Sixth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation
Wednesday 12 May 1999
[Mr. Barry Jones in the Chair]
Draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Framework Agreement for Trade and Co-operation between the European Community and its Member States and the Republic of Korea) Order 1999
4.30 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Ms Joyce Quinn): I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties ) (Framework Agreement for Trade and Co-operation between the European Community and its Member States and the Republic of Korea) Order 1999.
The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to consider the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Economic Partnership, Political Co-ordination and Co-operation Agreement between the European Community and its Member States and the United Mexican States) Order 1999.
Ms Quinn: The debate focuses on an agreement designed to extend economic and commercial co-operation between the European Union and Korea and Mexico. The framework agreement with Korea was signed in October 1996. It aims to strengthen relations through increased economic and commercial co-operation. It includes steps to improve co-operation on trade liberalisation and on the harmonisation of economic structures between the European Union and Korea. This process should create new opportunities for trade and investment, bringing benefits to business and consumers in the EU.
The agreement contains provisions for economic co-operation in a wide range of areas, including agriculture and fisheries, maritime transport and shipbuilding, and it provides for co-operation on issues of mutual concern such as drugs and money laundering, environmental matters, science and technology, energy, culture and aid for less-developed countries.
The agreement represents an important development in the European Union's relations with Korea. Once implemented, it will provide the basis for a new level of communication and co-operation at all levels. Eight of our 14 EU partners have ratified the agreement. Britain has a long-standing and close relationship with Korea, which, in many ways, it views as its natural partner in Europe. I ask the Committee to support the further development of this special relationship by giving its approval to the principles behind the agreement.
The economic partnership, political co-ordination and co-operation agreement with Mexico was signed on 8 December 1997 and replaced an existing framework co-operation agreement signed in 1991. The new agreement responds to conclusions reached at the June 1994 European Council, which set out the European Union's intention to strengthen its political and economic relations with Mexico. The agreement aims to strengthen relations with intensified political dialogue, reinforced economic and commercial relations and increased co-operation in other areas. It includes provisions to improve political dialogue on bilateral and multilateral issues of mutual interest. It permits regular meetings at ministerial level under the auspices of a joint council, established by the agreement. It contains provisions to encourage the development of trade in goods and services between the EU and Mexico, including the negotiation of an EU-Mexico free trade agreement in accordance with the rules of the World Trade Organisation.
Negotiations on a free trade agreement began in November last year, following an interim agreement and, when concluded—probably later this year—it will help to redress the competitive advantage gained by the United States and Canada in the Mexican market through the north American free trade agreement.
The agreement also includes measures to allow more active co-operation on issues such as drugs, the environment, social affairs and education. The agreement is underpinned by a commitment by the parties to respect democratic principles and human rights.
The agreement represents an important development in the European Union's relations with Mexico. Once implemented, it will provide the basis for a new level of dialogue and co-operation in all areas of the EU-Mexico relationship. Trade figures show that Mexico is one of Europe's most important partners in Latin America. The United Kingdom has a long-standing relationship with Mexico; it has become stronger in recent years, with regular high-level political dialogue on a range of issues. We were active within the European Union in bringing negotiation of the co-operation agreement to a successful conclusion.
I shall be happy to respond to the hon. Member's questions and comments. As the Minister for Europe, I take a keen interest in agreements such as these. The countries with which Europe concludes agreements cover the globe. Responsibility for those other countries often lies with other Foreign Office colleagues. Our much-lamented and respected colleague, Derek Fatchett, accompanied the Queen on her recent successful visit to Korea. He did much to establish a relationship between Britain and Korea. The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) has been in ministerial dialogue with colleagues in Mexico. I undertake to provide the Committee with further information if I am able to answer questions on the matters before us.
4.37 pm
Mr. Michael Trend (Windsor): The Committee is becoming increasingly familiar with mixed competence agreements, of which these are the latest to come before us. I am becoming increasingly familiar with them, having done a few, yet I still ask myself precisely what they are.
I welcome the agereement with Korea. South Korea has had a difficult and turbulent history over the past few years. Last Monday The Times reported that
``the once-bouncy tigers are rising shakily to their feet. South Korea leads the way. After contracting by 5.5 per cent. last year, forecasts for 1999 predict 2 per cent. growth for this year'',
which is welcome news. That growth must be set against the background of an extraordinary amount of rescue loans—about $58 billion was put into South Korea. Investor confidence in South Korea is increasing, and for the first time that I can recall outside investors are being invited to invest capital.
On the European front, there have been problems with the agreement, principally in financial services, capital flows, shipbuilding and the carrying of bulk cargoes. Will the Minister assure us that those have been addressed satisfactorily? Inward investment in to the United Kingdom from South Korea has been an important feature of our lives in recent years. I understand that we are South Korea's largest European trading partner, having recently overtaken Germany. The relationship is important to both countries, and in that regard the Minister referred to the extremely successful, high-profile royal visit to South Korea.
We have a number of important links with South Korea. We were the first European country to establish diplomatic relations with it, and it is the 50th anniversary of the re-establishment of relations after the second world war, when it regained its independence. In the light of the priceless memory of the important role that British armed forces played in the Korean war, the royal visit was very welcome and it is welcome that we should be entering into this agreement with it.
Will the Minister cast some light on a remark in the Government's explanatory memorandum of September 1997? The Government's view then was that we were awaiting a commission proposal on a legal basis. There clearly was some disagreement or uncertainty about the legal basis of proceedings, especially about whether the European Parliament's assent would be necessary. I imagine that it would be, but I cannot find an answer to my question from public records, which is why I ask now. The matter was resolved because the European Parliament voted on it in May 1998, but what was the area of doubt? If an important precedent was created by taking the agreement through the European Parliament, did it represent a development in the extraordinarily complex theology of the European Union?
The Financial Times of 19 April reported on the fourth round of talks between the European Union and Mexico. In its opinion, these
``showed the first serious signs of tension since Mexico and the EU began free trade negotiations last November.''
There was some doubt about whether the parties could proceed to a fifth round of talks unless the talks had some purposes.
Does the Minister envisage any change in the nature of the relationship between the European Union and Mexico as a result of our passing this agreement? Clearly all is not well between the two parties. In broad terms, what does the agreement add to attempts to resolve the difficulties that exist between the two parties? Which parts of the agreement are diplomatic niceties, and which are obligations that the parties intend to stick to and, if necessary, enforce? The Minister spoke of human rights and of an underpinning in the agreement. We know that in Mexico in recent times there have been serious difficulties due to the long-running conflict between the Zapatistas and the Government forces. There have been reports of disappearances and drug-related crimes. Amnesty International has, for many years, published reported that are not wholly favourable. Under the agreement, the observance of human rights does appear to be not an objective but a pre-supposed condition that Mexico has, in theory at least, already fulfilled, although it must also continue to fulfil its obligations.
Article 58(2) of the PCA on the fulfilment of obligations is intended to include article 1 within the remit of the joint council's mandate. Article 3(1) is vague on the sanctions that might be taken, referring only to appropriate measures as measures to be taken in accordance with international law. Will the agreement make any difference? How does it add to our desire to improve the observance of human rights throughout the world? Mexico, like South Korea, has been through difficult economic and social problems in the recent past.
We wish both agreements well, but I ask the Minister to address some of the specific questions I have put to her and the sense that I have that, however worthy the agreements are, their purpose must be tested.
4.45 pm
| 
