---

Debt Relief (Developing Countries) Bill

I shall come to that. First, I am going to go through the hon. Gentleman's comments on his amendments, because there were some contradictions in relation to amendment 3. Originally, the Bill did not create an incentive for creditors to hold on to their debts in the hope that the Act would expire, as it would have taken permanent effect immediately. That risk was one reason for the caution about including the sunset clause. However, the problem would be considerably worse if the Bill provided no option, short of new primary legislation, for the Act to take permanent effect. If Parliament is satisfied at some future point that the Act has caused, and is causing, no significant damage to the operation of financial markets, then it should be able to approve, by affirmative resolution, its taking permanent effect. That is a proper way to provide for the orderly management of these very difficult debts in heavily indebted poor countries. There has been extensive discussion of this Bill, but part of the purpose throughout has been to make sure that we use the existing procedures of the HIPC programme to provide stability and security to the countries involved. I turn now to amendment 3. The hon. Member for Gainsborough has said that he cannot understand clause 9(6), but it makes arrangements for handling the debt if the Bill is not confirmed. The result of that would be two classes of creditors: the first would be made up people who had taken action after the Bill fell and who would therefore be able to sue for the full amount, and the second would consist of people who took action for the one year that the legislation was in force. The second group would find that the value of their claims would be knocked back, because the legislation would allow them to pursue only that certain percentage of their debts that was approved by the HIPC procedure. The purpose of clause 9(6) is therefore to restore equity between the different classes of creditors. As I have said, although the Bill looks quite complex, the principles behind it are simple. One of those principles is that there should be equity between different classes of creditors. If the amendment were accepted, a mechanism for restoring that equity would disappear, with the result that creditors would have no incentive to pursue their debts in the interim period when the legislation is in force. They will think, "Perhaps it won't be renewed, so we'd better not go to the courts now and just hang on instead." That would mean that the HIPC countries would still have their debts hanging over them, and also that creditors would receive less justice in the end. That would be the impact of amendment 3, and I do not think that that is what the hon. Gentleman intends. If the legislation were to fall for some reason in the next Parliament, I think that he would probably prefer to see justice restored for those creditors who had taken while it was in force. Amendment 2 would give the Act that this Bill will become equal status, in terms of parliamentary time, attention and renewal, with much more substantial pieces of legislation. It would have to keep being renewed every year, and there would be no provision to make it permanent. However, I think that the Opposition's intention was to ensure that a new Parliament could scrutinise the legislation and decide whether it was what was needed. If it was, and if it was working properly, that new Parliament could make it permanent. The impact of amendment 6 would also not be what the hon. Member for Leigh intends, as it would delete the mechanism for providing justice and equity to all classes of creditors, if a new Parliament decided not renew the legislation.