---

Debt Relief (Developing Countries) Bill

These are simple probing amendments. This Bill is clearly important, and it will have to be considered by the other place before it becomes law. In one sense clause 9 is clear, because it says:""This Act expires at the end of the period of one year beginning with commencement"." At first sight, that would appear a perfectly sensible provision, because one presumes it would give time for the House and the Government to consider whether a more permanent Government Act should be placed on the statute book. I think that sunset clauses, as they are described, might often perform a perfectly useful purpose, especially when we are dealing in areas such as this, which have not been tested sufficiently by the Government and by courts in the past. Subsection (1) is quite clear. My amendment is purely a probing amendment, which will give the Minister an opportunity to explain what is going on. It states that we should leave out subsection (3). Subsection (1) states:""This Act expires at the end of the period of one year beginning with commencement"," which is fair enough. However, subsection (3) states that""The Treasury may by order provide that this Act has permanent effect."" That is what I am slightly worried about. If this Act is to have permanent effect—after all, we are talking in terms of the wash-up of Parliament, and this is a private Member's Bill involving the Government in difficult areas—I would prefer to have more protection for Parliament. Why can the Government just decide that the Act should have permanent effect? If this Act is to have permanent effect under subsection (3), why does subsection (1) state that""This Act expires at the end of the period of one year"?" This is purely an opportunity for the Minister to explain his thinking. Presumably, he can come to the Dispatch Box and give all sorts of reassurances to Parliament. He can say that there will be a proper debate and proper evaluation. I have been doing interviews today in the context of my role as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee about there always being proper evaluation of value for money. I am sure that the Minister can reassure us on this point. My second amendment, which also relates to clause 9, would leave out subsection (6). Again, I hope that the Minister can help me on this. I have no particular axe to grind one way or another. I am neither in favour of the Bill nor against it but I presume that the Minister can explain to me in simple language what on earth subsection (6) means—I have tried to understand it, but I am totally confused. It states:""If this Act expires by virtue of this section…the Act is to be treated as never having been in force, and…accordingly, where…a judgment was given, or order or arbitration award made, on a relevant claim (as defined by section 5(2)) while the Act was in force, and…the amount of the judgment, order or award is, as a result of section 3, less than it would be if that section had not applied in relation to the claim, the amount of the judgment, order or award is to be treated as equal to the amount it would be if the section had not applied in relation to the claim."" You are a much cleverer man than me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but if you understand that I pay tribute to you—I have always paid tribute to you for your high intelligence. I simply do not understand what that means and I hope that this most excellent and skilful Minister will be able to explain and justify subsection (6) to the House, so that we can proceed without further ado.