HC Deb 20 February 1940 vol 357 cc1153-4
77. Mr. Leonard

asked the Lord Advocate on what grounds the authorities in Glasgow refused to prosecute three Glasgow merchants for violating the Food Order, and thereby rejected the unanimous decision of the Food Council Committee; and whether it was on his authority that indications have been given to the Glasgow committee that on no account must they take steps to trap traders violating the Order.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. T. M. Cooper)

The cases referred to were the first reported to me as contraventions of the Order, and they related to the initial period of rationing control. On that account, and on a consideration of the evidence submitted in proof of the alleged contraventions, I came to the conclusion that the cases were unsuitable for prosecution, and instructed that the alleged offenders should be formally warned by the police. The answer to the last part of the Question is in the negative.

Mr. Leonard

Does the Lord Advocate realise that by placing this type of restriction upon officers who are acting under the Food Order he is applying regulations to that kind of inspection which do not apply to any other inspector, such as a factory inspector, in carrying out his duties?

The Lord Advocate

I think the hon. Member is under a misapprehension. I have applied no restriction to the food inspectors in relation to the enforcement of the Food Order.