DEBT COLLECTORS (REGISTRATION AND LICENSING). (Hansard, 28 June 1939)

§ Mr. McGovern

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the registration and licensing of debt collectors. This Bill will apply only to Scotland. No matter what may be the political point of view of hon. Members I feel sure that after the evidence I shall submit they will agree that there is a necessity to stop what has become a very brutal ramp and dishonest practice of the worst kind amongst debt collectors, especially in the city of Glasgow. From time to tune during the past six years in this House I have mentioned glaring cases of fraudulent practices by a debt collector in my own division. Only two weeks ago this collector was brought before the Sheriff Court in Glasgow, and after a lengthy trial was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment for just the kind of practices that for six years I have brought to the notice of this House. Nowadays any man can start work as a debt collector without registration and without guarantees of any kind. I suggest that debt collectors should be registered.

Clause 1 provides that no person other than a qualified solicitor, accountant or sheriff officer shall act as a debt collector unless he has registered himself with the sheriff clerk of the county in which he wishes to act as such and has received from the said sheriff a licence so to act. The licence fee is to be £1 and a licence is to be valid for 12 months. Clause 2 states that the sheriff clerk shall have power to suspend or withdraw the licence when complaint has been made to him and he is satisfied that the debt collector has acted in a harsh and oppressive manner. Clause 3 provides that when a licence has been withdrawn or refused the 428 applicant may appeal to the sheriff, whose decision will be final. Clause 4 provides that where any person other than a qualified solicitor, accountant or sheriff officer acts as a debt collector for a fee or sets up a debt-collecting business without a licence, he will be guilty of an offence and subject to a penalty of £50 or three months' imprisonment. Clause 5 provides that the Act shall apply only to Scotland and shall come into operation on 1st January, 1940.

The methods that were employed by this debt collector are well known throughout the city of Glasgow. For example, people made payments to the collector, and after the payments had been made he denied that they were made. The common practice was to take the book from a poor woman who was paying him the monthly instalment granted by the court, to ask that he might retain the book which he would promise to deliver the following week, and then in the following week to deny that the book had been given to him or that it had ever been in his hands, then to issue fresh summonses, the result of which was to run up the account of the woman concerned. I have here the details of the account of a woman who contracted a debt of £1 2s. 6d. with this man. Before she was released from him she had paid the sum of £7 15s. In the case of another account the debt was £2 2s. 6d. and the sum paid was £11 10s. In a third case the debt was 12s. 6d. and the sum paid was £5 7s. 6d. No Member of this House would desire that practices of that kind should continue. In my opinion the weakness has been that there has been no supervision over a collector's conduct. If he had been compelled to apply for a licence every year the debtor could have complained, and when there was an 429 accumulation of evidence the sheriff or sheriff-clerk could at least suspend the licence pending an investigation of the case. These points came out in the court, where it was proved that the sums of money actually paid by certain people were obliterated from the collector's books, and it was only after careful examination that the authorities found that the sums paid were still to be found in the books though covered over by further writing.

These poor victims in Glasgow have to be defended. I am not here attempting to prevent any person who has an account due from any of these working people from getting that to which he is justly entitled. I am not even denying the ordinary debt collector or sheriff officer the legal fees that are granted by a court. I am not defending the evasion of responsibilities of that kind. I am asking only that the individuals, the poor people who have contracted debts, sometimes because of extreme unemployment and poverty and who are summoned to the courts, shall find in the courts the protection to which they are entitled, and that they shall not be the victims of blackmailing and terroristic tactics such as have been endured. I have gone to some of these individuals with money from charitable funds to wipe out the total debt of the victim. I have been met with a refusal even to clear the debt. I have had to bring witnesses to certify that I have offered to wipe out the debt. The collector has said to me, "I shall not take the full money. Send the woman to me and I shall take the 2s. a week from her." The desire was to get hold of the victim and to extract the last possible penny from her.

One of the illuminating results of these court cases in Glasgow was to show the difficulty of getting complete proof of the conduct of the collector because of the fact that his office staff had been bound up with him in this process, and it was only after a breach of the peace case in Glasgow that some of the things I have described came to the light of day. I ask the House for the simple protection of decent people, that we shall have a debt collector registered in a proper way and that he shall be subject to the general legal machinery of Scotland. I ask for leave to bring in this Bill because of the terrorism and the brutal conduct going 430 on in Glasgow every day, and I seek by the Bill to get protection for the people who are the victims.