Draft European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Partnership and Cooperation Agreement) (Vietnam) Order 2014
Draft European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Partnership and Cooperation Agreement) (Mongolia) Order 2014
Draft European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Partnership and Cooperation Agreement) (Philippines) Order 2014
Draft European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Partnership and Cooperation Agreement) (Iraq) Order 2014
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
† Barclay, Stephen (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
† Barwell, Gavin (Croydon Central) (Con)
† Birtwistle, Gordon (Burnley) (LD)
† Burrowes, Mr David (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
† Colvile, Oliver (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
† Elphicke, Charlie (Dover) (Con)
† Esterson, Bill (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Flynn, Paul (Newport West) (Lab)
† Hain, Mr Peter (Neath) (Lab)
† Hilling, Julie (Bolton West) (Lab)
† Jones, Mr Marcus (Nuneaton) (Con)
† Lidington, Mr David (Minister for Europe)
† Sandys, Laura (South Thanet) (Con)
Shannon, Jim (Strangford) (DUP)
† Stringer, Graham (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
† Thomas, Mr Gareth (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
† Wright, Simon (Norwich South) (LD)
John-Paul Flaherty, Committee Clerk
† attended the Committee
Second Delegated Legislation Committee
Monday 7 July 2014
[Mr David Amess in the Chair]
Draft European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Partnership and Cooperation Agreement) (Vietnam) Order 2014
4.30 pm
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington): I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Partnership and Cooperation Agreement) (Vietnam) Order 2014.
The Chair: With this it will be convenient to consider the draft European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Partnership and Cooperation Agreement) (Mongolia) Order 2014, the draft European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Partnership and Cooperation Agreement) (Philippines) Order 2014 and the draft European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Partnership and Cooperation Agreement) (Iraq) Order 2014.
Mr Lidington: As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Amess.
It will perhaps help if I begin by explaining the purpose of the draft orders. Partnership and co-operation agreements, or PCAs, are international agreements between the European Union and its member states, and third countries—in this case, the Republic of the Philippines, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the Republic of Iraq, and Mongolia. The purpose of the orders is to declare the PCAs with those four countries to be EU treaties as defined by section 1(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 and, in the case of the Philippines, Vietnam and Mongolia, to permit any expenditure arising from the agreements to be met from the Consolidated Fund.
The PCAs provide a legal framework for political dialogue and further engagement between the EU, the 28 EU member states and each of the four countries in a number of policy areas, including trade and investment; education, culture and environment; health, science and technology; justice, migration and human rights; and counter-terrorism and counter-proliferation. Respect for democratic principles, transparency and development are also all integral elements of the agreements.
The draft orders are a necessary step towards the United Kingdom’s ratification of the four PCAs. The treaties themselves are a necessary precursor to any potential future EU free trade agreement with any one of the countries. The Government believe that we have a strategic interest in developing the relationship of both the United Kingdom and the European Union with Vietnam, the Philippines, Mongolia and Iraq. Any Member on either side of the Committee who has visited those countries will have been made aware of their wish to increase the pace of the bilateral relationship with the EU and its member states, including this
country. We recognise that progress in some areas has been, and remains, slow and that plenty of challenges remain, but it is right to recognise the advances made by those countries in many areas. Perhaps it will be helpful for the Committee if I speak briefly about our relationship with each of the four states that we are discussing.The Philippines is the fastest growing economy in south-east Asia and is too important to be ignored. HSBC estimates that the Philippines could grow to be the 16th largest economy in the world by 2050. It is a vibrant, stable democracy with a leading role to play both in ASEAN—the Association of Southeast Asian Nations—and in bringing peace and stability to the region, as the Administration of President Aquino have shown. The United Kingdom is the largest investor in the Philippines, but there is potential for further economic opportunities, and now is the right time to deepen our engagement. We are keen to work more closely with the Philippines, both economically and politically, to make the most of the promising opportunities for both countries.
Vietnam, likewise, is a fast-growing economy, an increasingly strong regional force and an important trading partner.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op): If I may take the Minister back to the Philippines agreement, what practical difference on the ground in the Philippines does he think that it is likely to make?
Mr Lidington: In terms of the interests of the United Kingdom and the European Union, PCAs do not provide immediate practical outcomes in the way that, say, a free trade agreement would through the dismantling of tariffs. The PCA provides a framework that involves both parties in, for example, a programme of dismantling non-tariff barriers that inhibit trade between European Union countries and the Philippines. In terms of the people of the Philippines, we will have in the PCA a framework for greater opportunity for dialogue and co-operation in important areas such as sustainable economic and social development, the eradication of poverty and the achievement of the millennium development goals. The reference in the PCA to mutual assistance will cover, for example, dialogue on measures to fight fraud, corruption and other illegal activities. It opens the way for further and more specific EU co-operation in future.
Mr Thomas: The explanatory notes say that the partnership agreement with the Philippines is designed, in part, to assist with work on disaster risk management and development. I am trying to understand whether that is just a talking shop—a sharing of ideas—or will there be better disaster risk management as a direct result of cash from the EU, perhaps? In practical terms, how is what we are debating today really going to make a difference on the ground in the Philippines?
Mr Lidington: Ultimately, in respect of the Philippines and any of the four agreements, the fruit will depend on political will on both sides—both in Europe and in the Philippines and the other countries concerned. The PCA embodies, in the form of an international treaty, a strategic commitment by which all parties accept that
they should be bound to work towards closer and more intensive co-operation on a significant number of policy areas.The direct answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is that no sum from European Union funds would automatically flow to the Philippines as a consequence of the PCA being agreed, but the PCA provides for dialogue in the areas of crisis management and disaster recovery that he cites. That was included, particularly given the impact of Typhoon Haiyan, which is very much in people’s minds. As I think that he knows, the British Government committed £77 million to the relief effort in the Philippines after the typhoon, and the public response to the Disasters Emergency Committee raised a further £94 million. Our armed forces—both the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy—were able to contribute to the delivery and distribution of aid at that time. What I hope to see coming out of this PCA is detailed work by the experts, both in the Philippines and in European Union countries, so that we can for example—assuming that the Philippines authorities want it to happen—share the best of European experience on how our agencies prepare for natural disasters and the sort of help that, having looked at the experience of Typhoon Haiyan, we might be able to offer the Philippines in the future.
Mr Thomas: Will there be some sort of route map to identify how progress is made under the different headings of the PCA, or will the Philippines, as and when it wants a bit of help, get in touch with the European External Action Service, which will see whether it can find the relevant bit of assistance from an EU member state?
Mr Lidington: This differs from something like an accession agreement, in that there are no detailed benchmarks or timetables to indicate progress; nor is it as light-touch as simply saying that the EU will wait for the Philippines Foreign Ministry to ring up the EEAS and ask for help. I emphasise that this is an international treaty, and therefore an obligation that the EU, its member states and the Philippines accept that they are bound by for the framing of future policy decisions. In practice, the national relevant Ministries—in the UK’s case, primarily the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department for International Development, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and UK Trade & Investment—will, in taking forward their policy initiatives in respect of the Philippines and managing that relationship, give careful regard to the commitments laid out in the PCA and the topics listed there. That will apply, too, to the relevant section of the External Action Service. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the EEAS does not just sit waiting for the phone to ring; it has an ongoing programme of activity, which will be shaped by the commitment to closer dialogue in the future.
Mr Lidington: I will allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene again, and then I would like to make some progress.
Mr Thomas: The Minister will forgive me for thinking that it sounds a bit airy-fairy. I ask him to be more specific about what the obligation on British Ministries
is as a result of the PCA. Will it simply be put in the Minister’s cupboard for a future Minister—probably myself—to find when we get into power in 2015?That was a diversion. I was going to ask the Minister what the PCA means for British business. He seemed to offer the tantalising glimpse that there might be something a bit more substantive that he can tell the Committee about potentially some more market access for British businesses into the Philippines. Is that right, or is that a bit airy-fairy as well? Do we have to wait for a free trade agreement with ASEAN for that, or is there something substantial from this now?
The Chair: Order. Before the Minister responds, I draw the Committee’s attention closely to the orders that we are debating.
Mr Lidington: Thank you, Mr Amess. I would just caution the hon. Member for Harrow West in the most friendly spirit not to judge this Government by the standards that I assume must have pertained when he was in office.
The agreements are the first step in taking forward a strategic relationship between the European Union, its member states and a third country. They have to precede something that is more concrete, such as a free trade agreement. I would certainly hope for movements towards either a bilateral EU FTA with the Philippines or some broader EU-ASEAN agreement of the type to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
The commitments laid down in the PCA provide for, for example, greater co-operation on matters such as science and technology and the elimination of non-tariff barriers. They are all areas in which commercial opportunities will arise as progress is made by dialogue, by deepening the relationship and by getting to know the society and country of the Philippines better.
The hon. Gentleman asked for specifics. Just going back to the first subject that he raised—disaster risk management—if he looks at article 32 of the Philippines PCA, he will see that there is a commitment to increase co-operation in disaster risk management. It says there that the purpose is to develop and implement measures
“to reduce the risk to communities and manage the consequences of natural disasters across all levels of society. Emphasis should be placed on preventive action and proactive approaches to deal with hazards and risks and to reduce risks or vulnerabilities to natural disasters.”
That is a high-level policy commitment, and it is one that the parties have decided to embody in a treaty. It is quite a lot more than simply making a vague declaration in a communiqué of some kind. I can certainly assure him that as long as this Government remain in office, we will remain firmly committed not to sitting back but to taking forward the political and economic opportunities that PCAs represent.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab): The Minister is being comprehensive and informative. I might be underestimating Committee members’ knowledge, but I was certainly not aware that this country was the largest investor in the Philippines. The question that has occurred to me, and I hope to other hon. Members, is whether the process of improving our relationships with the Philippines would be better if this country
went alone or with the large bureaucracy of the European Union. Has the Foreign Office made an assessment of that?Mr Lidington: I suspected that the hon. Gentleman was getting to his feet because he could not resist the temptation to make an intervention of that kind. The Philippines is a good example of how we need both to develop a stronger bilateral relationship; that has been demonstrated, for example, on visits to the Philippines by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. We can use our membership of the European Union to amplify our own diplomatic and economic footprint in that country.
The reality is that although the ASEAN countries value their relationships with the United Kingdom and want them strengthened, they also look to the European Union as a powerful global voice on both trade policy and the sharing of experience in a much wider range of political and economic activities. It seems to me that that is of advantage to us. I have also found in the work that I have been doing on free trade agreements over the past four years that it is more attractive for third countries to seek to reduce non-tariff barriers and eliminate tariffs with the 500-million-strong European market than with the 60-million-strong UK market only.
Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con): Does my right hon. Friend not believe that the order merely builds on our long-term relationships with the Philippines, such as our exports of Bailey bridges for economic development and our disaster relief? It creates the EU-plus—our EU trading opportunities, plus the UK’s bilateral diplomatic and economic ties—which we believe is important.
Mr Lidington: My hon. Friend puts it well. We should regard this as a win-win situation, not as alternatives in opposition to one another. I agree completely. We are keen to work more closely with the Philippines, both economically and politically, to make the most of the promising opportunities for both countries.
Vietnam is also a fast-growing economy, an increasingly strong regional force and an important trading partner. The Vietnam partnership and co-operation agreement supports the bilateral strategic partnership signed in 2010 with Vietnam. It will provide a solid basis on which we can strengthen ties between the European Union and Vietnam, while providing the United Kingdom with an additional diplomatic tool with which to pursue complex and politically sensitive objectives, including on human rights, which continue to be a concern in Vietnam.
The PCA will provide the critical support for the free trade agreement with Vietnam. The FTA is now in the advanced stages of negotiations, and both the EU and Vietnam are keen for those negotiations to reach a successful conclusion later this year. The FTA would offer the United Kingdom strategic as well as economic benefits, as it would be seen as a stepping stone to the possibility of a wider deal with the ASEAN region.
Mr Thomas: I am encouraged by the Minister’s assessment that a comprehensive free trade deal with Vietnam may be possible as early as the end of the year. Does he think that conditions have grown any more
apposite for a comprehensive free trade deal with ASEAN as a whole? There was progress with Singapore, and Vietnam has always looked relatively encouraging; but some of the other states in ASEAN are less positive.Mr Lidington: We would be keen for that to happen, but, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, there are differences among the ASEAN members about their openness to free trade agreements with the EU. I do not want us to put negotiations that are at a relatively advanced stage with a country such as Vietnam on hold while we wait for the EU-ASEAN overarching free trade agreement.
I think that the better route, as I look at the region now, is for the EU to work bilaterally with those south-east Asian countries that are willing to go ahead with free trade negotiations, and then hope that the success of such free trade agreements will in due course encourage the more reluctant ASEAN members to overcome their doubts and move towards a wider EU-ASEAN agreement.
The United Kingdom has strong and long-standing relations with Mongolia. We celebrated 50 years of diplomatic relations with Mongolia last year, and it shares our values in many areas. It is now a member of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and a valued contributor to international peacekeeping forces in Afghanistan and South Sudan. Mongolia’s third neighbour foreign policy seeks to build friendly relations with countries such as the United Kingdom, in an effort to diversify beyond the inevitable predominance in its international relations of its two heavyweight neighbours, China and Russia.
The EU-Mongolia PCA would encourage the removal of restrictions to trade and promote measures to improve transparency, thereby helping to support and encourage British business. It would also support our continuing work, along with third parties, to embed democratic practice, good governance and respect for human rights in an important country that has been a multi-party democracy for only about the past 20 years.
Finally, I want to talk about Iraq. Despite the current violence, it remains our hope that Iraq will become a stable, prosperous country that can play a constructive role in the region and that greater UK and EU engagement will allow it to realise its potential fully. Iraq successfully held parliamentary elections on 30 April. They were the third elections under the 2005 constitution. That demonstrated the Iraqi people’s continuing commitment to choosing their Government, despite the serious challenges that the country faces.
Increased co-operation through the PCA framework will help to address many of the underlying causes of the current crisis. Obviously, it will not provide a military answer to the challenge that the Iraqi authorities face from the Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham; but the framework of the PCA will help to address such things as the lack of jobs, access to education and basic services. Through improved dialogue and the exchange of best practice and mutual assistance, it will help over time to build greater confidence in the security and justice systems in Iraq and to ensure that there is respect for human rights.
Mr Thomas: Will the Minister give us more information about the latest security situation in Iraq and the extent to which ISIS is being pushed back—or not? Perhaps we may return to that during the debate.
Will the Minister also reflect on the agreement with reference to Kurdistan and the Kurdish Government, and explain how the PCA will assist that regional Administration?
The Chair: Order. Before the Minister replies, I advise him to relate his remarks entirely to the order that we are debating—
Mr Thomas: It is a relevant question.
The Chair: Order. I advise the Minister again that he should draw his remarks closely to the order under discussion.
Mr Lidington: The straight answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is that there is little that I can add to the detailed account in my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary’s statement to the House on the overall situation in Iraq. The PCA does rest on the assumption that Iraq is able to overcome its present crisis and can function as a state within its present borders, which is what we want to happen. Ultimately, it is for the leaders, people and communities in Iraq to work out how to construct a political agreement that allows the different communities to work together. The opportunities in the PCA would be available to people in every part of Iraq, including the autonomous Kurdish area in the north.
Although it is true that the PCA has been negotiated and agreed between the Iraqi Government and Baghdad on the one hand and the EU and its member states on the other, the fact that Iraq’s constitution gives considerable autonomy to the Kurdish region means that the practical outworking of the PCA in respect of northern Iraq must involve the elected Kurdish regional authorities. Similarly, when businesses in the UK seek commercial opportunities in the Kurdish area, they will deal with the regional authorities, which is why we have diplomatic representation in Erbil as well as in Baghdad.
There is more that the Philippines, Vietnam, Mongolia and Iraq still want to do and much that we want to encourage them to do. Frameworks such as these agreements provide opportunities to help to make it more likely that stable, sustainable and democratic states will flourish in all those countries. Although all the agreements have been signed, the treaties will only enter into force when all 28 member states of the EU and the countries in question have ratified them and when the EU concludes the agreements.
The Committee will be aware of the recent European Court of Justice case regarding the Philippines PCA. In some ways, the judgment changes little. The UK will still be bound by the entire agreement once it is concluded, either in its own right or as part of the EU, as was always to be the case. However, the case does raise some broader questions about exactly how the UK is bound and about the UK’s justice and home affairs opt-in. I assure the Committee and the House that we are urgently considering such issues. It is a complex judgment that requires careful study and analysis. With regard to the specific PCAs, however, other member states are putting in train their ratification and parliamentary processes. The agreements serve the interests of the UK as well as those of the EU, its member states and the four countries concerned and lay the foundations for stronger, mutually beneficial ties in the future.
4.59 pm
Mr Thomas: I am grateful for the opportunity to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Amess. Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition support the partnership agreements and will not seek to divide the Committee. Nevertheless, I want to press the Minister on a number of issues.
Precursor agreements to more detailed agreements—free trade ones, in many cases—are welcome as a statement of international commitment to work together in a number of areas. One or two of the agreements build on similar ones from five years ago, in the case of the Philippines and Vietnam. How does the Minister see the agreements being reviewed in future? We welcome the confirmation that the agreements offer the scope for sustained dialogue across a broad range of issues—from counter-terrorism to climate change, and from trade to disaster risk management and money laundering. He alluded to the fact that the Philippines and Vietnam are increasingly important for us, both economically and strategically. They have very fast-growing economies and offer opportunities for UK business abroad, and they are crucial for their region’s stability. They are also increasingly important in global political terms.
A number of these countries face internal security challenges. In recent times, Iraq has faced a particularly difficult security situation, heightened by the successes that ISIS has had of late. Given that the PCA with Iraq was originally negotiated a number of years ago, does the Minister see the need for any changes to it to reflect the new security challenges there? There is also an ongoing terrorist threat in the Philippines from the Abu Sayyaf group and guerrilla campaigns by the communist New People’s Army. Again, given that the agreement was negotiated some time ago, the Minister might reflect on whether there is any need for tweaks to reflect the security situation in that country.
Exchanges on disaster risk management in the Philippines and the work on sustainable development are timely, particularly in the light of the continuing recovery effort from Typhoon Haiyan. The UK had a reputation for being one of the leading thinkers on and supporters of disaster risk management funding through the Department for International Development. Is there more scope for DFID to contribute to some of those challenges in the Philippines as a result of the PCA? Given the increasing importance of Vietnam and the Philippines for British business, does the Minister think we will see a new drive by UKTI to accelerate British business interest in those countries when the PCAs are concluded? There certainly seems to be an opportunity to do so.
I turn specifically to Vietnam and some of the human rights challenges that still present themselves there. During the debate on the PCAs in the other place, my noble Friend Baroness Morgan raised the challenges that the ethnic minority hill tribe, the Montagnards, face on an ongoing basis. The noble Baroness Warsi, who was replying, was not able—for various reasons, I presume—to give more detailed information on how, through the new PCA, the UK might continue to encourage greater respect for the rights of that ethnic minority. Will the Minister provide some clarity? Other ongoing concerns about human rights in Vietnam are the continued use of the death penalty and whether fair trials take
place as often as they should. Can the Minister explain whether, through the PCA, there is more scope to press for improvements regarding those concerns?There are some differences between the PCAs. The Vietnam PCA refers to the opportunity to expand university links and work in environmentally friendly technologies—issues not mentioned in any of the other PCAs. What opportunities does the Minister see for green industries in the UK, as opposed to other parts of Europe, to take advantage of that element of the EU-Vietnam PCA? Similarly, British universities have always been a big part of our exports. Are there opportunities for them to expand their offer into Vietnam, as a result of the PCA? If there are such opportunities, how are we taking advantage of them?
As I said, I welcome the confirmation that there is progress with a free trade agreement but I am disappointed that we are not making better progress with the whole Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Will the Minister mention where particular problems arise with the rest of the ASEAN? Does the PCA present an opportunity to tackle various problems, through direct work with Vietnam?
The business interest to the UK in the PCA agreement with Mongolia may be the new-found mineral wealth that seems to be driving quite high economic growth there. What opportunities does the Minister see for British business as a result of the PCA with Mongolia? He said, or implied, that one of the attractions to the Mongolian Government of signing a PCA with the EU was a strengthening of their third neighbour policy. That begs the question of relations with the country’s immediate neighbours, China and Russia. Is there scope for further improvements in Mongolia’s relationships with them as a result of the PCA?
I ask the Minister one last question: how does he see parliamentary scrutiny of the continuing relationship with the four countries? Is that the preserve of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee or the European Scrutiny Committee? The risk is that today will be the last time we debate these partnership and co-operation agreements, until new ones are developed in five years’ time. Given the huge amount of time that has gone into the negotiations with the four countries, the time the European Scrutiny Committee has spent on it and the time we are spending now, it would seem a waste if there were no opportunities for further scrutiny of how these PCAs have helped to develop the relationship between Britain in particular, and the EU more generally, and these four countries.
5.10 pm
Mr Lidington: I thank the hon. Member for Harrow West for the Opposition’s support for the four orders before the Committee. The key element of his speech was to ask what would happen next. The simplest answer is to go back to what I said in my opening remarks: these four treaties set in place a framework for more intensive strategic engagement by the EU and its member states, including the United Kingdom, with the four countries that are party to their respective agreements. How these matters should be taken forward will depend very much on political will, both in the third country and in Europe.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Iraq PCA ought to be amended to reflect the current crisis in Iraq. All agreements of this kind, even if they are quite high-level framework agreements, take a lot of negotiating, so having got them to the present stage, with agreement between all the Governments involved, I am instinctively reluctant to say that we ought to pause, reopen everything and put at risk the prize we have on the table. I draw his attention to the fact that article 4 of the Iraq PCA already makes specific reference to co-operation in confronting terrorism. We think that the priorities set out in the PCA for broader co-operation will help to address some of the underlying reasons that lead some people in Iraq to support or to tolerate terrorist movements. If we want a strong, effective Iraqi state that respects human rights and is alive to the different interests and aspirations of its various communities, then one way—it is not the sole answer—to secure that is the sort of political co-operation provided for in the agreement.
The hon. Gentleman also asked whether the Philippines agreement needed to be altered, bearing in mind the Mindanao conflict. We welcome the progress that has been made with the Mindanao peace talks and will continue to assist, both bilaterally and as part of the Mindanao international contact group. The UK has been active in helping to achieve progress in the peace talks between the Philippines Government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front. The key thing is that the agreement negotiated in the Philippines be implemented, as that would deliver significant benefits for our overall prosperity and security interests. Certainly there is a commitment by the British Government to continue to work hard to deliver that reconciliation in Mindanao that the hon. Gentleman and I both want. I do not see anything at all in the PCA that would be inimical to the peace process that continues in Mindanao, nor do I believe that to delay ratification of the EU-Philippines PCA would in any way help the peace process.
The hon. Gentleman also asked me about Vietnam and the challenge posed by its human rights record. As the Committee knows, Vietnam is listed as a country of concern in the FCO’s annual human rights report. The PCA will provide an additional channel through which we will be able to pursue our human rights objectives. I emphasise again that it contains a commitment that Vietnam has bound itself to honour, to “respect…human rights”, to
“cooperate in the promotion and protection of human rights,”
and to implement “international human rights instruments”. That is a welcome step forward. The PCA also provides that both parties should set up a joint committee to meet annually to ensure the proper implementation of the agreement and to monitor the development of the comprehensive arrangement. Sub-committees and specialised working groups will sit underneath that overall process, and one of them will provide the opportunity for the intensive structured dialogue on human rights, including the rights of ethnic minorities within Vietnam, about which the hon. Gentleman asked.
More generally, the hon. Gentleman asked about the trading opportunities available to the United Kingdom. That will depend on the energy that British business gives to taking advantage of potential openings, but I assure the Committee that the Government will continue to give an extremely high priority across all relevant
Departments to the promotion of UK trade and investment links with the four countries that we are debating today and with other countries around the world.I do not want to stray from the subject of the draft orders, but it might add to their context if I say, for example, that in June this year a memorandum of understanding was signed between the UK and Philippines Governments to provide for a bridge contract worth 8.7 billion Filipino pesos, with a British company in the lead. Last year, Dyson began to sell its vacuum cleaners and fans on the Filipino market. We also have other British operators there, such as Bentley cars, T.M. Lewin and Superdry, which are active and making good profits in the Philippines.
In Vietnam, companies such as Land Rover and Topman are active, and it has been identified by UK Trade & Investment as a key growth market. After extensive consultation with British industry, UKTI has identified infrastructure, energy, health and pharmaceuticals, mass transport and education as the key UK priorities for further trading links. I could go on at greater length about all four countries, but I would probably be reprimanded were I to do so. I simply note in passing that Mongolia is the site of Rio Tinto’s largest overseas investment worldwide. There are great commercial opportunities and the framework for greater dialogue provided for in the four draft orders will help to enlarge on those opportunities for UK business. I hope that UK business will be eager to seize them and I can promise British business the strongest possible Government support as it does so.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked me about the role of Parliament. After four years as a Minister dealing, in particular, with the European Scrutiny Committees of both Houses and the Foreign Affairs Committee, I am very cautious indeed about instructing parliamentary Committees about the priority they should give to any particular subject.
The best I can do for the hon. Gentleman is to say that I do not envisage that the European Scrutiny Committee will want to pursue this matter, given that documents from the European institutions are what trigger the process of scrutiny and inquiry. However, it would be perfectly reasonable for the Foreign Affairs Committee, the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, the International Development Committee and any other Select Committee that monitors a Department responsible for a sector of British industry—for example, the Department of Health is responsible for our pharmaceutical
industry—to decide, either unilaterally or in partnership with other Committees, to monitor how well the relationships between the United Kingdom and the European Union, and Iraq, Mongolia, the Philippines and Vietnam have developed in the wake of the PCAs. I would welcome that sort of interest from parliamentary Committees, but it is for Parliament and the Committees to decide what priority to give to following up on the PCAs.I believe that these agreements represent a good deal for the United Kingdom and good opportunities for British business, prosperity and security. I hope the Committee will endorse them.
That the Committee has considered the draft European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Partnership and Cooperation Agreement) (Vietnam) Order 2014.
Draft European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Partnership and Cooperation Agreement) (Mongolia) Order 2014
That the Committee has considered the draft European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Partnership and Cooperation Agreement) (Mongolia) Order 2014.—(Mr David Lidington.)
Draft European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Partnership and Cooperation Agreement) (Philippines) Order 2014
That the Committee has considered the draft European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Partnership and Cooperation Agreement) (Philippines) Order 2014.—(Mr David Lidington.)
Draft European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Partnership and Cooperation Agreement) (Iraq) Order 2014
That the Committee has considered the draft European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Partnership and Cooperation Agreement) (Iraq) Order 2014.—(Mr David Lidington.)