§ 37. Mr. MACQUISTENasked the Lord Advocate why no proceedings under the Trespass (Scotland) Act, 1865, Section 3, have been taken by the Procurator-Fiscal against the concourse of people who, without the consent or permission of the owner or legal occupier of the land, camp on private property on or about the shore between Cardross and Helensburgh, more especially between Ardmore and Helensburgh; and will he now instruct or permit the Procurator-Fiscal to take the necessary proceedings under the said Act?
§ Mr. BUCHANANBefore this question is answered, seeing that it contains a suggestion to the Secretary of State for Scotland instructing him to interfere with the course of the Procurator-Fiscal, may I ask if the question is in order?
§ Mr. MACQUISTENI would point out that the question is to the Lord Advocate.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI am afraid I am not sufficiently versed in Scottish law. The hon. Member had better hear what the Lord Advocate says.
§ Mr. BUCHANANAs on many occasions such questions have been refused, I want to have a precedent for the future.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI do not think the latter part of the question, in that case, really is in order, if the Procurator-Fiscal is independent of any Government.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODFurther on the point of Order. I want to bring to your 2089 memory, if I can, that the same question was put to the Secretary of State for Scotland last week, and the right hon. Gentleman distinctly stated he was going to take no action on the matter. Yet here is the question down again. Can you give any explanation?
§ Mr. SPEAKERWhether the question was the same or not, I cannot say.
§ Mr. MACQUISTENIt is not the same question. It is a question about the same matter, but it is an entirely different question.
§ Mr. HARDIEIf this question is to be answered, I want to protest, because we were told in this House by you, Mr. Speaker, with all respect, that whenever justice is in suspension, we are not qualified in this House to interfere with it. It is interfering with the course of justice for anyone to answer on the legal side.
§ Mr. SPEAKERPerhaps the Lord Advocate will say that in his answer.
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Mr. MacRobert)With regard to the first part of the question, my right hon. Friend, after careful consideration of the whole circumstances, was of opinion that criminal proceedings for contravention of the Day Trespass Act were inappropriate. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.