Mexborough & Swinton Times – Saturday 23 August 1941
Conditional Sales
Wombwell Food Committee Queues
The fact that authorisation has been granted by the Ministry of Food in respect of canteen facilities at Mitchell Main and Wombwell Main Collieries was revealed in a , report presented to Wombwell Food Control Committee by Food Executive Officer (Mr. K. M. Walker) at a meeting on Monday evening. Mr. Walker said all such canteens should be registered as and a number of catering establishments, himself be assisted to serve meals for consumption anywhere within the colliery premises, on the understanding that food was not taken
Mr. Walker reported that in Wombwell 17,036 ration books had been issued for the period commencing 27th July, 1941-15,263 to adults and 1,773 for children. Sixty-eight retailers had effected registrations for eggs, and the registrations under this head totalled 14,111. The cheese ration was increased from one to two ounces per head per week as from June 30th, and would be increased still further to 3 ozs. from August 25th. The special cheese ration of 8 ozs. per head per week for miners and agricultural workers would continue.
Registration for the new milk ration had to take place prior to August 26th, and the scheme would come into force as from October 1st. The ration for children under six was one pint per day, and for those over six and under eighteen three and a half pints per week
The “basic ration” of milk for adults had not yet been fixed; special provision was to be made for invalids.
In reply to a question, Mr, Walker said that children receiving their one pint per day, or three and a half pints per week as the case might be, would still be entitled to their one-third of a pint per day ” b as “subsidiary nourishment” in the schools, one being additional to the other.
Complaints that “conditional sales” were being made all over the district were made by Messrs. C. Exley, J. Whittaker, T. H. Burrows, J.P., C. Boocock and others, and the Food Executive Officer was asked for a ruling in regard to the local position.
Mr. Boocock said there were instances of people being told they could only have oranges if they bought a certain quantity of potatoes, and Mr. Burrows said there were cases where tomatoes were sold only on the condition that the customers also bought lettuce.
Mr. Walker said there were ways and means of trying to evade the regulations. Mere refusal to sell did not constitute a breach of the regulations but it was an offence to sell one commodity except on the condition that the customer bought another.
The Divisional Investigation Officer had been making enquiries in the district but so far no concrete case had been brought to light. If members of the committee came across specific cases of “conditional selling” he would be glad to instruct the Divisional Investigation Officer with a view to prosecution.
Another member complained of unlicensed trade by hawkers who came from outside the district. It was stated that one such hawker had made the remark, “You can tell the Food Control Committee to go to —. I shall come as often as I like.”
The committee granted licences to various traders. A licence was granted to a Birdwell man to retail general garden produce in Wombwell market. It was stated that he had been retailing in his own area for five years, and had recently made it a wholetime business.
When Coun. Boocock suggested that this might have the effect of mitigating queues a member replied, “You can have ten more traders and there will still be queues.”
Mr. Boocock : At least they will get served quicker.
Coun. Fred Collingdridge : If there is need for more of these commodities we should not be justified in refusing a licence.
When the question of granting egg-selling licences was under discussion , Coun. T. H. Burrows remarked, “For goodness sake don’t stop eggs coming in.” When a firm applied for a licence to sell dried fish the F.E.O. was instructed to enquire whether they sold this commodity before the war.
An individual applied to have his registration transferred on the ground that he did not get the goods he wanted. The F.E.O. said this was not a “sufficient” reason and the application was rejected.