63. MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked whether, in the case of share fishermen in Scotland, the Insurance Commissioners intend to go by the ruling given in 1910 by the judges of the Second Division of the Court of Session in the case of Main v. Leask, or whether they intend to follow the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown, which is contrary to that given by the Court of Session; and, if so, why has this course of action been decided upon?
§ Mr. MASTERMANNo such conflict exists as that suggested in the question. Fishermen who are co-adventurers with the owner of the boat are not employed by him, and therefore are not compulsorily insured. The question whether in any given case employment exists is a question which must be determined by the facts in that case.
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINESome of the fishermen are part owners of the boat, some part owners of the nets, and some part owners of both. How can the right hon. Gentleman maintain they are 1235 both co-adventurers and not co-adventurers at one and the same time? May I also ask if the owners of the not could not get off by simply paying 2s. 6d. to the owners of the boat and becoming part owners of the boat?
§ Mr. MASTERMANI should like to have notice of the last part of the question. Whether they are employed or are co-adventurers is purely a question of the facts in each case.
72. MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that an advocate depute in Scotland, who is paid a salary of £700 per annum for his duties, one of which is to prosecute transgressors of the law, has stated that he did not in the case of fishing skippers think it possible that any fine would be imposed, in view of the confusion regarding the Insurance Act and the absence of official information as to the exact liability of the skipper; whether official information will be issued; and whether the advocate depute is correct in saying that the skippers are in no danger of prosecution?
§ Mr. MASTERMANI have no knowledge of the statements referred to. Every effort has been made by means of lectures, leaflets, and public notices to acquaint fishermen and their employers with their duties and liabilities under the National Insurance Act. The position of a fisherman under the Act may be determined by the Commissioners upon the facts of his employment in accordance with the provisions of Section 66. The Commissioners would certainly not begin legal proceedings where non-compliance has been due to a genuine doubt as to the applicability of the Act in any particular case or where after warning, the Act has been complied with.
§ Mr. MASTERMANI think I did answer the last part, and stated that no legal proceedings would be taken if, on representation, it was found that there was a genuine misunderstanding as to whether the Act applied.
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEWill the right hon. Gentleman take steps to remove the general misunderstanding?
§ Mr. MASTERMANThe general misunderstanding has been very largely removed, and I think it will be completely removed.