HC Deb 04 April 1889 vol 334 cc1596-7

, on behalf of Dr. M'DONALD (Ross and Cromarty), asked the Lord Advocate whether the boats and gear supplied to the Crofter Fishermen in the Highlands was insured by the Government or by the owners; if they were insured and anything happened to them, would the Fishery Board sustain any loss of money thereby; if no such loss could be sustained, why did the Fishery Board require such further securities as consent of creditors' securities that instalments should be punctually paid, &c.; and had the instalments hitherto been paid; if not, what was the amount of the arrears or the percentage thereof?


The Fishery Board insure boats, including sails, spars, and other gear, but not nets or lines at the expense of the borrower to the fullest extent Insurance Companies will grant—viz., three-fourths of the value. If anything happens to an insured boat the Board will lose the difference between three-fourths and nine-tenths, this being the sum advanced in loans. In reply to the third part of the question, I beg to refer the hon. Member to an answer I gave on March 25th, in which I stated that the object of requiring concurrence of creditors is to protect the recipients of loans from having their boats arrested by creditors. Of the instalments amounting to £780 10s. 5d., which up to the present date have become due. £163 1s. 4d. still remains unpaid; eight instalments wholly, and 13 partially in arrears. The following are the districts to which the 21 cases of arrears belong:—Wick, 14; Helmsdale, 1; Stornoway, 2; Barra, 1; and Loch Broom, 3.