HC Deb 16 December 1912 vol 45 c1081

asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to a prosecution against William Sutherland, The Peel, Tibbermore, Perthshire, at the instance of the Scottish Insurance Commissioners, in which the accused is charged with various alleged offences against the Act ever since the 15th July, 1912; and will he say why a prosecution was not entered into at an earlier date instead of lulling the accused into a position of false security and thus actually conniving at the aforesaid alleged offences?


I have obtained full particulars of the prosecution referred to in the question. The actual facts lead to deductions exactly contrary to those in the latter part of the question. The employer mentioned pays his workpeople half-yearly in May and November and no prosecution could be undertaken until after the end of the first quarter. So far from being "lulled into a position of false security" he was clearly informed of his duties under the Act by a special letter from the Commissioners in August, and he has been repeatedly warned since that persistent refusal to fulfil them would entail prosecution. His action was not a casual but a deliberate defiance of the law.