Recognition (Hansard, 7 July 1948)

§ 19. Dr. Segal
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on what date official recognition was given by His Majesty's Government to the State of Transjordan; and whether any official recognition of this State has been accorded by U.N.O.

§ Mr. Mayhew
The date was 22nd March, 1946. As regards the second part of the Question, I am not clear what precisely my hon. Friend has in mind, or what action he is suggesting it would be open to the United Nations to take.

§ Dr. Segal
Would it not have been more in accord with correct procedure if His Majesty's Government had handed the Mandate for Transjordan back to the United Nations, as was done in the case of the Palestine Mandate, instead of exposing themselves to the allegation of setting up a puppet State in Transjordan, which has not, as yet, been recognised by any other Power?

§ Mr. Mayhew
That is another question.

§ Mr. Sydney Silverman
Can my hon. Friend at least say whether what is suggested in that last supplementary question is true—that no other Power in the world except Great Britain has, in fact, recognised the State of Transjordan? Is that so?

§ Mr. Mayhew
That is so. Equally, only the veto of the Soviet Union has kept them out of the United Nations.

§ Mr. Gallacher
Is it not the case that Transjordan is in the Mandate as part of Palestine, and that it was quite illegal to hand it over to the Amir Abdullah as an independent State? Is that not the case? Is it not in the Mandate as part of Palestine?

§ Mr. Stokes
No.

§ Mr. Piratin
On a point of Order. I am rather reluctant to raise this point of Order, Mr. Speaker, but in view of the fact that within two minutes the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has given weak-kneed, wise-cracking answers which have had no relevance whatsoever to the questions asked, either by myself or by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), could you direct the Under-Secretary to give either reasonable answers or no answers? Then we should know where we stand.

§ Mr. Speaker
No, I will not direct the Under-Secretary. He gives the answers as he thinks best. It is not my affair. If the hon. Member is not satisfied he can give notice that he will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

§ Mr. S. Silverman
Further to that point of Order. Was the Under-Secretary really in Order in using my supplementary question—which was purely a question of fact, and nothing else—in order to make a quite unjustified attack upon another Government?

§ Mr. Speaker
It is entirely a matter for the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. It is nothing to do with me, and it is not a point of Order.

§ Mr. Gallacher
Further to that point of Order. In view of the answers of the Under-Secretary, are we to take it that where there are elections of Labour candidates with no opposition of any kind—just the one candidate—those elections are undesirable?

§ Mr. Speaker
Hon. Members must have some idea of what is and what is not a point of Order. A point of Order is a point of procedure of this House, and not a point as to whether a Minister has answered satisfactorily or not.

§ Mr. Stokes
May I ask you, Sir, as a matter of direction whether, after an hon. Member has risen on a supposed point of Order, which you then declare to be not a point of Order, it is not impermissible for another hon. Member to get up and refer to that previous point as a point of Order?

§ Mr. Speaker
I quite agree. My trouble is that I am far too kind.