The point has been made both in this House and by RTE —and indeed by some commentators outside—that no significance attaches to the fact that they were paid—that it is normal practice to pay a programme fee. The House will observe that RTE, in their public statement, did not say whether the fees paid were in fact the normal amounts, though this was a point I put some stress on here the last day. Furthermore, RTE have since then rejected as irrelevant a question concerning payments over and above the level of normal programme fees though it was put to them by the gardaí that at least some participants claim to have been paid the sums they asked for before taking part in the programme—indeed, as it happens, the sums they say they were paid for appearing were double what other participants say they were paid. The refusal to disclose the actual sums paid may be understandable. However, the failure to comment on whether exceptional payments were in fact made seems to me—in view of the statements available that such payments were made—to be a matter to which I should invite the special attention of the House.
Incidentally, I did not say that drink was supplied by RTE at Montrose. It would have been quite understandable if a drink had been supplied to participants at that stage. What I was referring to was the supply of drink in a public house at an earlier stage when the participants were being recruited. The supply of drink at that earlier stage is certainly worth bearing in mind, especially when it happens that a participant states that, coupled with what he had already drunk, he was "well-jarred" when he was making his statement to RTE.
Let us, however, ignore the question of drink and—despite RTE's refusal to comment on whether payments over and above the normal fees were made —let us also assume that only standard programme fees were paid. As far as I am concerned, that makes no difference to the reliability—or rather the unreliability—of the evidence though it may be relevant to the apparent readiness of the people in charge to accept the kind of evidence the programme needed. I do not expect that the Deputies opposite to advanced the point about programme fees being paid to everybody have had occasion to ponder the implications of accepting evidence in the nature of confessions when payment has been made for them but I must express my surprise that, even at this stage, RTE, according to their public statement, seem not to see what the implications are.
There is, of course, a vital and obvious difference between the appearance on a televised programme of a member of the public who, for instance, is asked to comment on some current problem, and, on the other hand, the appearance of people purporting to be confessing to criminal offences such as we are here referring to. The vital and obvious difference is that the people on this programme were there solely because they were prepared to make certain statements in the nature of confessions—statements of a kind that were necessary for the programme. If, when they had been approached, their response had been that they knew nothing about money-lending, it goes without saying that they would not have been on the programme and would not have been able to earn the fee. Therefore, as far as they were concerned, they were faced with the choice of saying what they said and getting a fee or not saying it and not getting a fee. A statement made in such circumstances is clearly unreliable.
I do not, of course, say that payment of a fee is a proof that the statements were false though, as it happens, it is virtually certain that most of the statements were, in fact, false. What I am saying at this point is that the unreliability of the evidence should have been obvious from the outset and especially since the fee being paid was a substantial one for people who were, in the main, people who could be seen not to be well-off. The validity of the distinction I am making between fees for services rendered in the ordinary way and fees for a statement that is in the nature of a confession is, of course, well-accepted to the point of being commonplace amongst people who, in any capacity, have the job of sifting and evaluating evidence. That statements made in such circumstances would be completely inadmissible in a court of law hardly needs saying and the reason for this is not just the formal rules of evidence but the more fundamental reason, which led to the relevant rule, that the evidence could not be relied on.
Those who suggest that my object has been to conceal the social problems that lie behind some incidents of borrowing might, I think, do well to ask themselves about the possible social problems that could explain the strange willingness of people who were supposed to be involved in moneylending to appear on this show. For instance, one witness has stated that he was approached by a named person—not a member of the staff of RTE—and asked if he would take part in a programme on moneylending and there would be "a few quid" in it for him. He agreed. The gardaí can say, of their own knowledge, that this man is at present unemployed and has a wife and nine children to support. Irrespective of what in fact was said to him when he was approached, it is clear that he knew he would be paid if he produced a "confession". Can Deputies feel happy about having a man in that position faced with the temptation of knowing that by saying certain things he can collect a much-needed windfall? Another witness—a woman —tells how she was asked, again at two removes from RTE, if she would like to earn £10 and she replied that she certainly would as she was on the point of being evicted for non-payment of rent. Perhaps, it is not only moneylenders who take advantage of human need.
There may well have been other tragedies not obvious to the eye of RTE cameras. For instance, a particular woman was named in the programme as a moneylender. A young man was shown going to her door, paying 25s of what he owed her and asking if it would be all right to pay the balance later, to which she answered "yes, of course". This is what was picked up by the concealed microphone. Convincing evidence it might seem—but, perhaps, not so convincing when it is pointed out that the woman concerned is known to be a club-holder for a large firm in the city centre, that the man concerned and the woman herself both have stated, independently, that the money was owed on a perfectly legitimate transaction concerning a club-voucher, and that the man states that he had misinformed the RTE representative as to the nature of the debt because he knew he would get money if he represented it as a moneylending transaction.
At first glance it might appear that this woman has her remedy if she was misrepresented. I wonder if we in this House can feel happy with that when we learn that she is a widow in her middle seventies with a serious heart condition, with the result that it was at times extremely difficult for her even to continue speaking when the gardaí were interviewing her.
For the reasons I have given, it is clear, beyond question, that the evidence presented in the programme was, as I have said, valueless. Its utter lack of value is underlined by its repudiation later and by the fact that the Garda Síochána know a fair amount about some of the people involved and they are satisfied, of their own knowledge, that their so-called revelations on the programme were fabrications put forward for the money to be got from it.
This, as far as I am concerned, is the central issue and because on this, the central issue, there is no doubt as to the facts, I see no sufficient reason at this stage for a sworn inquiry which would serve only to clarify what seems to me to be a marginal issue relating to the extent to which those concerned with the presentation of the programme were at all interested in checking whether the stories that were being given to them were likely to be reliable. As I said at the outset, I have no reason to think, nor do I believe for a moment, that the people concerned would present as fact what they knew to be untrue.
At the other end of the scale, I am equally certain that they did present as fact what they could not possibly stand over and I feel very strongly that they should have realised that accepting such stories was, at best, an extremely doubtful exercise and one that called for much more checking than they gave it. But how far they were culpable in falling short of what the nature of the programme required —whether, for instance, they did not pause to check because basically they did not want to know—is not for me to say nor will I speculate about it. At the same time, I want to make it quite clear that I do not by any means exclude the possibility of a sworn inquiry if the public are being confused by people continuing to try to defend the indefensible.
I now turn to the question asked about the extent of the illegal money-lending problem in Dublin. The views of experienced Garda officers in all city areas have been sought and they in turn have made special inquiries that would help them to form an estimate. Their answer is that they neither know of nor suspect the existence of anything in the nature of a moneylending racket backed up by strong-arm tactics of any shape or form. And they are confident that, if such a thing existed in fact, they would certainly have heard of it even if they could not prove it.
They, therefore, dismiss as being wholly unfounded, and not just as being unprovable, the suggestion that strong-arm methods are being used to support a moneylending racket. As regards unlicensed moneylending itself, we are, of course, speaking only of moneylending by people who go in for lending money in order to collect interest on it. It will be recalled that the TV programme said there were 500 such people in the city and I said the last day that the gardaí were satisfied that this was grossly exaggerated. The Garda estimate—and I emphasise that this relates to the number of people suspected of probably being in the business and not just people who could be proved to be in it—is something of the order of 12 or 15. Giving themselves adequate margin for error they say the figure is undoubtedly below 25.
To sum up what I have said,
(1) The allegation that strong-arm methods are being used by unlicensed moneylenders is, in the opinion of the Garda Síochána, without any foundation in fact.
(2) While the gardaí know that some unlicensed moneylenders operate, their number or scale of operations is nothing like that suggested by the programme.
(3) The statements purporting to be confessions by moneylenders about moneylending and strong-arm methods can be dismissed as wholly valueless.