§ 27. Sir W. Anstruther-Grayasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the confusion with regard to receipting bills which has arisen following the Cheques Act; and whether he will clarify the position.
§ Mr. P. ThorneycroftSection 3 of the Cheques Act, 1957, provides in effect that a paid unendorsed cheque is prima facie evidence of the receipt by the payee of the amount for which it is drawn. This puts paid unendorsed cheques in the same position as paid endorsed cheques; in no other respect has the law relating to receipts been changed.
§ 34. Sir J. Duncanasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that up to now receipted vouchers have had to be produced in support of maintenance claims, claims under Section 314 of the Income Tax Act, 1952, and other similar claims, and that in view of the passing into law of the Cheques Act this is no longer possible; and if he will make a comprehensive statement on the procedure to be adopted in the future, and arrange for this to be circulated to all those who may be concerned.
§ Mr. P. ThorneycroftThe Inland Revenue will accept an unendorsed paid cheque together with the unreceipted accounts or invoice; but nothing in the Cheques Act alters a person's right to require a duly stamped receipt for a payment of £2 or over.
§ Sir J. DuncanDoes this mean that if an unendorsed cheque and a bill which bears no evidence of payment on it are brought together, that will be accepted as evidence of payment by the Inland Revenue?
§ Mr. ThorneycroftThe Inland Revenue will accept an unendorsed cheque with the invoice as evidence of payment.
§ 36. Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenportasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why cheques, pay orders or vouchers in respect of payments by Government Departments to private individuals do not carry 2d. stamps and whether, in 763 view of the passage of the Cheques Act, he will arrange for these to be regarded as receipted if endorsed without the further addition of a 2d. stamp.
§ Mr. P. ThorneycroftThey are exempt from cheque stamp duty and in some cases, notably for payments to pensioners, from receipt stamp duty where they embody a form of receipt. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT extracts from a circular I have issued on this subject to Departments.
§ Following is the information:
§ Treasury Reference H.F. 338/466/01 D.A.O. 4/57
§ Cheques embodying a form of receipt
§ The practice of Departments generally is to require a receipt to be given on the back of cheques even when this receipt does not link the payment with the relevant transaction. Under the provisions of the new Act this practice is unnecessary and should not be adhered to after the coming into force of the Act except where the signature of the payee is required for a specific purpose, e.g., as a formal discharge of an obligation of a Department, or as evidence of life as in the case of pensioners.
§ Payable Orders
§ Section 3 of the Act does not cover payable orders and similar instruments used by Government Departments. The banks are aware that these payable instruments will still have to be signed by the payee.
§ The question of whether the principle of no endorsement should be applied to payable orders will have to be examined at some future date when sufficient experience of the working of the Act has accumulated.
§ 38. Mr. John Hallasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that relying on the provisions of Section 3 of the Cheques Act, 1957, the practice of giving receipts is dying out; and what is his estimate of the amount of revenue which will be lost as a result.
§ Mr. P. ThorneycroftNo precise estimate can be made.