Skip to main content
Normal View

Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade debate -
Wednesday, 16 Dec 2015

EU Framework Agreement: Motion

This select committee meeting will commence in public session. Before proceeding with the business ordered for today, I remind members and those in the Gallery that mobile telephones should be switched off completely for the duration of the meeting as they cause interference, even on silent mode, with the recording equipment in committee rooms. The purpose of today's meeting is to consider a motion referred to the select committee by Dáil Éireann on approving the terms of the Framework Agreement on Comprehensive Partnership and Co-operation between the European Union and its member states, of the one part, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, of the other part. Under the terms of the Dáil motion of 8 November 2015, the committee must consider the matter and, having so done, report back to the Dáil not later than 17 December 2015.

On behalf of the select committee, I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade with responsibility for overseas development aid, trade promotion and North-South co-operation, Deputy Sherlock, who is on his own today. The format of the meeting is that members will hear an opening presentation from the Minister of State, after which we will have some questions for him. The Minister of State is welcome and is on time although he thought he might not have been because there was an accident on the motorway, albeit one in which he was not involved. Thankfully, the Minister of State is present and I invite him to make his opening statement.

I thank the Chairman and members for the opportunity to discuss the motion I have proposed and which has been referred to the select committee for consideration. The motion seeks Dáil approval of the terms of the Framework Agreement on Comprehensive Partnership and Co-operation between the European Union and its member states, of the one part, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, of the other part. Vietnam is a member of the Association of South East Asian Nations, ASEAN. Co-operation between the EU and ASEAN members is currently based on the 1980 co-operation agreement between the European Community and ASEAN, which was extended to Vietnam in 1999, and the 1995 agreement between the European Community and Vietnam. In 2007, the Council authorised the European Commission to negotiate a framework agreement on partnership and co-operation, PCA, with Vietnam. The PCA was signed by all parties on 27 June 2012 and represents an important step towards enhanced political and economic engagement by the EU in the south-east Asia region. It replaces agreements on co-operation between the EU and Vietnam dating from the mid- and late 1990s. The new agreement is intended to strengthen political, economic and sectoral co-operation across a wide range of policy fields, including peace and security, conflict prevention, crisis management, trade, environment, energy, science and technology, as well as good governance, tourism and culture, migration, counter-terrorism and the fight against corruption and organised crime. It also aims to further enhance co-operation in responding to global challenges, where both Vietnam and the EU are playing an increasingly important role. Each member state of the European Union, together with the EU and Vietnam, will become a party to this mixed competence agreement. It is called a “mixed competence” agreement because some of the areas covered by the agreement are matters of EU competence, while others remain within the competence of the member states.

Vietnam has now become one of the EU's main partners in south-east Asia. In 2014, the EU was the second trading partner for Vietnam after China, not including trade within ASEAN, representing 10% of total Vietnamese trade. The EU was Vietnam’s second export destination, after the US, with the EU purchasing as much as 18% of Vietnam's global exports. In 2014, EU-Vietnam trade in goods was worth more than €28.2 billion, with €22.1 billion of imports from Vietnam into the EU and €6.2 billion of exports from the EU to Vietnam. Vietnam's key export items to the EU include telephone sets, electronic products, footwear, textiles and clothing, coffee, rice, seafood, and furniture. EU exports to Vietnam, meanwhile, are dominated by high-tech products including electrical machinery and equipment, aircraft, vehicles and pharmaceutical products. Total bilateral trade in services amounted in 2013 to €2.9 billion, with a slight surplus for the EU. The EU is one of the largest foreign investors in Vietnam. In 2013, EU investors committed more than €500 million in foreign direct investment and thus it remains Vietnam's sixth largest foreign investor partner. Since 2013, Vietnam has been the EU's fourth most important trading partner among the ten ASEAN member states, surpassing the EU’s bilateral trade with Indonesia.

The conclusion of the PCA facilitated the launch of negotiations on a free trade agreement, FTA, with Vietnam. The EU is looking forward to the realisation of the potential of the trade and investment principles established in the PCA through this future EU-Vietnam free trade agreement, which will bring two-way trade and investment to new levels. The FTA negotiations started in 2012 and agreement was reached in principle in August 2015, with some technical issues and legal text just finalised. On 2 December, the European Commissioner for Trade and the Vietnamese Minister of Industry and Trade issued a declaration announcing the successful conclusion of the negotiations on the FTA, which also referenced the soon-to-be-ratified partnership and co-operation agreement as representing milestones on the path towards a maturing comprehensive political partnership. Signature of the FTA will take place at a technical level, most likely in January 2016. The aim is to have the FTA ratified as soon as possible in order that the agreement can enter into force in early 2018. The partnership and co-operation agreement is to enter into force on the first day of the month following the date on which the last party has notified the other of the completion of the relevant domestic legal procedures necessary for its entry into force. As the agreement involves mixed competence, it must be signed and ratified by all 28 member states. Some 24 member states already have ratified the agreement. Four member states, including Ireland, have yet to ratify. The other three are France, Italy and Greece. In Ireland’s case, the approval of Dáil Éireann is required prior to ratification of the agreement.

On 23 February 2015, the European Parliament was officially requested by the Council to give its consent to the draft Council decision on the framework agreement for the comprehensive partnership and co-operation agreement, PCA, between the EU and Vietnam. This debate will take place in the European Parliament’s plenary session today, 16 December. Only after the ratification by all member states and by the European Parliament may the Council finally ratify the PCA and the PCA can enter into force. The ratification of the EU-Vietnam agreement not only strengthens the foundation of the relationship between the EU, its member states and Vietnam but charts a course for much-needed political and economic reforms. Through Ireland’s ratification of this agreement, we will show our own support for the people of Vietnam. The EU will provide assistance to Vietnam with the implementation of the reform measures. In terms of financial assistance the EU, between the years 2007 and 2013, made available €298.4 million to Vietnam to support national reforms and modernisation efforts. The EU will continue to provide assistance in the current and future years and has approved a new multi-annual indicative programme, for the period 2014 to 2020, of €400 million to support Vietnam's socioeconomic development.

In conclusion, I thank the select committee again. I hope this motion will meet the committee’s approval and that Dáil Éireann will approve the terms of the agreement in order that Ireland can proceed to ratify in the near future. For the information of the Chairman and members, I am accompanied by Kevin Dowling, director of the Department's bilateral co-operation unit, and Paul Griffin, who is on my left, as well as Maeve Collins, regional director for the Asia-Pacific unit and a former ambassador to Vietnam, and Fiona Nic Dhonnacha, deputy director of the Asia-Pacific unit.

I thank the Minister of State. I believe I had the pleasure of meeting Ms Collins when she was in Japan.

Ms Maeve Collins

That is right, yes.

Was Ms Collins with the EU office there as well?

Ms Maeve Collins

Yes, that is right. I was.

It is good that Ms Collins is staying in that area. I have two brief questions for the Minister of State before handing over to Deputy Smith. How will this partnership and co-operation agreement improve the prospects of Irish trade?

I note Irish exports increased by 3% in 2013, while imports increased by 27%. The area in which I am particularly interested is the dairy sector, which is highly important as trade between Ireland and Vietnam is growing. While on that topic, I note Ireland also has a substantial aid programme there, which is worth approximately €10 million. How will this partnership agreement affect that aid programme in Vietnam because it now is a highly successful country? I also note Ireland has a resident embassy there, which is very important in Asia.

I thank the Chairman. Vietnam is showing increased interest in importing agricultural produce from the European Union, that is, from individual member states. This should present an opportunity for Ireland under the free trade agreement, FTA, but in particular with regard to access to the Vietnamese market for pork. I have to hand a note that tells me the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine has sent, relatively recently, a chief veterinary officer letter that expressed interest in beef access, as well as a proposed draft veterinary health certificate for beef. In addition, separate letters have been sent in respect of sheepmeat and pork offal. The Government is awaiting replies to these letters and will then take it from there. As the Chairman is aware, Irish milk product has been in the Vietnamese market since August 2015 and it is expected that dairy products on offer within the Vietnamese market will increase significantly in 2016. This outline will give members an insight regarding the potential there.

On the aid programme, Vietnam is a key partner country I have not visited but the Government remains firmly committed to the aid programme. I understand the Chairman has visited.

I will tell you about it after Christmas.

I thank the Chairman. Vietnam is Irish Aid's only key partner country located outside sub-Saharan Africa and the Government remains committed there. I am aware the Committee of Public Accounts has been there and that a delegation from that committee, led by its Vice Chairman, travelled in early March to Vietnam where they visited Irish Aid programmes in Quang Tri and Ho Chi Minh City. Ireland's commitment to the Irish Aid programme is consistent. If the Chairman wishes, I can ask Ms Maeve Collins, or Mr. Kevin Dowling, rather, to give the committee further insight on the status of the programme in real and financial terms.

Mr. Kevin Dowling

I thank the Minister of State. The Department has just approved a budget for Vietnam for the coming year. The focus really will not change and will not be changed by this framework agreement on partnership and co-operation, PCA. The Chairman will have seen some of the projects himself. We focus on minorities, the poor and the marginalised and that is in-country, so to speak. However, a second leg of our development programme, which is expanding quite rapidly, is called the ideas programme. This is a programme in which we have quite a number of visits from Vietnamese people to Irish institutions and for example, we have formal arrangements with the Economic and Social Research Institute, ESRI, and the Central Bank in which they are learning best practice. They also are extremely interested in food safety and a variety of other areas we will develop in the coming year. We have two legs to our programme, so to speak, and in-country, we focus on areas where poverty is evident. Vietnam in fact has made a lot of progress in the reduction of poverty, which has more than halved in the past decade and some real results are being seen there. As the Minister of State noted, the commitment will remain. This is a framework agreement and it just gives other opportunities for dialogue with the Vietnamese.

I thank Mr. Dowling and call on Deputy Smith.

I thank the Chairman and welcome the statement by the Minister of State. Fianna Fáil is completely supportive of the proposed agreement, and the European Union obviously should have the best possible relationships from the point of view of trade and other aspects with a country that has a population of 93 million people. I notice there is a huge imbalance in trade between the European Union and Vietnam, with imports to the value of €22.1 billion from Vietnam into the European Union, whereas exports from the European Union are valued at just over €6 billion. I sincerely hope this proposed agreement will give some scope for the European Union and for Ireland in particular to grow market share in exports to Vietnam.

Ireland is one of four remaining member states that are yet to ratify the agreement. Is there a particular reason for Ireland to be one of the late member states of the European Union to ratify this agreement? I also noticed the briefing notes obtained by members indicated there have been some improvements in the human rights environment of Vietnam. Obviously, however, there are issues there that must be of concern to anyone who values human and civil rights. For example, 15 crimes still are eligible for capital punishment, and to judge from the briefing note, the pace of reform has slowed down somewhat in advance of elections in 2016. Does the issue of human rights feature when these complex agreements are being put in place? I sincerely hope it does. In addition, a meeting of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs of Trade will take place after this meeting on the persecution of Christians worldwide, and I note religious freedom is a highly contentious topic in Vietnam. The briefing note states the Government is using administrative measures as obstacles to prevent the registration of new churches and religious groups and relations with Catholic churches in particular remain strained. Are these issues still a topic of discussion between the European Union and Vietnam, even though the ratification process for this agreement moves on? I sincerely hope these issues are given due consideration. As the Chairman also mentioned, Ireland has an aid programme there as well and I notice that part of that aid programme is directed towards administrative reform and, obviously, the reduction of poverty.

On the position of Ireland, Britain and Denmark with regard to Title V of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the briefing note to the select committee states that as set out in Protocol 21, Denmark, Britain and Ireland are not bound as part of the European Union by the provisions of the agreements that fall within the scope of Title V on the area of freedom, security and justice but Ireland instead is bound as a separate contracting party. The Minister of State might provide members with an idea as to what all this is about. Presumably, this arises from protocols Ireland negotiated in different treaties in the past and which we ratified here, such as Lisbon, Nice or whatever. I seek clarification from the Minister of State on whether these particular issues arise from that process. Nevertheless, the sooner we can put in place the ratification of this agreement, the better, while at the same time still continuing to champion, at every forum available to us, the need for an improvement in human rights and the need to remove the death penalty, if at all possible. It must be a source of concern for civil minded people and countries if one considers that 15 crimes still are eligible for capital punishment.

At the outset, I should state Vietnam is one of my most favoured countries. I am so impressed by it that I have not merely gone on official visits but also have spent four weeks on holidays in Vietnam, north and south. They are the finest and most beautiful of people with the most beautiful food and the most fantastic production of seafood and fish farming. What is fascinating about Vietnam is it has transformed itself in such a short time after the most vicious war in history with the destruction of their forests and the killing of thousands upon thousands of people and that they have been so accommodating in reunifying the country. It is wonderful to hear that €22.1 billion worth of trade is coming out of Vietnam to Europe. They are a dynamic, extraordinarily hard-working people, as well as being beautiful, kind and gentle people, and if this agreement goes some way towards improving their lot, I am more than happy to support it.

Obviously, there are some developmental issues that must be considered.

Someone has mentioned churches. I am aware that in Vietnam there are tribal districts that have not been incorporated or would allege discrimination against them. It is probably true. There has been some degree of frustration. The Vietnamese would argue that these people are engaged in the illegal logging and cutting of forests and that is why they are being pushed, but it is a large country with a large population. In the Ha Long Bay area, which is a UNESCO designated region, perhaps the officials, in dealing with Irish Aid there, might ask them to stop the banned practice of throwing dynamite in front of the boat where the fish all rise to the surface and they scoop them up. The use of dynamite was threatening the ecology of the area six years ago. Hopefully, that practice has stopped.

Finally, there is a side tragedy about the Vietnamese where we discovered to our shame and disappointment that Vietnamese were being trafficked to Ireland to open up so-called "grow houses" and be incarcerated in these houses in the most horrendous of working conditions. I would hope that Irish Aid would look at the source of this trafficking and, as I say, those tribal areas could be looked at with a view to aiding them out of predicaments.

I bid "Good morning" to the Minister of State. I have a good few questions, if he will bear with me.

I note that the agreement was signed between the EU and Vietnam in 2012. I suppose the first obvious question is, why has it taken so long to become before the Oireachtas? Is the Minister of State confident that there is adequate parliamentary oversight of such important agreements? There are issues that many of us in the House have raised in regard to such agreements.

There are concerns about the EU dumping products on developing countries, undercutting local businesses and harming indigenous growth. I will tell the Minister of State where I am coming from. Last night I was at an Association of European Parliamentarians with Africa, AWEPA, meeting at which there was a report from European Network on Debt and Development, Eurodad, which has put forward a number of recommendations on such matters as taxation. I wonder whether there is flexibility in implementation to protect vulnerable economic sectors from unfair competition, which was one of the areas that was being asked about last night. Some of what they were looking for was fairly reasonable for example, the conducting of a comprehensive impact assessment to analyse the financial impacts on the developing country and ensure that negative impacts are avoided; a fair distribution of taxation rights; and ensuring transparency in treaty negotiations, including in regard to the position of governments, to allow stakeholders to be involved. What are the views of the Minister of State on this? Is the oversight adequate? We are constantly talking about legislation that is coming from Europe. Is the oversight up to speed in regard to what we are doing in here? All of us involved in Oireachtas committees are dissatisfied with levels of scrutiny.

Article 8, countering the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, is an essential part of the agreement. I am concerned that two of the nine nuclear power states are European countries - Britain and France - and that Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany and Italy deploy and store nuclear weapons as part of NATO. I am worried about these weapons of mass destruction, in respect of which we talk about agreements with some countries, yet within the EU itself there is storage of them. When talking about weapons of mass destruction the issue of nuclear weapons should be high on the agenda.

Article 35 mentions human rights. There are serious concerns about workers' rights in Vietnam, especially in the garment sector where, according to reports coming back from the country, forced and child labour can often be used, and many work in hazardous conditions. I did not see any specific mention of that. Is there specific mention of it in this agreement? Did it form part of the discussions? Are the EU and Vietnam working together on this issue?

On the language used in the document, the Minister of State states, "the EU and Vietnam will become a party to this mixed competence agreement". I do not understand what that means. All of this trade area is new to me. It will also implement the EU's policy on taxation as well as migration. The Minister of State might expand on that.

I thank the Minister of State for the presentation. Generally speaking, I am very much in favour of trade agreements as benefiting both sides but, as Deputy Crowe mentioned, every time a trade agreement comes to light or is about to be ratified we get complaints from some sectors of society saying that these are unfair to undeveloped countries that lack our sophistication in negotiations and that large countries, such as the EU and the United States, flood markets and destroy indigenous sectors. There is a good economic answer to such assertions, that they should not be doing that and they should maybe play to their strengths, but it does take a big toll in terms of the poverty and dislocation that it causes. In terms of these agreements, is the Minister of State satisfied that they contain safeguards for a country such as Vietnam - notwithstanding that Vietnam is developing, it is still a partner country - and that we are not wiping out the benefit of aid by destroying some of its industries?

I welcome the agreement. I do not want to go over the same ground as other members.

This is a new development in so far as Ireland is concerned. While we are right to be part and parcel of it, we are dealing with a country with a large population and with considerable potential in the future. I would echo Deputy Smith's view on the share of that trade that Ireland can garner for itself as part of the European Union in the future. It is most important that we keep that in mind as we enter into trading agreements under the umbrella of the European Union. The EU as a whole might be in a better position to avail of the trading opportunities but we also have a possibilities in this respect, particularly for the dairy sector and the agricultural sector generally.

What I hope is not taking place is something that has arisen repeatedly in such circumstances, namely aid for trade. We do not practice that in this country but some of the other countries that will be trading with Vietnam do. It could be a feature that would develop in the future to our disadvantage as a trading nation. I would like that to be borne in mind with a view to minimising it as much as possible.

With regard to human rights and potential human rights abuses, what is considered a human rights abuse by some countries is not so considered to another for reasons such as their respective histories. The issue of human rights and failure to recognise best international practice in terms of human rights should also be borne in mind with a view to ensuring when we enter into a trade agreement through the European Union with another trading partner that it observes good practice in accordance with international human rights standards and that it is seen as being a requirement, not merely something to pass over momentarily but an integral part of an agreement.

It is over to the Minister of State. There is a series of questions.

I will endeavour to answer all of the questions.

If there are supplementaries, I can bring in the members again.

If I do not answer them comprehensively, I might defer. There are some specific questions on certain areas of Vietnam of which I would not necessarily have knowledge and on which I will defer to others.

On the issue of human rights, for the information of the committee, only yesterday the EU-Vietnam human rights dialogue took place.

It is an important mechanism for us at both bilateral and multilateral levels, but through the prism of the European Union, to have a very frank, open discussion with the Vietnamese Government on human rights issues. As members know, this is led by the European Union, but our embassy in Hanoi is represented.

Let me provide an insight into some of the issues discussed yesterday. The dialogue is broadly constructive but with an emphasis on concrete co-operation in the protection and promotion of human rights. Some of the key areas we have flagged are judicial and legal reforms, freedom of expression, the rights of persons of concern, and space for stakeholders promoting human rights in the civil society space. Also included are multilateral issues, including UN mechanisms, and HRC membership and co-operation.

Vietnam has now ratified the UN Convention against Torture. This happened earlier in the year. The European Union offered some technical assistance on this and on implementation. The European Union welcomed the reduction in the number of crimes eligible for the death penalty. Seven offences were removed from the list. The Union recalled its support for a moratorium on Vietnam. Vietnam indicated it has focused its judicial and legal reforms on protecting and enhancing rights linked to the millennium development goals and vulnerable social groups. Also in the area of human rights, there was an opportunity to raise a number of individual cases, particularly those of prisoners and other persons of concern. The European Union also raised the matter of police brutality and the growing number of attacks on human rights and civil society activists. Ireland, through our embassy and in co-operation with other EU embassies, consulates and missions, is vigilant in the area of human rights.

On the broader question on the scrutiny of trade agreements, free trade agreements, or in this case a partnership and co-operation agreement, time should always be found for greater exploration of agreements. This committee is the obvious place for that, but I take the broader view that Ireland, through its economic diplomacy in terms of increasing its trade potential across a broad range of sectors, should not jettison the need to ensure that we remain vigilant with our EU partners regarding the very issues discussed here, such as human rights. By continuing to co-operate economically, there is no variance between the needs of our development co-operation programme and the need to ensure we trade substantially on a bilateral level, or through the European Union, with countries such as Vietnam. We all see the potential in Vietnam.

The Irish taxpayers' commitment to the Irish Aid budget for 2015 amounts to €12 million, which is substantial by any standard in terms of mapping a single bilateral relationship from an Irish Aid perspective. That allows us to work with the Vietnamese Government, for instance, on its own socioeconomic development strategy in providing general budget support. That accounts for resilience in economic activity and also for sustainable economic growth, which is one of the key pillars of our own foreign policy and Irish Aid policy. That allows us some degree of traction at bilateral level regarding workers' rights or exploitation. It allows us to ensure that we fund programmes that are acting with probity with regard to the treatment of Vietnamese workers. However, there is obviously a long way to go in the realisation of full rights, and we must remain vigilant in this respect. I would argue that we do so.

On the question of why the agreement was signed in 2012, there is no particular reason. I would not necessarily regard it as a delay because we have excellent bilateral relationships. That we are dealing with this now is not a reflection on our support for Vietnam. We continue to ensure we maintain the investment in strengthening political and trade links with Vietnam for the future. We are also awaiting the consent of the European Parliament. The matter is being discussed in the European Parliament today. Therefore, there is no question of Ireland holding up any progress.

There were some very specific questions on the church, particular geographical areas and the protection of the environment. There was a question on anti-dumping measures. Before I defer to Mr. Kevin Dowling and, perhaps, Ms Collins, who can give some insight based on her in-country experience, and noting what was said by Deputy Crowe about the AWEPA meeting, it must be noted that I approved yesterday funding for our commitment to AWEPA in Ireland. There are anti-dumping measures within the free trade agreement. Perhaps Mr. Dowling could elaborate on these. I will defer to Ms Collins on some of the very specific issues Deputy Eric Byrne raised.

Will the tourism issues be left out?

There were some questions on Article 5, so we will address the technical aspects of that.

Mr. Kevin Dowling

On the question of the possibility of dumping, this is a framework agreement, so it will not, as such, provide the Vietnamese with formal greater access to the European markets than they already have. There is an opportunity under the agreement to discuss that and an intention to conclude and ratify a free trade agreement with Vietnam. As with almost all free trade agreements, if I am not incorrect, there will be anti-dumping provisions. Accordingly, the Commission will have the opportunity to arrest the possibility of the dumping of any particular commodity that would disturb the EU market. There is no additional opportunity in this agreement for dumping, and the free trade agreement will address the question of how that might develop in the future.

On the question about governance and human rights, I wish to add to what the Minister of State said. The view taken when concluding this agreement was that it needs to cover the rule of law to address human rights dialogues. It will strengthen the opportunities for the European Union to engage in the kind of dialogue that took place yesterday with Vietnam.

There was a question about where Ireland is opting out, so to speak. I am not an expert in this area. With regard to justice and home affairs, Ireland is not a member of Schengen and, therefore, has an opt-out provision when any aspect affecting Schengen is under consideration. One such aspect is visa access, as mentioned in the agreement. Ireland, the United Kingdom and Denmark will conclude as separate contracting parties. That would be a matter for the Department of Justice and Equality to examine. That is the reason we have this option.

Ms Maeve Collins

I thank the Minister of State and the Chairman for all the questions and positive remarks about Vietnam, which is also one of my favourite countries. A number of Deputies raised specific questions on human rights. Vietnam's track record on human rights is far from perfect, but we have to acknowledge that there have been significant improvements in the past ten or 20 years. It was pretty much closed to the world and the subject of UN sanctions until the early 1990s, so it has come a long way in that time. It has fairly steadily reduced the number of offences for which the death penalty applies. That is not to say that it should not abolish it altogether. The trend internationally is towards abolition. That is a point that the EU, Ireland and quite a number of other countries continue to make to it.

As regards the rights of religions, Vietnam is a single-party communist state which, coming from that communist tradition, traditionally had a suspicious view of all religions. This has softened considerably in recent years. During my time in Vietnam, I saw that the prime minister took quite a lot of steps towards a greater engagement with the cardinal and the Catholic church generally. A number of senior politicians in Vietnam now openly practise their own religion, whether it is Buddhism or Catholicism, all of which sends encouraging signals at the top.

I would have to say, though, that progress has not been as fast in the more remote areas. This tends to be the case in countries that are on the sort of development path that Vietnam is on. Therefore, in rural parts where there are numbers of ethnic minorities and religious groups who are perhaps seen as competing for resources in particular areas, the situation is more difficult. There have been confrontations between the police and various groups in those particular parts of Vietnam. It can be difficult for international observers to gain access to those provinces. The EU has been forthright in raising that issue, as has Ireland. Both as part of the EU and individually, we have done a lot of work with ethnic minorities in the remote highland provinces. We have seen some improvements in living standards and access to education, as well as in health and nutritional outcomes. However, I would not deny that there is a long way to go.

I firmly believe that the way to make progress is to continue engagement and support Vietnam's greater integration into the international community, as well as raising more awareness of international norms and standards, rather than non-engagement, which ultimately is neither beneficial to the country itself nor to Europe's standing in those countries. I hope that answers the question.

Thank you, Ms Collins. Are there any other questions?

Ms Collins was talking about human rights. Is there a trigger mechanism for sanctions in this agreement and, if so, how does a country trigger it? Can Ireland trigger it or does it have to be the EU? I am conscious that we have trade agreements with other countries, including Israel. That strikes me straight away, yet they still have this special trading agreement with the EU. I would be interested to hear about that.

Ms Collins also mentioned dumping. It does not disturb the EU market but we are being told by many NGOs that dumping is going on in local markets. The EU has the power and is engaged in dumping.

Where do the taxation and migration issues come into this treaty?

I call on the Minister of State to reply.

Can I get clarification from Deputy Crowe on dumping? Have specific examples of dumping been referenced by NGOs or civil society?

Not necessarily in Vietnam but we are talking about what is happening across the globe.

That is where the concern is.

That is not a specific area.

I think so, too.

It is really not part of what we are discussing. This is a partnership and co-operation agreement. It is not a trade agreement, so we need to clarify that.

I wanted clarification on the aid-for-trade issue. To what extent does the Minister of State observe how other countries offering aid and trade balance both, or are they balancing them? Alternatively, is it aid without trade unconditionally, or vice versa?

I asked about the environmental issue because it is listed here as one of the four major points in the 1 June 1996 agreement. That was the support of environmental protection and the sustainable management of natural resources. They are of key importance to the development of Vietnam because it has such fantastic tourism potential as its natural environment is so diverse and wonderful. Hence the dynamiting of fish in Halong Bay is unacceptable. It was ordained by UNESCO when it was granted world heritage status that this practice of dynamiting fish should cease, but it certainly had not ceased when I was there.

I will ask Ms Collins to discuss the trigger mechanism further.

Ms Maeve Collins

My understanding is that all of the EU's PCA agreements now contain, as standard, a trigger mechanism which would allow the agreement to be suspended in the event of a serious violation of human rights or democratic principles. Essentially, that would mean a suspension of the aid and technical assistance that would flow from this PCA once it comes into effect. I should add that it would have to be a very egregious, serious breach before there would be such a suspension. I am not aware of any existing agreement being suspended. It would have to be something along the lines of a military coup or some other very dramatic event. There is a clear acknowledgement in this agreement that this is a country which is not yet at a stage of human rights protection that Ireland or other developed democracies would enjoy.

Deputy Durkan sought clarification on aid for trade. It is widely known that Ireland does not tie its aid to trade. We see our bilateral partnership with Vietnam as one whereby one works through general Government support for programmes to ensure economic sustainability and raise standards within the local country. At the same time, through diplomacy and trade missions, we continue to examine trade opportunities that exist between both countries. We do that in a mutually respectful way.

In the relatively short time that I have been in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, my experience is that from a trade promotion viewpoint the relationship is not paternalistic. It is one where there is mutual respect. We continue to work on the aid programme and the development agenda, while at the same time trying to enhance economic and social co-operation. It must be recognised that the social and cultural elements of this agreement are also important. Based on despatches from Hanoi, there is a strong recognition of the need to develop that relationship as much as the economic one. I cannot speak for other countries' specific aid arrangements, but I can say that Ireland does not tie aid to trade. It is a fundamental pillar of our Irish Aid policy.

The point I was trying to emphasise there, although I probably did not do it very well, was not a concern about our aid and trade policy. I was concerned about other players in the field.

For instance, China has been known to practise that kind of policy in Africa. I have no doubt it is practising it in Vietnam to an extent as well. The danger is that countries which, rightly, do not follow that practice will find themselves subsidising the countries which demand trade for aid. That is my point and I would like it to be borne in mind. We could find ourselves down the road in a few years asking what we are doing this for, having given the benefit to competing countries, been outstripped in trade agreements and been disadvantaged by some of our colleagues in the same trading area.

We must bear in mind that the Minister of State only looks after his house and this country. One must note that China is one of the largest trading partners of Vietnam given its geographical location. China is a huge market.

I take the Deputy's point. It is well telegraphed that there is a certain dynamic between certain larger countries and their relationships with sub-Saharan Africa and other regions globally. In terms of long-term sustainable relationship building, I have emphasised sub-Saharan Africa in the past 12 months or so to enhance trade co-operation and to consider the opportunities and challenges that exist. Sometimes there is a tendency to regard sub-Saharan Africa, or Africa as a whole, as a homogenous block, but it is as varied as the European Union if one takes that as a comparable block. Our historical relationship with Africa is different from the relationship with Vietnam and that is for historical reasons in the main. I am not uncomfortable with the idea that, notwithstanding the fact that there are certain issues in relation to human rights, enhancing trade, cultural, multilateral and bilateral links provides the leverage to continue to have frank dialogue such as the one which took place yesterday on human rights. That can only benefit the bilateral relationship in the long term. I have found that relationships are often sustained by visits by Oireachtas Members and Ministers. There have been quite a few ministerial visits and visits by committee members. The Committee of Public Accounts was out there recently. It is true that person-to-person, parliamentarian-to-parliamentarian and business-to-business contact is where one gains on the relationship. That is where the terms of trade become more beneficial. I do not see us tying our aid at all. Our philosophy, based on the fundamental principle of not tying aid, has allowed us to send difficult messages which needed to be imparted, albeit respectfully, to various bilateral partners.

This is a very positive partnership agreement for the European Union and Vietnam in a number of ways. First, trade between Vietnam and Ireland is growing all the time. Every member state has signed up to this and other countries are in the process of ratifying it. It must be positive because the ten ASEAN countries are important trading partners for Europe. The fact that we have an embassy in Hanoi is important. While it may be something for the new Government and Minister to consider, it would be positive to have a resident embassy from Vietnam in Ireland also given that the partnership agreement with the EU has been put in place. Our aid programme is an important one and I have seen the projects myself at first hand. I have seen the marginalised people in rural areas and the mountain people Irish Aid is supporting. Other projects include one which was very unusual and which the Committee of Public Accounts saw as well. Through that project, we are funding the removal of mines 40 years after the war ended. People are still dying as a result of mines. From a human perspective, that is a really good project and one that is very positive for Ireland to contribute to. I thank the Minister of State and his officials, Maeve Collins, Paul Griffin, Kevin Dowling and Fiona Nic Dhonnacha, for attending and engaging so constructively with the committee.

Top
Share