asked the Secretary for Scotland the name of the proprietor of the reservoir at Upper Skelmorlie, Ayrshire, which burst on 18th April and resulted in the drowning of five people; and the amount of the rate levied upon the tenants in the district for the maintenance and supervision of the reservoir and the total amount of the money paid for this purpose?

I am informed that the reservoir belongs to the Earl of Eglinton. I have no information on the points referred to in the second part of the question. As I stated in my reply to the hon. Member's question of 23rd June, the water supply is a purely private one.

asked the Lord Advocate if he can now inform the House what steps he intends to take with regard to a prosecution in view of the jury's finding in connection with the bursting of a hillside reservoir at Skelmorlie, Ayrshire, on 18th April, in which they returned a unanimous verdict that five victims were drowned by water which escaped from the lower reservoir at Upper Skelmorlie, and that the accident was materially contributed to by the absence of any regular skilled supervision and inspection of the reservoir?

After full consideration of the evidence and findings of the jury at the public inquiry, which was held by the direction of the Lord Advocate, he is of opinion that there are no grounds for criminal proceedings.

Does the Solicitor General not notice that in the finding of the jury this accident is stated by them to have been materially contributed to by the gross carelessness of these people? Is he not going to take action because it is an Earl who is responsible in this case?

I would point out that the jury did not find that there was gross carelessness on the part of anyone. They might have found that the accident resulted from negligence on the part of an individual person, but they did not do so. What they found was that the accident had been materially contributed to by the absence of any regular skilled supervision.

Is that not carelessness? We understand the language!

What is it in the officers of the present Government that makes them keep from the subject of the question before them? This carelessness has killed many people. Are the Government going to remain inactive? [Interruption.] This is a question, Mr. Speaker, of human life, and there are other dams in Scotland.

May I, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. SPEAKER:

Is this a new question?

No, but it arises out of the question. It seems not to be understood by this House that we in Scotland have no right to take private proceedings if the Lord Advocate refuses. There is no recourse to the courts for the relations of these people. It is a serious matter, and we want an answer to the question that has been put as to whether the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to institute proceedings in this matter? Is it because it is a Noble Lord with similar political views? [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]

Mr. SPEAKER:

The Minister has given his answer.