1.    Unsustainable debt is often discussed only in terms of its economic implications. We agree, however, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that "debt relief is a moral issue", rather than simply an issue of economic development, and we recommend that it be discussed in this context (paragraph 2).

2.    We recommend that the UK's representatives at the World Bank, IMF, and African Development Bank, report developments in lending policy to us on an annual basis, and provide assurances that the multilateral institutions to which the UK contributes are pursuing lending policies which take a full and realistic account of the ability of the debtor government to repay (paragraph 9).

3.    We welcome the restriction by the Government of the provision of export credit guarantees to productive expenditure only. We recommend that the Government use the G7 meeting in two days' time to continue to promote an international agreement on the restriction of export credit guarantees to productive expenditure only (paragraph 12).

4.    Jubilee 2000 Coalition claim that "if Africa's export prices had kept pace with import prices since 1980, Africa could have repaid all its debt one and a half times over". This point has too often been forgotten in any discussion on debt relief (paragraph 13).

5.    It is clear that responsibility for unsustainable debt lies with creditors, debtors, the impact of unforseen economic circumstances, and conflict. In view of this shared responsibility, creditors and debtors should continue to work together to achieve a joint solution, with each recognising their own role in the creation of the problem and their potential contribution to its solution (paragraph 15).

6.    It is important that definitions of unsustainable debt should explicitly take human development into account. We therefore agree with the definition of unsustainable debt as "debt which cannot be paid without damaging the prospects of economic and human development" put forward by the World Development Movement (paragraph 17).

7.    According to the 1997 UNDP Human Development Report: "relieved of their annual debt repayments, the severely indebted countries could use the funds for investments that in Africa alone would save the lives of about 21 million children by 2000 and provide 90 million girls and women with access to basic services" (paragraph 19).

8.    There is as yet no evidence on the potential adverse effect of debt relief on creditworthiness. We recommend that creditworthiness be monitored in those countries which benefit from the HIPC Initiative. We believe, however, that the fact of debt relief is less important in assessment of creditworthiness than how such debt relief has been used. If it results in an effective macroeconomic framework and a productive economy we doubt that the debt relief will deter investors (paragraph 22).

9.    We welcome the provision of UK bilateral aid as grants rather than loans (paragraph 23).

10.  We welcome the general focus of the Government on international debt relief efforts, with unilateral action reserved for occasional cases where it will unlock relief from other creditors, such as the recent donation of US$10 million to finance the debt relief package of Mozambique, which, as we noted above, provided a lead for other creditors to make similar donations (paragraph 26).

11.  The Mauritius Mandate provides a welcome impetus for the rapid implementation of the HIPC Initiative (paragraph 36).

12.  The Government must continue to press for the rapid implementation of the Initiative at every opportunity (paragraph 36).

13.  We recommend that the Government advocate the movement of the cut-off date for all recipients of relief, from the time of the approach of the debtor to the Paris Club, to the time an agreement is reached concerning the exit ratios and timing of relief. This would serve the dual purpose of providing increased relief and acting as an incentive for negotiations to proceed without unnecessary delay (paragraph 39).

14.  We are concerned that the sustainability ratios which are currently being applied will not provide an economically sustainable solution (paragraph 40).

15.  We recommend that the Government press for the inclusion of liabilities other than external debt in calculations of debt sustainability. In particular, domestic debt must be included (paragraph 41).

16.  We recommend that the Government argue for the publication of calculations of debt sustainability, showing how vulnerability criteria have been applied (paragraph 42).

17.  The Government has argued for "a stronger debtor voice in negotiations that today seem too often to be concluded behind closed doors". We agree. It is particularly important that debtors play an active role in assessments of the sustainability of their debt, and also in the design of conditions attached to debt relief (paragraph 43).

18.  We agree that the six year track record requirement is too long, and that three years would be an adequate amount of time to avert moral hazard (paragraph 44).

19.  The Government has called for increased transparency in the process. We welcome this, and argue that the secrecy now shrouding the process has led to many of the weaknesses of the Initiative (paragraph 46).

20.  Clare Short told us: "we have got to have the conditionality in order that debt relief is about poverty eradication, not just about debt relief for its own sake". We strongly agree with this, and recommend that any conditionality require the inclusion of targets in the health and education sectors (paragraph 47).

21.  We urge the Government to insist that the IMF publish its Policy Framework Papers, and the annual programmes related to them, and that the World Bank publish its Country Assistance Strategies, in order that structural adjustment programmes can be properly evaluated (paragraph 50).

22.  We recommend that in its response to this report, the Government tell the Committee what technical assistance it has so far provided to heavily indebted poor countries to enable them to become fully involved in the negotiation process, and that this information be provided on an annual basis as part of British Aid Statistics. We also recommend that the Government tell the Committee what involvement it has had in south-south linking initiatives, and why it is not involved in the programme of assistance co-ordinated by Debt Relief International (paragraph 56).

23.  We urge the Government to insist that multilateral debt relief for Rwanda be implemented as rapidly as possible. We further recommend that the Government urge all bilateral creditors, in particular France, to cancel debt incurred by the previous regime (paragraph 57).

24.  We urge the Government to insist that the reforms already undertaken by Rwanda since 1994 be taken into account in decisions concerning the time frame of debt relief (paragraph 58).

25.  We urge the Government to take part in discussions concerning Rwanda's debt relief package, and, in the light of its exceptional circumstances, to contribute to the US$60 million needed to service Rwanda's debts during the first stage of the HIPC process (paragraph 59).

26.  The international community failed to act when the genocide took place in Rwanda in 1994. It now has a responsibility to act to do everything possible to prevent such events recurring. Obviously debt relief is not the only condition necessary for recovery from genocide, but it is clear that debt relief can make a significant contribution (paragraph 60).

27.  The Government must continue to press for the sale of IMF gold to finance the contribution of the IMF to the HIPC Initiative. International financial institutions must finance their own contributions to the HIPC Initiative, providing additional resources, in order to ensure that debt relief does not merely represent the same amount of aid delivered in a different manner (paragraph 62).

28.  We look forward to the Government establishing a timetable within which it will achieve the UN 0.7 per cent of GNP spending target to which it is committed, thus providing adequate resources to finance the UK's contribution to the HIPC Initiative (paragraph 63).

29.  The United Kingdom has taken a lead in some cases in arguing for flexibility, going beyond the 80 per cent reduction in bilateral debt stock. We welcome this. We recommend, however, that the Government should argue explicitly for a revision of Paris Club rules to allow bilateral debt to be reduced to a level sustainable for debtor countries, on a case by case basis, rather than to a fixed percentage of debt stock. Clear rules encompassing all creditors are likely to be essential to the success of the Initiative in the future (paragraph 64).