HC Deb 27 January 1982 vol 16 cc883-4
30. Mr. Canavan

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many recent prosecutions there have been under the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875.

Mr. Rifkind

There has been one recent prosecution for a contravention of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875, which resulted in a trial at Edinburgh sheriff court on 17 and 18 December 1981. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate is not aware of other recent prosecutions for contraventions of this Act, but such statistics are not recorded separately and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

Mr. Canavan

Are not the Scottish prosecution authorities guilty of a shameful distortion of priorities when they dig up a law more than 100 years old to prosecute a trade unionist whereas they decided not to prosecute in the recent horrific Glasgow rape case? Does not that deplorable decision by the Crown Office and the Scottish prosecuting authorities underline the need for the Crown Office—more than ever before—to be accountable to the House of Commons, and for the next Solicitor-General for Scotland to be a Member of this House, so that he can answer questions in this place?

Mr. Rifkind

The age of an Act of Parliament is not a relevant consideration in deciding whether a prosecution ought to be brought. If a prosecution has been brought, it is for the court to decide whether the Crown has proved its case. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the case to which he referred is still sub judice, as an appeal is presently before the courts.

Mr. Dewar

To some extent the Minister has made the point that I was about to make. The issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) is important and we may well want to return to it, but, as an appeal is pending, the less said at this stage the better.

Mr. Norman Hogg

Does the Minister accept that the use of this kind of statute in industrial relations matters does not help to achieve a settlement, and that is what happened in this case? Will he give an assurance—

Mr. Speaker

Order. Both sides of the House have indicated that this case, about which I know very little, is sub judice. We should, therefore, observe our normal rules.

Forward to