HC Deb 26 May 1943 vol 389 cc1581-2W
Mr. W. Brown

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food in what circumstances his Department decided not to prosecute a person named Mackie, of Whiteabbey, Belfast, director of the firm of James Mackie and Sons, Limited, Belfast, after it was discovered that this person had been guilty of hoarding food in excess of a four weeks' supply, including 200 lbs. sugar, 134 lbs. tea, 170 tins sardines, 20-dozen tins soups, fruit, etc., 30 tins biscuits and of using rice to feed turkeys?

Mr. Mabane

This case was fully investigated by my Department. After the most careful consideration it was decided that there was no ground for a substantial charge under the Acquisition of Food (Excessive Quantities) Order, 1942, from the provisions of which all rationed foodstuffs are excluded. A warning was therefore given to Mr. Mackie. A sample of the rice to which my hon. Friend refers was examined by the Belfast city analyst, who reported that it was not fit for human consumption.

Mr. Brown

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that, in connection with the prosecution by his Department of the firm of Evans, Bridge End, Belfast, for supplying veal to restaurants in that city, inquiries revealed that certain private persons had illegally purchased the veal but that no proceedings were taken against them; whether he will give the names of the persons concerned in these illegalities against whom his Ministry decided not to take proceedings; and why distinctions were made between the small trader who supplied the veal and the customers who unlawfully bought it?

Mr. Mabane

It is the general practice of my Department, on the direction of my Noble Friend, to avoid prosecutions for first offences when the nature of the offence would seem to make a warning more appropriate and effective. In this case warnings were given to the private purchasers who could be identified. Proceedings were, however, taken against catering establishments which had illegally purchased veal from the trader referred to. In the case of the trader herself, the principal offence with which she was charged was illicit slaughter.

Mr. Brown

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will cause an inquiry to be made by an independent investigator into the protection from prosecution given by his Department to certain persons in Belfast who have been guilty of food offences; and whether he will invite members of his staff in Belfast to volunteer information in their possession bearing on this matter, giving them an assurance that no adverse action will be taken against them in consequence of any assistance they may render in this matter?

Mr. Mabane

The allegation against my Department made in the hon. Member's Question is most serious and in the opinion of my Noble Friend is entirely without foundation or justification, and he can find no reason to justify such an inquiry as is suggested.