asked the Minister of Food if his attention has been called to the trial at the East Sussex Quarter Sessions, on 31st December, 1946, at which evidence was given to the effect that his enforcement officer, Henry James Reed, and his typist, Miss Dickerson, deliberately tried to get a meal worth more than 5s. at "Tommy Tucker's Larder," Hove; under what authority this and similar action is taken; and why he did not prosecute Reed and Dickerson for contravening the provisions of the Meals in Establishment Order.

Yes, Sir, as in the Carmarthen case dealt with in the reply of 27th January to a somewhat similar Question by the hon. Member, the officer and his assistant were acting under my authority and in accordance with a practice approved, by the courts. The question of their prosecution does not, therefore, arise.

Is it not the fact that these two officers did break the law 10 make other people break the law, and does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that these Gestapo methods of agents provocateurs will not be allowed to go on much longer?

If these methods had the slightest resemblance to the epithet which the hon. Member has applied, they would not be allowed to go on, but as they have not, they will be allowed to goon.

Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House what salaries are drawn by these officials engaged on these despicable activities?

I should require notice of that question, but I object very strongly indeed to the epithet.

Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that to employ, as a public charge, considerable numbers of persons to try and provoke breaches of, the Regulations by His Majesty's subjects, is a despicable procedure?

I would only say this in reply: If it is a despicable procedure, then the right hon. Gentleman was conducting a despicable procedure for several years when he was Prime Minister.

Has the right hon. Gentleman any right to apply to wartime processes, when the life of the country was at stake, abuses and extensions of those processes after a year and a half of peace?

They are neither abuses nor extensions, and the need for enforcement, which I suppose is what the right hon. Gentleman is referring to, is as great now as it was then.

May I ask—

rose—

Of course we know that the Communists do it always. May I ask whether there are more, and if so how many more, persons employed on this "snooping out," as I believe it is called, than there was before?

The right hon. Gentleman will have to put down a Question on that.

Several Hon. Members:

rose—

I think that we had better get on with the next Question.

asked the Minister of Food whether his attention has been called to the observations of the Old Street magistrate on 21st January with reference to the entry of an official of his Department into a private house; and whether such entry was in accordance with his instructions.

The material point in this case was that Mr. Scully carried on the manufacture of jellies in his house. This point was not in dispute. The house, therefore, came within the definition of a food undertaking, which the inspector had full authority to enter and inspect by virtue of the powers conferred upon him by Defence Regulation 55 A A (2). In addition, in this case, both the owner of the house, at the police station, and his wife, at the house, gave permission for the inspection. I am quite satisfied, therefore, that there was no irregularity.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the learned magistrate, in his summary of the case, does not accept the right hon. Gentleman's statement that the search of these premises was on the invitation, or with the agreement of, Mrs. Scully? Does the right hon. Gentleman really regard is as necessary to shore up his enforcement machinery by powers of entry and search which, as the learned magistrate pointed out, are denied to the police in cases of murder?

As to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, the material point is that there were powers of entry because this was a food undertaking within the meaning of the regulations, which give powers to enter whether permission is given or not. On the other issue, these powers are powers to enter such as are enjoyed, for instance, by a factory inspector who enters industrial premises. [HON. MEMBERS: "This was a private house."] We have no power to enter a private house in which a food undertaking within the meaning of the regulations is not conducted. It is only when a house is used, as in this case, for the manufacture of jellies or some other food, that we have these powers, which are certainly necessary.

Is the right hon. Gentleman able to use the powers which he has inherited from the wartime period to enter a private home in order to ascertain, under the authority only of a Food Regulation, whether a food undertaking is being conducted therein? Do these powers not exceed those wielded by the criminal law under the long built up principles of social life in this country?

Powers exist to enter only if the inspector is satisfied that the premises are a food undertaking within the meaning of the regulation. They certainly exceed the powers of police entry and search, as do those of a factory inspector, a sanitary inspector, and other forms of inspectorate, who can only enter premises with a view to prosecution, and not with a view to arrest or to exercising powers of that sort which the police have.

Has the right hon. Gentleman power to enter premises with a view to finding out whether the information given by his snoopers is right or wrong?

Who decides whether it is a food undertaking, and what is to prevent the enforcement officer entering private premises and afterwards saying, "I am very sorry, I thought it was a food undertaking"?

If he did do that he would be exceeding his powers, and he must take that risk. If the magistrate stated that it was not a food undertaking a prosecution would not lie. But if, to the satisfaction of the court, it can be shown that it was a food undertaking, then the inspector establishes his right and powers to enter and search.

Will the Minister reconsider these powers when he remembers how the Government had to climb down on the National Insurance Bill where, under Liberal pressure—and the Attorney-General will confirm this—the Government had, in substance, to adopt Liberal Amendments in Another place to reduce the powers of the inspectors? Further, will the right hon. Gentleman remember the attitude of the Labour Party at the time of the Incitement to Disaffection Bill?

Will my right hon. Friend endeavour to find time to reconsider the, invasions of personal liberty passed by the Conservative' Party in 1939?

May I support that plea, and ask that the right hon. Gentleman will give careful consideration to this matter on grounds of general policy? There is a great deal of difference between a factory and a home. Scandals must be probed, and those who defeat public regulations and defy the public interest must eventually be caught. Nevertheless, there are great principles of privacy and right, and will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to have these matters reconsidered on a high level and regulations made?

Is my right hon. Friend aware that a very large body called the Food Confectionery Preserving Trade Board, on which are represented about 56 workers and employers, asked his Department to take special steps to see that inspectors went into some of these sweated dens in which chocolates in houses are being made? This regulation has been asked for, and I hope it will be kept on.

I agree that this is a matter of great importance. No one could possibly deny that. I also agree that my hon. Friend has just put some important considerations. The principle is clear, that there ought to be some powers to inspect and enter a food undertaking and no such powers to enter and inspect a private house. The borderline arises when a private house is used as a food undertaking. There might be cases of real difficulty there, and I am willing to consider them, but they must be con- sidered in the light of the considerations which my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scollan) has in mind, that it is precisely in these small undertakings that abuse is likely.