HC Deb 20 November 1946 vol 430 c109W
66. Sir J. Mellor

asked the Minister of Food why the Seizure of Food Order, 1946 (S.R. & O., 1946, No. 1823), provides that the Crown shall retain any expenses of seizure out of the proceeds of sale by the Crown of an article of food, even when the owner has been acquitted of any offence alleged in respect of that article; and whether he will remove this injustice by revoking the Order.

Mr. Strachey

The wording in the Order is not "expenses of seizure" but "expenses incurred in connection with the seizure and sale" and in practice this means expenses incurred in selling the goods. I do not think any injustice is involved in making a charge for the expenses of sale, since these would be incurred by the seller in any case. So I do not propose to revoke the Order, which since 1942 has provided powers essential to the effective exercise of our controls.