§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEMy Lords, I beg to ask the Second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, inasmuch as S.C.U.A. exists to protect the international right of free passage through the Suez Canal, the connivance of Her Majesty's Government in the exclusion of Israel from S.C.U.A. does not in fact amount to condoning a breach by Egypt of the Convention of 1888.]
THE EARL OF GOSFORDMy Lords, with the permission of the noble Viscount, I answered both of his Questions together.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEMy Lords, I did not gather what was the answer to this Question. I asked whether, if you exclude Israel, you do not thereby give weight to the opinion that she should not be permitted to go through the Canal: that she had no locus standi in fact. That is the Question. What does the noble Earl say to that?
THE EARL OF GOSFORDMy Lords, I regret that I cannot see my way to "arguing the toss" any more. I think I have answered the noble Viscount's Questions adequately.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEMy Lords, there is such a thing as Parliamentary procedure, and if the Answer is that the Government cannot see their way to arguing the matter any more, that is an end to Parliamentary procedure. I venture, therefore, to state that the matter must be raised again. I think it is an abuse of the procedure of Question and Answer, first of all to lump Questions together, and then to give an Answer that is totally irrelevant to the matter at issue.