At column 956 of Volume 176 of the Official Report, on Second Reading, the Minister said by way of comment: "There is reference in the Bill to cheques handed over the counter." I do not know whether I am very stupid but I cannot find a reference in the Bill to cheques handed over the counter.
Committee on Finance. - Cheques Bill, 1959—Committee Stage and Final Stages.
Question proposed: "That Section 1 stand part of the Bill."
Oh, no; there is no reference.
Is there a "no" dropped out?
I do not know, but there is no reference to it in the Bill.
My point is that there is no reference in the Bill to cheques being handed over the counter and that the position is, therefore, that whether they were lodged to an account or handed over the counter, they were just the same in being free from endorsement in the future.
That is right.
I understood that that was what the Minister's explanation was. It may be just a mis-type, which could happen easily enough, but, as I understand it, the Minister's explanation is that banks handing cash for cheques over the counter need not look for endorsement in the future, if they do not want to.
That is right, but they are protected.
If they hand cash over the counter without endorsement they are protected?
That is right.
I think, however, it would be desirable when we are passing the Bill that we should know specifically——
They do not intend to.
——what are the present intentions in that respect. As I understand the position, and I have made some inquiries since Second Reading, when this Bill becomes an Act, if a cheque is lodged to a bank account, the bank does not intend to look for an endorsement and by this Act, as it will be, they are protected from being considered negligent in not looking for an endorsement. If the recipient of a cheque, the payee, wants to collect money over the counter, the bank can hand him out the money without his endorsing the cheque, if they so desire, and they are not liable as being negligent, but as a matter of protection, as I understand it, they have expressed to the Minister their present intention of requiring endorsement in such a case. If the Minister assures me that is so, I shall be happy.
That is the present intention.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That Section 3 stand part of the Bill."
Has the Minister consulted with his legal people as to the difference between "evidence" and "prima facie evidence” about which we had some discussions the other day?
There is not much difference. Evidence which is not conclusive evidence is the important point. It is only evidence and it can be rebutted.
I cannot understand why they put in "prima facie evidence” in the Mocatta report and left it out in the Bill, but they did.
The Deputy has a better chance of understanding the legal mind than I have.
That was the Parliamentary mind.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 4 to 7, inclusive, Schedule and Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Agreed to take remaining Stages to-day.
Bill received for final consideration and passed.