§ Mr. BUCHANANI beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "the banning of a public procession in Carfin, Lanarkshire, and the constitutional issues involved by the circumstances that the local authority and the Crown authority both deny responsibility."
§ Mr. SPEAKERI am afraid that this is not a Motion which I can put to the House. It is a matter for the local police. There is no central responsibility, as will be seen from the answer given by the Minister. The Lord Advocate had no knowledge or responsibility in the matter.
§ Mr. BUCHANANMay I submit, with due deference, a point of order, namely, that the local police authorities have been consulted and they deny having any responsibility in the matter. They say that they have been instructed from someone above them, but that someone has not been defined by the Scottish Office, or by anybody else. Our difficulty is great. We approached the local police and they denied responsibility. We approached the local authorities and they denied responsibility, and we have now approached the Crown, and the Secretary for Scotland denies responsibility. We have no other constitutional way of raising this question as to who is or is not responsible. If we knew that, we could proceed without asking for the Adjournment. We ask for the Adjournment in order that we may raise the constitutional issue as a matter of urgency, in order to find out who is responsible for the banning of this procession.
§ Mr. BLUNDELLMay I point out that in the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman he stated that the action was taken by the local police. All the information that I have been able to obtain 1968 and all the information which has been obtained by hon. Members opposite is to the contrary effect. The local police stated clearly that it was not their own action and that they were instructed by higher authority. We want to discuss the matter in order that the Secretary for Scotland may tell us who is that higher authority.
§ Mr. FERGUSONOn a point of Order. Is it not the fact that the law of the land is against these processions and that some time ago the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) raised the question and got them stopped. It is the same thing here. They ought to be pursued for fraud.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI think I am correct in saying that it is only in London that the police are under the Government. In other parts of the country, the police are under the local authorities, and we have never allowed these matters to be raised on the Adjournment, except in regard to the London police.
§ Mr. PRINGLEThese processions come under the Catholic Emancipation Act, and under that Act a prosecution can only be taken at the instance of the Lord Advocate in Scotland. Consequently, if they are to be prevented, it would be on the initiative of the Lord Advocate's Department. The local procurator fiscas could not initiate such prosecution without instruction. In view of the fact, therefore, that the Lord Advocate is directly responsible, this House should have an opportunity, on the ground of Ministerial responsibility, of raising this matter.
§ Mr. FERGUSONOn a point of Order. Should they not be pursued for fraud for selling this water in bottles?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member must understand that I am not dealing with the merits of this matter, but only with the Orders of the House. I cannot accept the statement of the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle). There is no prosecution in this case at the present time. It is a question of obstruction, and of action being taken by the local police. Whether they were acting by themselves or for some more general authority, I do not know. It is clear to me that it was not under the Government authority, and that fact rules the proposed Motion out of order.
§ Mr. PRINGLEIs it not the case that if, according to the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman, the matter had not come within the knowledge of the Lord Advocate, it is still possible that the Legal Department in Scotland may have been consulted without the Lord Advocate having any knowledge of the matter?
§ Mr. FERGUSONThe Lord Advocate administers the law of Scotland. What more does the hon. Member want?
§ Mr. BLUNDELLMay I point out, as the hon. and learned Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) has pointed out, that the ground on which the police took action was because of an infringement of Section 26 of the Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829. But that deals only with the wearing of certain vestments in a public place and has nothing whatever to do with obstruction to the traffic. This is not a question of the local police acting as the traffic authority in order to keep the public streets clear. It is a question of principle as to whether certain obsolete Acts should he allowed to be invoked against certain of His Majesty's subjects.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThis is not a matter of administration by the Government.
§ Mr. PRINGLEMay I remind you that in Scotland the law as regards prosecution is different from the law in England, and that in Scotland in a matter of this kind proceedings are taken at the instance of the Lord Advocate, and that in consequence there is Government responsibility.
§ Mr. FERGUSONI know the law of Scotland as well as any man in this House. This is a matter of causing an obstruction, and stepping in to prevent a procession.
Captain BENNIf there is any dispute as to whether the Government are responsible, is it sufficient for them to state in the House that they have no responsibility, or is it not a matter which can be properly left to be dealt with by the House on the Motion for Adjournment?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI have to take the responsibility of deciding upon such information as is available to me, and I have given my decision on that.
§ Mr. MAXTONDoes your ruling also mean that this would not be a suitable matter to raise on the Adjournment at 11 o'clock?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat does not follow.