§ 44. Mr. LOUGHasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether the High Court has reversed the conviction obtained by his Department on a charge of hoarding tea; why this case was not defended; how many such convictions on the same lines have been wrongfully obtained; whether the amount of the fines recovered in the Lower Court and the costs in each case will now be repaid to the defendants; what he estimates as the total amount of these charges; and what steps he means to take to regularise the action of his Department with regard to tea and other drinks?
§ Mr. CLYNESA Divisional Court has reversed a conviction on a charge of hoarding tea, in which the proceedings were initiated by a local food committee. The case was not defended, because it was thought that the point was open to doubt and that it would be preferable to amend the Food Hoarding Order. The Order has, in fact, been amended so as expressly to include tea, coffee, and cocoa within its provisions. The Food Controller has no power to remit any penalties that have been inflicted by Courts of competent jurisdiction. The number of cases in which people have been fined for hoarding tea alone is negligible.