§ 57. Sir John Mellorasked the Minister of Food why a summons was withdrawn in June, 1944, against the Chief Food Enforcement Officer for London, who, as chairman, was nominally responsible for food offences, of which two members of the London Divisional Food Office canteen committee were convicted; and whether in future private traders will be allowed similar immunity from prosecution in cases where subordinates infringe food regulations without their knowledge or consent.
§ Colonel LlewellinThis summons was withdrawn by the Westminster Food Control Committee, who had caused it to be issued. I am informed that this was done because it appeared that no criminal charge could have been proved. No question of immunity from prosecution arose.
§ Sir J. MellorWill my right hon. and gallant Friend be very careful to see that prosecutions are not pressed more harshly against private individuals than they are against public officials?
§ Colonel LlewellinThere was no question whatever of that here. In the cases which I believe my hon. Friend is comparing with this case, it has nearly always been a matter of master and servant, or principal and agent, but the common law has never yet gone so far as to say that the chairman or a member of a Committee is responsible criminally for what other members of the Committee may do.
§ Sir J. MellorIs my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that in a number of cases traders have been prosecuted for offences of which they had no knowledge 1360 whatever, and for which they were only nominally responsible?
§ Colonel LlewellinI know that. In some cases it is very necessary to have that power in the background, but I hope that it will not be used unless it is obvious that the servant is really dealing in accordance with the instructions of the master.
§ Mr. Evelyn WalkdenIs it not fair to remind the House that many local councillors, aldermen, and the like have been prosecuted for offences by their servants, and that nobody has ever complained about it? I have been prosecuted myself.
§ Mr. Austin HopkinsonAre we to understand that the procedure in these cases is the same as that followed in a case where the Secretary of State for Air was concerned?