Seanad Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 27 Jan 1976

Vol. 83 No. 8

Diplomatic Relations and Immunities (Amendment) Bill, 1976: Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Dr. FitzGerald)

Both the items of legalisation before the House this afternoon have been necessitated by the ACP-EEC Convention of Lomé, which I signed, subject to ratification, on behalf of Ireland at Lomé in West Africa on 28th February last. This convention was made between the individual EEC states and the Council of the Communities on the one hand and a group of 46 developing states —called the African, Caribbean and Pacific States or ACP States—on the other. It is a far-reaching and complex document whose provisions I do not propose to go into at the moment. Suffice to say that it provides for free entry of many agricultural and industrial products into the EEC, the grant of aid to ACP countries and the stabilisation of commodity prices. Two further internal agreements were drawn up between EEC countries relating to the fulfilment of their obligations under the convention. These were approved by the Dáil at the same time as the Lomé Convention itself.

In order to fulfil Ireland's obligations under the convention and the related internal agreements and so enable ratification to take place, legislation is necessary in two spheres, namely, diplomatic immunities, the subject of the present Bill, and financial guarantees to the European Investment Bank, the subject of the second Bill before this House this afternoon.

Protocol No. 5 to the convention provides for privileges and immunities. It provides that certain named categories of persons, such as representatives of the Governments of EEC and ACP states and members of the Consultative Assembly set up under the convention, shall enjoy "the customary privileges immunities and facilities while carrying out their duties under the Convention and while travelling to and from the places at which they are required to carry out those duties". Although it is not anticipated that many of the persons in question will be travelling to Ireland in the course of their duties—certainly not in the immediate future—it is essential to make provision for these immunities under domestic law before we move to ratification.

It was not possible to proceed by order under the existing terms of the Diplomatic Relations and Immunities Act, 1967. This Act, enables immunities to be conferred by order on international organisations of which the State becomes a member and on officials of such organisations and delegates to them. Under the Lomé Convention there are organs, such as a Committee of Ministers and the Consultative Assembly, on which all the EEC states and ACP states will be represented, but there is no organisation as such of which states or their governments become members. For this reason the power to provide for immunities by order under the 1967 Act was not applicable.

This explains the necessity for legislation. Now I come to the form of the legislation proposed. It would have been possible to introduce a Bill providing only for the privileges and immunities of persons covered by the Lomé Convention. However, on the advice of the Attorney General, I decided on a Bill which was wider in scope and permits Orders to be made providing for immunities whenever an obligation to grant such immunities is imposed under an international agreement to which the State or the Government is or intends to become party. This is particularly desirable because it is possible that the European Communities will be making further external agreements with third countries similar in form to the Lomé Convention. Such agreements would be likely to provide for aid to these countries, so taking the matter outside the exclusive Community competence and making the individual member states such as Ireland necessary parties. It is likely also that they will provide for immunities for those involved in their implementation and administration. It would be unfortunate if ratification by Ireland had to be delayed in such cases while parliamentary time was found to process legislation through both Houses of the Oireachtas on the relatively subsidiary matter of diplomatic immunities.

In commending this Bill to Senators I should stress that it is really only an application of the mode of granting immunities contained in the 1967 Act. It is firmly within the principle of that Act, a fact stressed by the manner of its drafting as an additional section thereof. Under section 40 of the 1967 Act, as I have said, the Government were given power to designate by order any international organisation, community or body of which the State or the Government had become or intended to become a member. It was provided further by section 42 that such an order could provide for immunities and privileges to be enjoyed by such a designated organisation, its organs, members, officials and delegates. All that this Bill does is to extend this enabling power to cover all immunities granted under international agreements, notwithstanding that such an agreement does not involve the State or the Government becoming a member of any international organisation.

There is no logical reason why it should be more cumbersome or difficult to give legislative effect to immunities for which provision is made in an international agreement to which the State is a party just because that agreement does not involve the State or the Government becoming a member of an international organisation. I should stress that all the safeguards under the 1967 Act will apply to any immunities granted under this Bill. An order will have to be made by the Government and this will be subject to annulment within 21 days by either House of the Oireachtas, as provided by section 3 of the 1967 Act. Moreover there is the additional safeguard that the immunities, conferred by virtue of the amending Act, will have to be contained in an international agreement which will, in the normal course, have to be laid before Dáil Éireann.

The Lomé Convention cannot enter into force until it has been ratified by all the member states of the Community. Seven of the other member states have already done so and the remaining country, Italy, is understood to be about to take the necessary steps to do so. It is my wish, and I am sure that both sides of the House would share this wish, that Ireland ratify the convention as soon as possible so that it may come into effect on the earliest possible date. By ratifying this convention, which, as the other House so clearly recognised in November, marks a new and important initiative in relations with the developing countries, Ireland will once again demonstrate her solidarity with the less fortunate peoples of the world. It is essential that Ireland be in a position to fulfil all her obligations under the convention before proceeding to ratification. I would therefore urge the House to vote this legislation as a matter of priority.

Mr. Lenihan

This legislation should be passed speedily today. The criticism that I shall make is in relation to the delay in having the measure before the Oireachtas, a delay that, even having regard to the manner in which a bureaucracy works, is inexcusable in the sense that the Minister signed the convention on our behalf on 28th February last. It is now nearly a year later and we are put in the invidious position, by reason of the delay in passing essential legislation of this kind—legislation which is merely a matter for a clerk and a draftsman to sit down for an afternoon and draft— of being the second last country within the EEC to ratify the convention, to which Ireland has rightly given its full support. It is the projection that I objected to, the projection of a country that rightly and sincerely supports the whole notion of the wider involvement of the European Economic Community particularly with developing countries such as are involved in the Atlantic, the Caribbean and the Pacific and are associated with the EEC under the Lomé Convention in this new arrangement. I appreciate that they object to the word "association", but under this agreement they are involved with the EEC as far as trade and commercial purposes are concerned and are getting very definite privileges, just as we will receive corresponding benefits.

We have given full support to this whole idea of the EEC widening out, particularly in the southern half of the world. This is the new development now, the North/South idea. It is in the Southern half of the world that many of the deprivations are taking place and the EEC is rightly involving itself, through the Lomé Convention, in economic and commercial activity to raise the standard of living there. There has been critism of our tardiness in ratifying this convention. This Bill and the next legislation from the Department of Foreign Affairs—two particularly simple pieces of legislation—have been 11 months in gestation.

I would like to ascertain from the Minister the reason for the delay in producing this very basic piece of legislation, which could have been drafted and introduced within a month of signing the Lomé Convention. Had that been done we would not now lie in the position of being just before Italy at the tailend of the race in regard to ratification, thereby making nonsense out of many excellent speeches made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs during his period of Presidency and elsewhere. It is this sort of thing that makes nonsense of our international position. The countries in the ACP areas plus our friends in Europe, who are also concerned about the Third World, are inclined to wonder whether our actions are as genuine as our words. I welcome the fact that, so far as the future is concerned, in matters of this kind the Minister now proposes to proceed by way of order. But the legislation itself is of such evident simplicity that the difference between drafting an order and drafting the legislation would be infinitesimal. I cannot see why the draftsman was not put in charge of this matter within weeks of the signing of the Lomé Convention so that we would have been in a position to make ratification at a far earlier date.

I leave it at that but I hope that in the future we will not show that sort of tardiness, that sort of delay, because it tends to belie the good intentions that we convey in speech when our actions do not correspond with our words.

I welcome the fact that in future any such change will be made by way of order. It makes sense that, with our wide-ranging commitments within the EEC, there will be further arrangements of the kind incorporated in the Lomé Convention. It is only proper that the personnel involved in the administration of these arrangements, such as the personnel in the ACP and EEC countries, should have diplomatic immunity.

The criticism I have just made will also apply to the next Bill, which is an equally simplistic measure and in respect of which there need not be such a delay. My colleague and the Minister were complimenting each other in the Dáil on how tightly drawn the EEC legislation was. I think it is too tightly drawn. One should have a certain freedom in such matters in Government. If we incur displeasure by showing that we are tardy because we cannot pass simple measures of this kind by way or order, it will take from our status as a Government. The status of our Government is important. There is no great parliamentary freedom attached to discussing a Bill the object of which can be achieved by making an order. The Minister is rightly doing this now. The same criticism applies to the next Bill.

Mr. Dolan

The Minister said: "Suffice to say that it provides for free entry of many agricultural and industrial products into the EEC..." While I should like to see the African countries being able to develop, at the same time one must take account of the fact that last year beef was allowed free entry from eastern countries and this had a disastrous effect on our cattle industry. I thought this would be the proper time to mention it.

Mrs. Robinson

This is the first opportunity Senators have had to consider even indirectly the Lomé Convention, which is the agreement giving rise to the necessity for the two Bills before the House today. I should like to take the opportunity of commending the Minister for Foreign Affairs for his role in the negotiations leading up to the Lomé Agreement and for the fact that he, as President of the Council of Ministers, was the representative of the Community at the signing of the Lomé Convention last February.

As yet there is an insufficient appreciation of the new departure which the Lomé Agreement, with all its defects, marks in our attitude towards developing countries, towards Third World countries. That new departure is reflected in these two technical Bills which come before the Seanad today. I welcome the fact that the Minister has decided to ask for some flexibility in conferring diplomatic immunity and entering into diplomatic relations, because from now on the whole area of international relations will be much less formal and be much less in the classical mode: international relations will be much more related to the real problems existing in the world today—to the necessity for a redistribution of wealth and power, to the necessity for broader associations which do not fall into the traditional classical mould. The Lomé Convention itself has met with certain criticism, some of which I would share. However, it has considerable importance in that it is not based on an association between the Community countries and Third World countries; at the desire of the Third World countries it is a much looser arrangement to enable them escape from the status of being ex-colonial countries, from a position which they felt was one of inferiority, and to enable them to negotiate on their own terms an agreement with the Community compatible with international social justice. Obviously it is not possible to go into the details of the Lomé Agreement here, but it had some new, important and realistic features, such as the stabilisation of export earnings and the flexibility of its institutional arrangements, which commend it as the type of agreement the developed world must increasingly negotiate with developing countries.

Turning to the terms of the Bill itself, as the Minister said in introducing it to the House, it is an enabling Bill. It will enable the Government, by order, to extend diplomatic immunity to either international organisations, communities or bodies, their institutions or organs and property or persons, where the State has entered into an international agreement binding it to provide this facility. There are just two particular aspects that I am not quite happy about. One is that in this House Senators will not have an opportunity of debating the international agreement which will be the basis for any such order to be made in future in relation to extending diplomatic immunity and relations. Whereas it may be all right to tell Dáil Deputies that they will have an opportunity at that stage of discussing the matter, it is not true for the Seanad. Unfortunately, the Seanad does not have this capacity or function. Secondly, I am not clear, although I read the Dáil debate, whether any such order made by the Government would be subject to annulment. In the short time I had available to peruse the 1967 Act, I could not discover the relevant section. I get the impression that the order is not one which must be laid, subject to annulment, before both Houses. I would be grateful if the Minister would clarify that point.

I must join with the Leader of the Opposition here in expressing surprise and disappointment that the two Bills today have to be accompanied by motions for earlier signature. It is a great pity that the representative of the Community who was in Lomé signing the agreement on behalf of the Community, is left processing these Bills through the House at the very last minute in order that we do not hold up the ratification of the Convention by a whole month. There should have been an earlier appreciation of possible legal difficulties. They should have been ironed out at an earlier stage.

Neither of these Bills is a very involved or technical exercise. Had there been an appreciation of the legal requirements and of the fact that the European Communities Act did not cover the position, then it should have been possible to have brought this Bill through much earlier in the year. This would have allowed us to look better in relation to the other members of the European Community in meeting our commitment under this agreement.

However, that is a minor quibble in comparison to the opportunity which this technical Bill affords to endorse the theory and the practice behind the Lomé Agreement; to see it as a forerunner of the way in which international relations must develop; to see that we shall inevitably move away more and more from the format of classical international institutions. Classical international institutions have built into them a power structure which favours the developed world reflected in the voting structure and the economic power base. There must be a genuine effort to create more flexible and evolving organisational structures which will resolve the current problems of the international world order, and which will meet the very substantial and, I believe, irrefutable demands of the developing countries for greater participation, greater power and a greater share of the world's resources.

Dr. West

I should like to support Senator Robinson's remarks, particularly those congratulating the Minister for Foreign Affairs on his efforts as President of the Council of Ministers when he signed the Lomé Convention, and on his efforts all along, both in this country's ordinary international relations with the Third World and the relationships which are being developed through the Lomé Convention and other such agreements between the EEC and the Third World.

I do not have anything substantive to say on this Bill. It is a pity it was not brought forward earlier. We have a missionary tradition which is expressed in many ways apart from the religious tradition of the missions. This is still a very live tradition among Irish people. They wish to contribute personally as they wish to see their country contributing. They want a realistic EEC contribution and commitment to the developing countries. As Senator Robinson has pointed out, our idea of aid and relationships with developing countries needs to change. We are in a position to push this forward because of our neutral, ex-colonial role, our history, and our strong tradition of involvement, particularly in Africa.

I join with other Senators in welcoming this Bill. I am certain it will be a small part of an important programme. If it is not carried into effect, if agreements are not reached between the developed world and the developing countries which positively favour the developing countries, this will lead to obvious international catastrophies.

Mr. Harte

I should like to welcome the Bill and to thank the Minister for Foreign Affairs for his vigilant and courageous voice in the Community, particularly during the period when he was President. I am glad that our Minister for Foreign Affairs has been identified with those events. So long as we have people like him and have a democracy, even though it has many deficiencies, it is preferable to an autocracy. This is a great step forward.

I agree with the comments of Senator Robinson and Senator West on the developing countries and I know they will not go unnoticed by the Minister.

Dr. West

Perhaps he will get us a free trip out there.

Mr. Harte

Possibly. Perhaps I might be able to go with him.

This Bill is another step towards international co-operation. It is drawn up on a chivalrous and democratic basis. This is the best way of doing things because in this way we get a fair exchange of international law. It reminds people that we should not be concerned solely with national freedom; we must be concerned about international issues. Our isolated position is gradually disappearing and our narrow concept of nationalism is gradually being decreased.

Again, I should like to commend the Minister for Foreign Affairs on his efforts and I look forward to greater developments in the future.

Mr. Russell

I should like to join other Senators in welcoming this Bill. It is opportune to pay tribute to the Minister for his activities as Minister for Foreign Affairs. It is sometimes forgotten that a small country can very often have a wider influence in international affairs than a larger one, particularly a country such as ours which has a tradition of neutrality. Deputy FitzGerald has certainly played his part in extending our influence with the Third World. It is important that we maintain that influence. His presidency of the EEC has done more than anything else to raise the stature of this country among all the nations of the world, particularly in the emerging or Third World countries as they are called.

I should like the Minister in his reply to answer a question. I notice in the explanatory memorandum that

Any person who hinders, restricts or prevents the enjoyment or exercise of any inviolability, exemptions, facilities, immunities or privileges for which provision is made by an order under this Bill will be guilty of a summary offence under section 46 of the 1967 Act. The maximum punishment for such an offence is six months imprisonment and a fine of £100.

I wonder if any Senators are familiar with the immunities or privileges that can be enjoyed by diplomatic persons. I am not and I wonder if such facilities are generally known. It seems to be unfair that a person should be found guilty of an offence that might cause him to spend six months in jail and be fined £100 if he is not fully cognisant of the seriousness of his offence. I ask the question because I am sure I am not the only Senator in the House who is not familiar with the privileges.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Dr. Fitzgerald)

I should like to thank the Senators for the spirit in which they have welcomed the Bills as reflecting part of the implementation of the Lomé Convention. There is no doubt about the importance of this convention internationally, about its importance for the European Community, because the convention breaks new ground in relations between industrialised and developing countries, or about its importance for this country in having been able to participate in the work of bringing this convention to a conclusion.

We sometimes say of ourselves— perhaps we say it so often that we have come to think it is as just a cliché and that it is not true—that Ireland has a particular role in relation to developing countries. This is profoundly true and it is not, as we sometimes think it is, a cliché. It was helpful that Ireland had a presence in the Community in the final stages of this negotiation because we are simply not as suspect to developing countries as some other members of the Community are, who have behind them a colonial history and who have at present very substantial investments in these countries which, naturally, they seek to protect. Our position is different. Consequently, we are seen in a different light, and it was much easier for them to negotiate in the final stages with a country which they could see had no particular interest to pursue other than the interest of getting a fair agreement.

Members of the European Commission have said to me that we in Ireland probably greatly undervalue the significance of this, and that from the point of view of the European Commission doing its work, Ireland has a role to play which is not to be underestimated, not only during the negotiation of this convention, but during negotiations generally with the developing world. Ireland can do more than at first sight than would seem probable for a country whose population is barely 1 per cent of the Community as a whole.

When I was in Lomé, the night before signing the convention my glasses fell apart at the nose and I had to borrow those of the Ambassador of Fiji, which caused considerable comment and interest and was even the subject of a sermon in the cathedral on Sunday. By a remarkable coincidence, the same thing happened to my glasses last night; that is why I am now wearing my wife's glasses. Perhaps there is something symbolic about this.

Dr. West

Does that mean the Minister is even more benevolent than usual?

Dr. FitzGerald

Senator West is obviously a friend of my wife. The reference to the missionary tradition by Senator West reminds me that when I was in the cathedral I was approached by an African lady who told me of the number of branches of an Irish religious organisation which existed in the area. She presented this information to me ad hoc. So, even in the Francophone countries the Irish missionary tradition clearly exists.

Senator Lenihan made the point that one could look at the European Communities' legislation in two ways. He said that we were congratulating each other on how tightly it was drawn. We were, I think, noting the fact that each of our two parties have played a part in having it tightly drawn. Senator Lenihan is suggesting that perhaps we have drawn it too tightly and that this Bill is an argument against that. I think it is the case that, a result of the efforts of the Opposition at the time and the willingness of the Government to meet them in making the legislation extremely tight, the Houses of the Oireachtas are going to be faced with legislation from time to time which would not be necessary if we had not been so vigilant, and if the Government had not been so willing to accept our vigilance in 1972. This is going to create problems from time to time.

There is certainly something paradoxical about the fact that the British, whose enthusiasm for the Community is a lot less than ours, were much more lenient in their legislation and that in fact no similar legislation to this has been necessary in Britain as a condition precedent to ratification. I have not a strong point of view on it. I have an open mind. But the way in which the European Communities Act was drawn has made this legislation necessary.

Senators have criticised the fact that it is only at this stage we are coming to the House with the legislation. I can understand this criticism and, indeed, to some degree it is fair. But there are a couple of points I must make in defence of the fact that the legislation is only coming through this House at this stage.

First of all, although the convention was signed at the end of February of last year, the internal agreements implemented within the Community, which are directly relevant to the need for this legislation, were not concluded until the 11th July. Secondly, although we are bringing this legislation to the two Houses because the advice we have is that this is necessary, it is not self-evident that the legislation is necessary. Indeed, it was only after considerable reflection and consideration of the matter and examination of the exact nature and character of the organs as distinct from organisations involved in the Lomé Agreement, that the conclusion was reached that on balance it would be unwise to rely on the European Communities Act and that it would be better to have this legislation. It is possible that we are being over-cautious in bringing in this legislation and it is certainly only on a balance of legal argument that it appears to be necessary. Therefore, there had to be considerable consideration of the matter before a conclusion was reached and that consideration could not effectively start until mid-July when the internal agreements were finally concluded, as their form could affect the legal advice on this point.

Another point arose as to whether legislation was needed to precede ratification or whether ratification could go ahead and legislation take its course. With the crowded agenda of one or other House, that would have been more convenient for us. It was only after discussions in Brussels that the conclusion was reached that, while it might be technically possible for us to ratify while making a declaration of intention to legislate to cover these points this would be in the view of the European Community authorities politically unwise as it might give rise to a precedent which some of the ACP states might take advantage of for much more substantive failures to legislate on much more important matters. The political advice of the European Commission led us to the conclusion that we ought, even at some inconvenience, to put the legislation through in advance of ratification.

Finally, the fact that we are here at this time with these Bills reflects the fact that it now seems likely—and I cannot put it higher than the latest information—that the ninth member state, Italy, will take the necessary steps to ratify before the end of this month and that therefore it is necessary for us to pass these Bills, have them signed, and proceed to ratification before the end of the month, because otherwise if Italy, despite not having a Government, succeeds in carrying out this task through its Parliament, we would by not having ratified hold up the legislation for a month. This would only be the case if Italy carries through this procedure; and it is only in the very recent past that it has seemed possible that Italy could carry this through in the absence of a Government. It is in these circumstances therefore that the need for this legislation at this point arises, as a result of a long and complex series of events and considerations. I regret that this has meant that the legislation has come at this late stage, but the House will at least understand some of the reasons from what I have said, although the House is entitled to the view that, just the same, we could have got here a bit earlier. If I were on the other side of the House I would be inclined to express that view myself.

I think they are the main points that were raised in this brief and very welcome debate.

Senator Robinson made the point that the Seanad had no chance to debate the Lomé Agreement because the Seanad does not have the function the Dáil has in relation to it. I am always willing to come to this House to debate matters of this kind. However, that does not answer the point made, because obviously the point is that the Seanad has no right to have a say in relation to the agreement. If the House wishes to have a debate in matters of this kind, they will certainly find in me a Minister always willing to return to the political base from which my career has moved.

Senator Robinson raised the question of all orders under this Bill being subject to annulment by the Dáil. She had doubts about this. Section 3 of the original Act reads:

Every Order made by the Government under this Act shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made and, if a resolution annulling the Order is passed by either such House within the next subsequent 21 days on which that House has sat after the Order is laid before it, the Order shall be annulled accordingly but without prejudice to anything previously done thereunder.

The order in question does, in fact, take that form. That is the answer to that point.

Senator Russell was concerned lest some unwary Irish citizen might, by doing something to some foreigner, find himself in jail and paying a fine of £100. Of course, this Act which we have before us is one which was debated in this House. I remember participating in the debate myself at the time. It implements international agreements to protect diplomatic privileges. The main immunities relevant to this convention are immunity from civil suits and criminal prosecution. No permanent mission is likely to be established here by the bodies in question, the organs of the ACP, nor are persons associated with the ACP who would enjoy the right of privilege be likely to be here permanently. It is unlikely they will be here other than occasionally and very temporarily. The main purpose of section 46 is to deal with people picketing embassies. No prosecutions have been brought under this. While the possibility exists of somebody being prosecuted under the original Act, as now extended by this, it is not a likely occurrence. Since the Act was passed no prosecutions have been taken. I think I am right in saying such prosecutions require the concurrence of the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Those are the main points that were raised in the discussion. I should like again to thank the House for the manner in which they have received the Bill and to apologise for the fact that the Bill has come to them at this rather late stage.

Mr. Dolan

Would the Minister mind referring to the matters I raised?

Dr. FitzGerald

I am very sorry.

Mr. Dolan

Agriculture is involved, because it refers to the free entry of agricultural and industrial commodities into the EEC countries. It has already been admitted that some of these EEC countries have substantial investments in some of these 46 countries.

Dr. FitzGerald

I had intended to come to Senator Dolan's point. The majority, though not all, of these countries are tropical and the agricultural products which they produce are products which are not therefore competitive with those produced in this rather chilly climate here. This is not universally true, however, because some of these countries are relatively temperate in climate and some of them are producers of, for example, beef, which is relevant. In the negotiation of the convention, our interests were taken into account in the concessions made. In any instance where a significantly adverse impact could occur in relation to Irish agriculture or indeed, Irish industry, the points concerned were raised and were taken fully into account. We have not had any complaints since then from any interests that they have been significantly prejudiced. The one area where a potential clash exists and which has had some publicity is in relation to beef.

The Senator mentioned the fact that the EEC countries introduced a ban on the import of beef about 18 months ago. This ban, which was decided by the Council of Agricultural Ministers, was subsequently modified in the Council of Foreign Ministers in respect of two ACP countries, Botswana and Swaziland, whose exports of beef are tiny and represent less than one day's consumption in the Community, if I recall correctly. The economies of these two countries were very seriously undermined by the decision. We concurred in the decision to modify this ban in respect of these countries in view of the effect on their economies and in view of the very small amount of beef involved and the fact it was not terribly competitive with the kind of high quality beef we produce here; the House will appreciate that there are differences in quality and that we are near the top end of the scale. In fact, the decision in the Council of Foreign Ministers in relation to that was not part of the ACP negotiations, but these countries do enjoy certain rights flowing from the agreement. All I can say is that in these instances our interests were fully taken into account. No problems have arisen since then or I think are likely to arise because of the increased access given to products from these countries and because of competition with products which are produced here.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.