§ Colonel Burtonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether the prosecution of Miss Lillian B. Mitchell and Messrs. Charles Witt and Edward S. Boast at Sudbury on the 15th September, was instituted with his knowledge and consent; whether the methods employed by his officials to obtain convictions had his approval; and will he institute inquiries into the means adopted, especially in the case of the prosecution of Miss Mitchell?
§ Mr. MabaneThe prosecutions referred to were instituted by the Sudbury Food Control Committee and my Noble Friend sees no reason to disagree with the action taken. The officers concerned appear to have acted according to their instructions throughout and in no way to have exceeded their duty. Accordingly I am of the opinion that no inquiry is necessary.
§ Colonel Burtonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether the prosecution of Mr. William C. Barnes, at Sudbury, on the 15th instant, was instituted with his knowledge and consent; who was arbiter as to the condition of the oat flakes which were alleged to be fit for human consumption; whether this person had any expert knowledge of the subject; and what compensation will be awarded to Mr. Barnes for loss of time in attending on this abortive prosecution?
§ Mr. MabaneThe prosecution referred to was instituted by the Sudbury Food Control Committee. There was no reference to the headquarters of the Department. I understand that evidence of the condition of the oat flakes was given by a divisional enforcement officer and by the 1225W food executive officer. Neither officer has expert knowledge of oats. No question of compensation arises in this case.