A/HRC/14/21 51. In July 2009, the Government of the United Kingdom launched a public consultation on possible legislation that would limit the extent to which vulture funds could recover debt already contracted by a HIPC under British law.56 In February 2010, the Government published a response to the consultation as well as an impact assessment in support of the Debt Relief (Developing Countries) Bill, a Private Member’s Bill introduced in the House of Commons in December 2009 by Andrew Gwynne MP.57 On 8 April, the Bill was passed into law as the Debt Relief (Developing Countries) Act (c. 22) and it received the Royal Assent on the same date. The Act, which has a duration of one year from the date of commencement (although it may be extended for a further period or made permanent), is designed to limit the ability of vulture funds to use courts in the United Kingdom to recover debts owed by HIPCs. 52. The initiatives that have been undertaken or are being undertaken in Belgium, the United States and the United Kingdom to curb vulture fund activity are commendable. The independent expert urges all countries, particularly those that are preferred jurisdictions for vulture funds, to urgently consider enacting legislation to curtail vulture fund activity. Such a course of action would be consonant with the commitment, made in the Monterrey Consensus of the International Conference on Financing for Development, by all countries to share responsibility for preventing and resolving unsustainable debt situations as well as with the recognition in the Monterrey Consensus of the role of comprehensive strategies in reducing the vulnerability of debtor countries.58 53. The independent expert believes that such legislative frameworks should include measures to promote transparency in the secondary debt market and to tackle tax havens. In addition, as the Jubilee Debt Campaign has suggested in relation to the legislative proposals in the United Kingdom, the legislation should not be limited to HIPCs but should extend to all developing countries, with HIPC terms applied to HIPCs and a profiteering cap applied to all other developing countries.59 C. Concerns over proposed legislative controls on vulture funds 54. There has been some opposition to legislative proposals to curb vulture fund activity based on the concerns that, among other things, the proposed legislative controls offer minimal benefits to the beneficiary countries, they have adverse consequences for the secondary debt market and may limit access to credit for the intended beneficiary countries.60 Due to space limitations, these concerns are addressed briefly. 55. In its submission in response to the consultation of the Government of the United Kingdom on proposed vulture fund legislation, EMTA — an organization which describes 56 57 58 59 60 16 United Kingdom, Ensuring Effective Debt Relief (see footnote 44). United Kingdom, “Impact assessment of measures to address non-participation in debt relief”, (HM Treasury, 2010), available from www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/consult_debt_relief.htm. Report of the International Conference on Financing for Development, Monterrey, Mexico, 18–22 March 2002 (United Nations publication, Sales No. E.02.II.A.7), chap. I, resolution 1, annex, para. 47. See Jubilee Debt Campaign, “The business case for prohibiting ‘vulture’ actions in UK courts”. Available from www.jubileedebtcampaign.org.uk/download.php?id=859. See, for instance, the submissions of (a) EMTA and (b) Africa Fighting Malaria, International Policy Network, Free Market Foundation of Southern Africa and Imani Ghana, in United Kingdom, Ensuring Effective Debt Relief for Poor Countries: Consultation Responses Received (2010). See also Free Market Foundation of Southern Africa, The UK Debt Relief (Developing Countries) Bill: A Threat to Growth and Prosperity in Africa. Available from www.freemarketfoundation.com/DynamicData/Event_18.pdf. GE.10-13156