HC Deb 08 November 1944 vol 404 cc1339-40
13. Mr. Austin Hopkinson

asked the Secretary of State for Air whether the inquiry into food offences in No. 54 Group, Training Command, R.A.F., showed that the offences were known to Air-Commodore Critchley, then commanding the group, Group-Captain Wilson, chief air staff officer to the above, and Group-Captain Gilligan, commanding the unit.

The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Archibald Sinclair)

It was widely known to these and other officers on and outside the station that unrationed food produced at the farms which were run in connection with the Aircrew Reception Centre at Regents Park was distributed to outside customers. It was not realised that this was a breach of the Food Regulations. The responsibilities of the officers concerned were carefully reviewed, and disciplinary action has been taken against those who were directly responsible for the irregularities which occurred.

Mr. Hopkinson

Are we to understand that the commanding officer of the unit and the chief air staff officer of the group were absolutely innocent parties and that no steps could be taken against them?

Sir A. Sinclair

No, Sir.

Mr. Pickthorn

If it was not realised, can my right hon. Friend tell us by whom it was not realised?

Sir A. Sinclair

It was not realised generally. I explained, when it was debated a fortnight ago, that there was a deplorable failure to bring to the notice of those responsible the meaning of the regulations.

Mr. Hopkinson

Why, then, were steps taken to conceal the transactions?

Sir A. Sinclair

No, Sir.

15. Mr. Hopkinson

asked the Secretary of State for Air at what approximate date the Treasury Solicitor was requested to advise the Commander-in-Chief, Training Command, R.A.F., whether a court-martial was warranted in the case of officers guilty of food offences in a unit of 54 Group; why the advice of the Deputy Judge Advocate General of the R.A.F. was not deemed sufficient in a case involving no obscure legal point: and why reference was made to the Treasury Solicitor rather than to the Director of Public Prosecutions when it was found that persons not under military law appeared to be guilty of these offences.

Sir A. Sinclair

The summary of evidence was sent to the Treasury Solicitor in June last. I have already explained to the House in the Debate on the Adjournment on 27th October why the Treasury Solicitor was consulted by the Royal Air Force Deputy to the Judge Advocate General. The Director of Public Prosecutions does not normally deal with offences against food regulations. The Ministry of Food has, I understand, its own enforcement organisation and a branch of the Treasury Solicitor's office is attached to the Ministry of Food. This branch undertakes prosecutions for that Ministry.

Mr. Hopkinson

Seeing that the summary of evidence was completed long before June, why was there this delay in handing it over to the Treasury Solicitor for his opinion; and, secondly, the Food Ministry through its legal department, having disclaimed any responsibility in the matter by handing it over to the commanding officer of the training command, why—

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member is giving information and not asking a question.

Mr. Hopkinson

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.