Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 21 Jul 1959

Vol. 51 No. 5

Bankers' Books Evidence (Amendment) Bill, 1959—Second and Subsequent Stages.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The object of this Bill is to amend the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1879, in certain respects with regard to which attention has been called to the need for amendment by the Irish Banks Standing Committee and in the report of the Committee on Company Law Reform.

To come within the provisions of the Act of 1879 a bank must either comply with the definition of "bank" and "banker" in Section 9 of that Act or comply with the provisions of Section 11 of the Revenue Friendly Societies and National Debt Act, 1882.

To fulfil these requirements a bank must either have duly made a return to the Revenue Commissioners pursuant to the provisions of Section 22 of the Bankers (Ireland) Act, 1845, or else have duly furnished to the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies a list and summary as required by the second part of the Companies Act, 1862, with the addition of a statement showing the places where it carries on business. The list referred to is that required by Section 26 of the Companies Act, 1862 (which has been repealed and reenacted by Section 26 of the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908) and is a list of members with a summary of the share capital and balance sheet.

Section 22 of the Bankers (Ireland) Act, 1845, expressly absolved the Bank of Ireland from the obligation of making a return thereunder and, since it is not a Joint Stock Company, it has always been excluded from the privileges of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act. This was never intended and is due to the fact that the special position of the Bank of Ireland was overlooked when the provisions of Section 9 of the Act of 1879 were being framed. The other banks, that is to say, those which were in existence in 1882 and are still in business were, to begin with, all entitled to the benefits of the Act of 1879 as they were in a position to fulfil one or other of the requirements of the statutory definition.

However, on the establishment of the State doubts arose as to whether the provisions of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act continued to apply to banks registered in England and Northern Ireland. These banks no longer furnish the requisite list and summary under the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, which has been repealed in England and Northern Ireland, and have been relieved by subsection (6) of Section 42 of the Currency Act, 1927, from making the return required by Section 22 of the Bankers (Ireland) Act, 1845.

The advice I have got is that the Act does not now apply to such banks, including such well-known banks as the National Bank, the Northern Bank, the Provincial Bank of Ireland and the Ulster Bank. Thus, under the law as it stands, no fewer than five of the principal banks carrying on business here, including the Bank of Ireland, are outside the scope of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act.

It is primarily to put this right that this Bill has been introduced but advantage is being taken of the opportunity to simplify proofs by specifying by name the eight banks mentioned in the Third Schedule of the Central Bank Act, 1942, the Post Office Savings Bank and the Trustee Savings Banks. This will obviate the necessity for proving that the banks specified are banks to which the Bill applies. A new interpretation is being given to the expression "bankers' books" which takes account of modern methods of record keeping and of the fact that the old fashioned books and ledgers have been largely dispensed with in the banking business and replaced by loose-leaf filing systems and cards. The statutory enactments which it is proposed to repeal will be rendered obsolete by the enactment of the Bill.

The Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1879, was designed to relieve bankers from the great inconvenience of having to attend Court and bring with them the books in daily use in their business. To this extent it is an Act for the relief of bankers, but it is also an Act for the benefit of suitors since it enables copies of entries in a banker's book to be given in evidence and facilitates the procuring of such evidence by allowing any party to a legal proceeding to apply to the Court for permission to inspect and to take copies of such entries for the purpose of such proceeding. The object of the Bill is to make the Act work in the way it was intended to work and I commend it to the consideration of the House.

There is not very much to be said about this Bill, except to say that naturally we agree with it. I understand that the banks welcome it very much. As the Minister said, this Act was made some 80 years ago and as one of my colleagues said, it was a pretty good tribute that the legislators of that time were able to make legislation to last that long. The time has now come, however, when it is necessary to bring this legislation into line with modern mechanised banking and that is the reason for this section in regard to loose-leaf ledgers, which of course were not in existence at the time of the original Act, and also to bring the law into conformity with present day conditions and circumstances, as the Minister explained.

I understand that a great number of difficulties were created in litigation in regard to proof which this Act will now do away with and it will get over difficulties, which were in fact insuperable, in court. At the same time, no injustice is being done to litigants which is the most important point. Therefore, we welcome this Bill and the banks themselves welcome it very much.

What Senator McGuire has stated is true; the Bill is one intended to improve a position that has perhaps, I think I would be correct in saying, deteriorated in the course of very many years. It is a tribute, as the Senator said, to the legislators of a bygone day that the Act has in fact lasted to this period without the necessity for amendment, but as I mentioned in my opening speech, modern methods have to a very great extent made amendment necessary. In future, instead of bankers having to bring in the big unwieldy ledgers that were used in former times, it will now only be necessary for them to produce copies of the particular accounts in which the suitors are interested. From that point of view, it will be accepted as evidence in the Courts. Generally speaking, it is an improvement, certainly from the bankers' point of view and also from the suitors' point of view. Therefore, I think it is desirable.

Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.
Bill considered in Committee.
Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
SCHEDULE.
Question proposed: "That the Schedule be the Schedule to the Bill."

May I ask a question, on the Schedule? I am not quite sure why the National City Bank does not appear. Is that because it is a subsidiary of the Bank of Ireland? I understand it is a bank which has an existence in its own right.

Actually, I think it is due to an oversight rather than that it is a subsidiary of any particular bank. There is a list of banks and organisations entitled to have a licence and the National City Bank comes within that category. As a result of having a licence, it will be included. From the point of view of anyone making an application, he has only to prove a certificate of licence and he is in. It would be better if this bank had been mentioned in the list of banks. Was the Senator thinking of moving an amendment to include the National City Bank?

I should be prepared to do so. I thought there may be some technical reason why it was excluded. It is a bank whose history is closely associated with the growth of our State. It was once the National Land Bank. It may not be worth while making the point, provided they get the privilege; but if the Minister is prepared to accept the amendment, I should be glad to propose it.

I think it would be quite all right. My only fear is as to whether it would be in time to be endorsed by the other House.

If the Senator wishes to move the amendment, I think we could get it into the Dáil tomorrow.

We could take the Bill at 7 o'clock.

The amendment would merely mean moving "in page 2, line 23, to insert ‘National City Bank, Limited' before ‘Northern Bank, Limited'." Would the Senator move that?

Yes, I move that amendment.

I am not sure that I am correct, but I understood there was a change comparatively recently, that within the last couple of years, the position of the National City Bank has changed relative to the Bank of Ireland. It was a comparatively independent entity until some few years ago. I take it it would not make any real difference. The bank is in by inference under (b), but if in fact its position in relation to the Bank of Ireland has been altered in the last few years, it might be as well to have that point considered. That could be done if, in accordance with your suggestion, a Chathaoirligh, the Bill is being taken at 7 o'clock. There will be time to consider it between now and 7 o'clock.

I am advised that the National City Bank is an absolutely independent entity.

Are you taking the amendment now or later on?

If there is agreement in the House, I think we could take the amendment now.

I have no objection to the amendment.

It could be taken now.

Amendment agreed to.

I have not, unfortunately, read the parent Act. In subsection (2) of the Schedule, there is the expression "in this Act" relating to bankers' books. In the present Bill, we have no expression relating to bankers' books. I am a bit puzzled over that. Does it relate to this Bill and the other Act, the two taken together?

This is an amendment of the Act of 1879.

Yes, but in the Schedule here, we have an expression relating to bankers' books "in this Act". We have no expression in this Bill relating to bankers' books. Would it not be "in these acts"?

The two Acts have to be read together. I am advised that that is the position.

Would it not be more correct to have "in these Acts" there?

I do not think so.

Question put and agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.
Bill received for final consideration and passed.
Top
Share