HL Deb 15 November 1972 vol 336 cc703-5
LORD CHORLEY

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a Statement about the proposals which are currently being put forward by UNCITRAL for the introduction of a new international bill of exchange and to indicate whether they agree with the view that such a proposal ought not to be adopted here unless and until the views of the Law Commission, and of other responsible organisations concerned with such matters, have been ascertained and made known, particularly on the draft code which has been prepared.

THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE)

My Lords, the working Group on Negotiable Instruments of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law will meet for the first time in January to study the draft code. Before any decision is taken by the United Kingdom on a new international bill of exchange, interested organisations in the United Kingdom will be consulted.

LORD CHORLEY

My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for that Answer, I wonder whether she realises that there has been a good deal of (may I say?) hole-and-corner business going on in this connection, and that commercial lawyers and bankers who are concerned about this are very mystified by the situation. That is why I was trying to get a rather fuller statement from the Government than I have just received, which is not altogether satisfactory. I wonder whether the noble Baroness is aware that many commercial lawyers and bankers feel that the differences between the Anglo-Saxon bill of exchange and the Continental one are so small that it would be better to get them ironed out, especially at a time when we are going into Europe and international transactions will become much more common, rather than to go in for a completely new bill of exchange involving a new code and thus making the law more complicated.

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS

Question!

LORD CHORLEY

My Lords, I am asking a question. I wonder whether the noble Baroness is aware of this—having a third wheel to the tandem, so to speak, instead of going modern and asking for a monorail.

BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE

My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot accept the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question that there has been a kind of "hole-and-corner" business going on. We have had, as our representative from the United Kingdom, Professor Guest from King's College, London, and we have also had a United Kingdom representative on the Working Party of experts. However, I agree that there are some who question whether it is necessary to have another international bill of exchange. I understand that if one were adopted it would be created for optional use in transactions of an international nature.

BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY

My Lords, can the noble Baroness explain, for such ignorant Back Benchers as myself, what the initials stand for?

BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE

My Lords, if I may say so to my noble friend Lady Emmet, I did read out that UNCITRAL stands for the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law.

LORD CHORLEY

My Lords, may I put a further question to the noble Baroness? Does she know that when I asked the Foreign Office about this matter early in the summer they knew nothing whatever about it, which supports the view that this has been a hole-and-corner business?

BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE

My Lords, happily in my briefing on this question the Foreign and Commonwealth Office appeared to know a great deal about it.

Back to