take it yours is not an office trade?—I carry on the business in my own house since I started, but I go out for my business. 144. That is looking for borrowers?—No, collecting. I get my business direct from the customers I have. Originally I advertised for my business but I have now enough of customers and they give recommendations to others. Mine is not really an office trade. An office trade is where you advertise continually and people make applications for money. Mine is a house-to-house collecting trade. 145. Deputy Cooney.—You have a regular clientele?—Yes. As I said, I calculate my profits at 3/- in the £. 146. Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney.—There is a certain type of moneylender who, it is stated in advertisements, is willing to lend you £10,000 on note of hand without security. Are there any of those in Dublin?—Not to my knowledge. 147. I take it there are, in fact, moneylenders who do lend to substantial people sums up to £1,000 or so?—I have not heard of a case of the kind. 148. What is the largest sum?—I have heard of sums up to £100. 149. Deputy G. Wolfe.—Would £100 be considered a big sum?—In Dublin it would be considered a very large loan. 150. Deputy Cooney.—Might I ask is it because you are an officer of the organisation that you were appointed to give evidence before this Committee?—No, I would not say that, but, as they say, “there is no show without Punch.” I am always put on committees, but it is a position I have not sought. I simply come to a meeting and they say: “Put Mr. So and So on the job.” 151. It would not be owing to the fact that you never had any cases in Court since you started business?—There are hundreds more who have never had cases in Court. There might be ten members of our organisation who bring cases to Court but the remainder never went to Court, and even those who have done it did so in self-defence. They take cases to the Court for the purpose of showing that they can take them. I know that seventy out of eighty in our organisation have never gone to Court. 152. Chairman.—There are a few points mentioned in your précis which you have not dealt with and you will get the opportunity of doing so later on when you see Mr. Robinson. We cannot hear him under our rules. Mr. Hyman Handelman called and examined.153. Chairman.—I understand that you carry on business in Crow Street in the City of Dublin?—Yes. 154. You are a registered moneylender? —Yes. 155. How long have you been in the business?—About ten years. 156. You are a member of the Committee of the Dublin Credit Association? —I am. 157. Dealing with your objections to the Bill, you have heard the evidence of Mr. Horwich?—Yes. 158. And are your objections substantially to the same sections to which he is opposed?—Very nearly so, but there are one or two points with which I do not agree. 159. As regards section 1, do you think that there should be a definition of what is a “true name”?—Yes. My name is all right, but there may be cases where, as Mr. Horwich has explained, people have changed their names for spelling reasons. 160. Coming to section 7, the married woman’s section, do you also agree with his objection?—No. I would agree that where a woman lives by the earnings of her husband the husband should be acquainted with anything she does. 161. In other words, when you deal with a married woman without separate income you think that her husband should get notice of her transactions?—Absolutely, although it takes away sex equality, I suppose, from the constitutional point of view. 162. If the clause is amended as you suggest will not that be throwing a very serious onus on the moneylenders?—I do not know that it would. 163. Take it this way. What is your position if you lend money to a married woman who has not a separate estate and of which fact you were unaware of? You deal with a married woman, for instance, as having a separate estate, whereas in fact it turns out that she has no separate estate?—It would be up to the moneylender to find out. 164. You think that is a responsibility the moneylender should fairly take on himself?—Exactly. 165. As regards the question of interest, I take it that there will be an amendment to section 11. You agree with Mr. Horwich that the rate to be inserted should be sixty per cent.?—Absolutely. If you want to allow people to continue a legitimate trade on a fair basis, in a fair and square way, and treating people exactly as you find them the business cannot be carried on under sixty per cent. 166. You heard Mr. Horwich’s estimate of the average trading losses?—I find that my losses are more than those mentioned by Mr. Horwich. 167. He is in the happy position that he is able to carry on business with overhead charges and cost of collection amounting to 10 per cent. Do you not think that 20 per cent. or 25 per cent. would leave Mr. Horwich a comfortable income?—I think Mr. Horwich is making a mistake in his own figures. 168. I think he is, too—I am certain he is. 169. What is your suggestion as to the average rate?—According to my own figures I find that out of 100 per cent. gross I make, nearly 33⅓ per cent. are bad debts; 33⅓ per cent. are for working expenses, leaving me with a net profit of 33⅓ per cent. 170. Deputy G. Wolfe.—From £100?— No, 100 per cent. 171. Chairman.—We are not making out these percentages as you are. If you lend £100, leaving out the interest, how much of that principal is lost on the average?—33⅓ per cent. 172. How would that compare with the losses of English moneylenders?—I think the losses are heavier here. In England, as a rule, the moneylender gets security. He gets some stake, whereas here very often we do not. 173. Facilities for flitting are more largely availed of in England?—I do not think they are availed of in any country at present on account of lack of housing accommodation. 174. Do you not think that in collecting English debts you will often find “Gone and left no address”?—Very likely. If you are in the habit of lending money and getting security for the transactions you carry out you are bound to make less loss than if you give without security. 175. Do you think people who get solvent security in this country find it necessary to get 48 per cent.?—They do. 176. Moneylenders must have a good time of it?—I do not know. A man may require a loan of £50. A friend who may not be able to give him the loan may be a good enough security, and he will come along and sign a bill for the amount. 177. There is a suggestion that section 11 should not apply to loans not exceeding £10. Do you approve of that?—There has been some mistake here. It was decided, to save the small men from being thrown out of business, that there should be a clause for them to allow a small trader to lend sums of from £1 to £10 at a flat rate repayable over 40 or 50 weeks. 178. Which is it?—It does not matter. It could be made 40 or 50. I would be prepared to accept either. There should be no second transaction carried through while another was in existence. 179. If I want to borrow £10 from you how much are you going to give me?— £10. 180. How much would I have to sign the bill for?—£12 10s. 181. And that repayable in 40 instalments of 6/3 each?—I think it is 6/3. 182. How much per cent. per annum would that be?—About 65 per cent. 183. Deputy Conlon.—For 40 weeks?— About that. 184. Chairman.—Do you know what form of promissory notes is now used in England in order to conform with the provision of section 7?—I have not seen one. I could get one if I wrote for it. With regard to this clause about 60 per cent., let us take the pawnbroker for example. He lends on security and is allowed 25 per cent. per annum, but if an article is pledged for a day or two he is allowed a month’s interest. A woman, for instance, may take her husband’s pants without his knowledge and pledge it and leave him in bed all day. Cases like that would bring his profits up to 100 per cent. What I want to point out is that in clause 14 you give the pawnbroker leave to carry on at 100 per cent. 185. There is no doubt about it this Bill will still leave the pawnbroker free to charge up to 100 per cent. in some cases? —Exactly, and he gets security for whatever he gives away. 186. You think it is rather making fish of one and flesh of the other, and that they should be both treated alike?—Yes. 187. Have you any knowledge as to the result of the English statute of 1927 on smaller money loans?—I have been in conversation with one or two who are in a small way in England and they found it most difficult to carry on under the 48 per cent. The profit is too small. 188. That is the net profit?—Yes. 189. As regards this English statute and this suggested rate of 48 per cent., I put it to you that the Englishman has to provide for larger losses than the Irishman?—I do not agree with you. 190. You think that the Englishman is a better payer than the Irishman?—He may not be a better payer, but the English lender gets security for his money. The English lender has not to bear the expense in business that we have here. The industrial insurance societies have to pay their collectors from 20 per cent. to 25 per cent. for collecting purposes alone. If I go out to collect myself, I surely am entitled to 25 per cent. for collecting. 191. Are your clients principally in Dublin?—Practically all in Dublin. 192. Have you had recourse to our Courts occasionally?—I think I had three or four cases, and can stand over this that I have never had more than half a dozen. In every case I have had to pay my solicitor his costs. 193. Solicitors generally do like to get paid. As regards section 13, do you agree with the previous witness, who was very emphatic on this, that this section should go by the board altogether?—I do. I agree that it should go out, and for this reason: I may have a client whom I know to be a very decent fellow, he may be in bad circumstances for a period of, say, nine months, and why should I be forced under this section to serve a writ on him? I think I should be free to say to him: “You may be in a better position next year and you can pay me then.” I do not think I should be forced, as I would be if this section is allowed to stand, to serve a writ on such a man. 194. You complain of the preference given to pawnbrokers to engage in moneylending transactions?—Yes. 195. You also complain of the preference given in the case of hire purchase transactions?—Yes. 196. You suggest that in the case of hire purchase transactions, the gross profit is something like 100 per cent.?—It is, at least. 197. And you suggest that the people who sell furniture under the hire purchase system and pawnbrokers are no better and no worse than moneylenders?— Absolutely. 198. That they are in the same boat with you and that all should be treated alike?—Yes. 199. Is there anything further you would like to say? I just want to emphasise the point I made about the cost of collecting. As we have pointed out industrial societies allow 20 per cent. and 25 per cent. to their collectors for collecting. I do not see how we could carry on at the rate of 16 per cent. per annum. 200. Have you many limited companies in your association?—I do not think there are any. 201. Are there not some in Dublin?— There may be some from across the water. 202. At any rate, I suppose I may take it there are some here?—Yes. 203. Supposing the Committee or the Dáil came to the conclusion that it was necessary to make provision as regards the compulsory use of our national language, what do you say should be done in the case of a limited company?—I think you would be putting a very grave burden on the borrower. The burden, I think, would be graver in the case of the borrower than in that of the lender. 204. You think you would be able to translate the borrower’s wishes notwithstanding your lack of knowledge of Irish? —I think the hardship would be greater in the case of the borrower than in that of the lender. 205. Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney.—In what percentage of cases do you have bad debts—that is, cases in which you do not recover your principal?—In my business I have been making 100 per cent. gross profit. I put my bad debts at 33⅓ per cent. It costs me 33⅓ per cent. for collection purposes, to run my business, pay for advertisements and so on. That leaves me a net profit of 33⅓ per cent. 206. Are you now talking of interest only?—Of my turnover. 207. Take it that you lend £100 at 60 per cent. That gives one £160. Can you tell the Committee what proportion of the loans you make are fully paid back with interest?—I would have to go into my accounts to answer that question. 208. Therefore, at the moment you are not in a position to give us any indication of the amount of your bad debts?—No. 209. At any rate you are not in a position now to give us the percentage of your bad debts?—No. 210. You say in your précis that the percentage of bad debts is unduly high. What do you put the cost of collecting at? —Generally at one-third of my gross profit. 211. How do you account for that one-third of your gross profit?—Cost of the office, the payment of two clerks and collectors. 212. How many collectors?—Two and myself. I have to provide for my own expense when collecting. Then there is the cost of advertising. 213. You say all that comes to one-third of your gross profit. Would it be more than one-third of what you receive in interest?—Yes. 214. Am I to take it then that your expenses come to a half or almost a half of what you receive in interest?—They would not be half. The accountant who is to come before you on our behalf will be in a much better position to give you these figures than I am. He is in the habit of dealing with these matters. 215. Chairman.—I take it that the accountant who is to come before us has been in the habit of preparing accounts for registered moneylenders and, possibly, for limited companies?—I am not able to say that he has ever done accounts for limited companies. 216. You may take it that the Committee would like to know, as accurately as possible through a reliable accountant, what the average losses of a registered moneylender in Saorstát Eireann are?— You will have an opportunity of getting that from the accountant. 217. Deputy Conlon.—With regard to the rate per annum which is dealt with in section 11, you suggested that it would work out at 60 or 65 per cent. over a period of 40 weeks?—That is what I think. 218. You also stated that your own gross profits work out at about 100 per cent.?—That is what I have been working at. 219. Take the case of a person who borrows a loan to be repaid in 40 weeks, suppose that person finds that within a few weeks he is able to repay the loan, is it the practice of moneylenders to make a rebate to such a person?—I have made it a practice and I have cases to prove where I have done so. 220. What I would like to know is: is it a general practice among moneylenders?— Any man who wants to do a legitimate business, any fair trading man, does it. 221. Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney.—It is good business to do it?—It is. 222. Deputy Little.—When you speak of turnover and gross profits, do you mean the total amount of interest drawn for the whole year?—Yes. 223. When you speak of losses, do you mean that the 33⅓ per cent.—the amount of interest which you should have drawn for the year—is lost?—Absolutely. 224. But that does not include any reference to the capital invested?—I think that you had better leave these figures over until the accountant comes before you. 225. There is undoubtedly a question of considerable difficulty to be cleared up there?—The accountant will answer all these questions in reference to figures. 226. Will he deal with the question of how far capital is involved apart from interest?—Yes. 227. You said that you generally have to pay the costs of your solicitors. I hope that does not mean that every time you went into Court costs were given against you?—What I think I said was that I had to pay his expenses. 228. Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney.—I suppose what you mean is, that while you get decrees you do not always succeed in levying them?—That is so. 229. Deputy Wolfe.—I suppose you agree with the last witness that section 13, dealing with the time limit, should be deleted altogether?—Yes. 230. Do you think that the deletion of that section would be good for both parties—the borrowers and the moneylenders?—I think it would be better for the borrower than for the lender. 231. Do you not think that if there was a time limit in the Act the borrower would be more chary of borrowing; that it might deter him from seeking loans if he felt that he would not be able to repay them within a certain period?— No. 232. Do you not think that from the moneylenders’ point of view also the deletion of the time limit would be a bad thing?—No, and for this reason, that the fact that there is a time limit in the Act will force a man to serve a writ when, in the ordinary way, he would give the borrower time. 233. Deputy Briscoe.—At the outset you suggested that amounts under £10 should be treated in a special manner and you referred to the small people engaged in that business. What exactly is the point you wish to make about that?—If what I suggested in that regard i not done, then you are going to put the small man, who is in the habit of lending from £1 to £10, out of business. 234. You think that cases of that kind should be treated as special transactions? —Absolutely. 235. You also said it was unusual for moneylenders to lend sums beyond £100? —I did not say it was unusual. There are cases in which people lend up to £1,000. 236. It was suggested by the previous witness that it was unusual for transactions involving amounts over £100 to be entered into?—I do not think it is. For instance, these people who lend from £1 to £10 lend out hundreds of pounds. 237. I take it that you are now only speaking of the members of your own association?—Exactly. 238. Without mentioning names, may I take it that you are aware that there are in Dublin moneylenders who are doing a tremendously extensive business—moneylenders who only lend in sums over £5, and that for every one customer your members would have they would have perhaps one hundred. Do you agree that what you have suggested will not protect the small man but will protect the small man growing into a big man and remaining a big man?—I do not quite follow that. 239. Can you say if any of these men (names on slip of paper handed to wit= ness) are in your association?—They are, but they are not small men. 240. You would not say that the man whose name appears No. 1 on the list is a small man?—No. 241. He is a tremendously big man?— Yes. 242. I take it you will agree that he does a tremendous business in the lending of small loans?—I do not know whether the majority of his business is small or big, but I would term him a big lender. 243. But he does a fair amount of business in small loans?—I cannot speak of the man’s business, but I should term him a big lender. 244. Do you agree that the man whose name appears as No. 2 on the list is a big man?—Very big. So also is the third man. 245. Do you agree that a great proportion of the business of No. 2 and No. 3 is in small loans?—I would not think so. 246. Do they employ collectors?—They do, but I am not able to tell the number. The majority of their business is in big loans. They are big lenders. 247. When you say that I take it you mean that they lend big money rather than a big number of small sums?—They lend big sums to one person. 248. Would you say that the men mentioned on that list are three of the largest moneylenders in Dublin and that they have probably the most extensive clientele in Dublin?—Yes. 249. I ask these questions for the purpose of showing that, while you may be anxious for the sake of the small lender to have the clause you mentioned inserted, its insertion would protect the big lender as well as the small one?—I do not know that it would, because the man who lends big sums will not carry on that business at all. I would not imagine that the three men mentioned on the list have much of this trade at all. One of these men has no collectors. 250. I happen to know that he does?— He does not. 251. The position is that when a person does not pay he goes to see him?—Of course he may go to see him; to see how he is. 252. He does not go for the purpose of saying “How do you do”?—He may go to see what is wrong with him. 253. I have a very good idea as to what he does say?—If you have found one or two individuals who have been using harsh methods you should not condemn the whole lot. You mentioned three people. I will give you a list of eighty or ninety whom you could not say a word against. 254. I have no personal animus in this matter?—I do not say that you have. 255. When you speak about cases in Court do you mean that the six cases to which you referred are the only occasions on which you employed a solicitor?—I would be safe in saying that. 256. You never had letters written by solicitors beyond those six asking for payment?—The number would be very few. 257. When you speak of cases in Court do you mean that a case has either gone to Court or that you have marked judgment, because many moneylenders go a certain distance and then save further costs when they see that there is no use in pursuing the matter. Would you say that you employed solicitors in a dozen cases all told?—A dozen at the very outside. 258. Have you any experience of the business in regard to post-dated cheques?—No. I may have done an occasional one but it is not a practice of mine. 259. Could you tell the Committee what the system of business is in regard to post-dated cheques?—I could not tell you. 260. How did you work it?—I remember a party asking me to cash a post-dated cheque for £10 for three months. I charged him £11 and handed him £10 in cash. 261. You made reference in answer to the Chairman to a man who charged 100 per cent. on the hire purchase system. You have no other loss except that you do not get portion of your money back?—Exactly. 262. You do not buy wrong stock, for instance?—The only stock which I buy wrong is the customer. 263. There is a big hire purchase firm in Grafton Street. They have extensive premises, employ an extensive amount of labour, and if they were to charge 100 per cent. you could not argue your case as against theirs?—As a matter of fact, they work on a higher percentage than 100. 264. Deputy Cooney.—Could you give us an idea as to what class of clientele English moneylenders deal with?—An all-round class. 265. Do you agree with Mr. Horwich that 50 per cent. of the business is done with street traders?—My business is not. 266. Fifty per cent. of the general moneylending business?—He was stating his own case when he was speaking. 267. Do you not agree that 50 per cent. of the general moneylending business is done with street traders?—I cannot speak generally. 268. What percentage of street traders would you have?—Very few. 269. What class of clientele have you? —All round: men, women, traders, shop-keepers, and so forth. 270. Are you a member of this organisation?—Yes. 271. An officer of it?—No. 272. Could you give us any idea as to the amount of capital invested in this business by the average moneylender?—I could not. 273. Not an approximate idea—No. 274. You stated that pawnbrokers and moneylenders in your opinion are on the same footing?—The pawnbroker is on a better footing. 275. Have you any idea as to the amount of capital which the pawnbroker invests in his business?—No. He gets security for any money he gives. 276. Have you any idea as to the amount of profit made in the moneylending business which is invested in this country?—I could not say. 277. Would I be right in saying that practically all the profits are invested abroad?—No. 278. What amount of local labour is employed?—Any labour employed is local. I employ five or six people. I suppose that each man employs either two or three. He employs a driver to look after his car and a clerk to look after his books. 279. Is it not a fact that pawnbrokers must have, as a minimum with which to start business, at least £6,000?—No. 280. Could you prove the contrary?— I think I could. 281. Is it not a fact that they give employment on a large scale?—No more than I would give. Many pawnbrokers give less employment than I do. 282. The pawnbrokers moreover have certain risks to run, particularly in relation to the stuff they take in?—That is not so. They are insured against it. 283. Suppose they take in stolen property?—They are covered by insurance for that. They are allowed to charge so much for each ticket and that goes on top of the profit. Week-end pledging is done on a great scale here by the poor. 284. You cannot give us any information as to the amount of profit that would be invested in this country compared with what goes outside?—I do not know of any money going outside. 285. Deputy Doyle.—Do you agree with Mr. Horwich, on the question of a man obtaining a loan of £5, £10 or £20, that you actually hand him over that cash?—In my case I have clients who would get the full amount. I have clients who would get two or three pounds less. There are cases where I would hand a man £17 for £20 and in other cases I would give £18 for £20 or £20 for £22. 286. If you carry on that procedure and if I ask for £20 would it be wrong to assume that you would only give £15?— That is not so. 287. Do any members of your association do it?—I suppose every man does it according to the risk he runs. 288. If I ask for a loan of £20 you will give me £15?—No. 289. Supposing you do, do I pay back £20? Is that the usual procedure?— Some men may do that, but it depends on the borrower. If a man asks me for £10 and I think I am running 90 per cent. of risk I will hand him £7 10s. or £8 for £10, but if I know that everything is above board I will hand him £10 or £12. 290. Chairman.—As to the rate per cent. and the rate for loss, suppose I lend £100 to various people at 60 per cent. and that I never get back 20 per cent. of that 100 per cent. how much profit do I make on the combined transactions?—I do not follow that. 291. If I lend £100 in various sums, all at 60 per cent., and if £20 of the principal becomes a bad debt, with, of course, the accompanying interest, and I get back £80 at 60 per cent. how much per cent. do I make on the combined transactions? About twenty per cent. 292. To be accurate I make it 28 per cent. or a little more?—I am taking it roughly. 293. You say that in cases like that you only make 28 per cent. if you lose £20. That would mean that you would make 28 per cent. on the combined transactions and out of that 28 per cent. you have got to pay overhead charges, so that your net profit would be 28 per cent. less the overhead charges?—That is exactly it. 294. That is the suggestion which you make in regard to the 60?—Yes. 295. Deputy Briscoe.—When you give an illustration as to how you lend money would you say that you have not charged higher rates than those you mention?—No. 296. You never charged a person more than £2 for £10?—I did not say that. I say that if you, for instance, came to me you would be a good client and I would give you £10 for £12, but if someone else came in who would not be so good I might give him £8 for £10. 297. What would be the limit in the case of a bad client?—Five shillings in the pound would be the most. 298. You never charged more?—No. 299. When you speak of five shillings being the limit in the pound, that does not necessarily mean for forty weeks?—No. 300. It might mean a month?—No, never. The lowest would be three or four months. I doubt if it would be three. In isolated cases it may be three or four, but in most cases it is nine, ten or twelve months. I just wanted to see if you had a limit. 301. Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney.—You have a large number of steady customers, people who come back and back?—Yes. 302. Is it your experience that once persons start going to moneylenders they sometimes stop?—They do. 303. I think that the last witness said that they did not, that they started with one man. exhausted him, and went on to another?—No; I think you misunderstood him. 304. Could you give me any idea of the number of people who started borrowing from moneylenders and who got out of their hands?—A big number of my customers. A man may come perhaps for £12 and he pays it back, and then when he needs a few pounds for holidays, a funeral or a wedding, he will come again. I have a few people whom I put into business by borrowing and who are now in a very happy position. 305. I would like to have that developed. Are there examples of people who by going to moneylenders got established in business and, having paid the moneylenders, made good?—There are. 306. Would they be rare cases?—I do not think so. I have had such cases. 307. Deputy Briscoe.—That would not be done by lending £5?—A business man would want more than £5. 308. He would want £100 or £1,000?—No. He might want £30 or £40. A small man who sells milk, for instance, and when in need of a few cows he might borrow £20 or £30. 309. Deputy Cooney.—Do you approve of ladies trading as moneylenders?—I approve of anybody being in business so long as they carry on in a clean way, and a lady can carry on as clean as a man. 310. Do you employ any ladies as collectors?—I have done so. 311. Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney.—I would like if you could give in confidence the names of the people who were helped or put on their feet by moneylenders?—If you wish it I will give them privately to yourself. 312. I do not want the names but just instances?—I have a case at the moment of a man who first bought one cow with my money, perhaps fifteen or eighteen months ago. He got on very nicely and came to me some five or six weeks ago and asked me whether I would give him the price of another two cows. I did, and he is in a very happy position to-day. 313. Deputy Briscoe.—He has not yet paid back that money?—No, the time is not up. 314. Deputy Little.—When these people come to you for money you go into details with them regarding their financial position?—Yes. 315. And then you decide whether you charge them £3 or £4 or whatever the rate may be on what you give them?—No, the other man makes his own bargain. 316. You make the bargain with them? —No, the borrower makes the bargain. 317. First the borrower says: “I want you to lend me £20”?—Yes, and he says: “I will give you £2 or £3 for it for whatever the period may be.” If I think the risk is covered by charging £2 I charge £2. If I think it should be more, I simply tell him: “I cannot do it unless you pay me £4 for the £20.” If he wishes he may give that, but if he does not there is an end to the bargain. 318. The percentage of losses in your case is pretty large?—Yes. 319. Do you think you take too much risk?—Well I suppose we have been taking too much risk. 320. If you were to take less risk and charge more it might be better?—It might. That is why I put it down as 60 per cent. 321. The more conservative the business became the better it would be, for the provision of loans?—Yes. 322. In other words there would be a healthy tendency to keep the rate of interest as low as it would be reasonable?—Exactly. 323. Chairman.—Before the Committee adjourns I wish to thank Mr. Handelman and Mr. Horwich for the evidence and the assistance which they have given us. The Committee will now adjourn until this day week at 11 o’clock when further evidence will be taken. In the meantime if there are any members of the public or others interested who wish to give evidence or submit their views to the Committee they might do so by sending to the Clerk to the Moneylenders Bill Committee the substance of what they would be prepared to state. They will in due course get a notice from the Committee when they will be heard or whether their proposed evidence will be of any material assistance. If it is, their evidence will be taken. The Committee adjourned at 1.20 p.m. until Wednesday, 21st May, at 11 a.m. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
