§ Mr. Hoyleasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what types and quantities of food have been imported in 1976, 1977 and 1978 which have been rejected by other overseas health authorities; what were the reasons for the rejection; and what proportion of these foods, and what types, have subsequently been sold for human consumption.
§ Mr. MoyleResponsibility for enforcing the Imported Food Regulations 1968, as amended, lies with port health authorities and local authorities, and my Department does not collect statistics of the kind asked for by my hon. Friend.
§ Mr. Hoyleasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps are being taken to prevent food rejected by other countries as unfit for human consumption being imported in the future; and when amendments to the imported food legislation are due to be introduced, arising from the appeal to the High Court against a destruction order in which Lord Widgery upheld the appeal on the ground that the British regulations demanded a cargo to be found unfit for human consumption.
§ Mr. MoyleThe High Court judgment to which my hon. Friend refers does not appear to have affected the position whereby, under the Imported Food Regulations 1968, as amended, imported food may be seized and destroyed if it is held by a magistrate to be unfit for human consumption, whether or not it has pre374W viously been rejected by the authorities in another country. Accordingly, I do not consider that there is a need to amend the Imported Food Regulations arising out of the judgment.
Nevertheless, the judgment may have implications for enforcement authorities in that it appears to underline that a declaration issued abroad does not in itself constitute evidence of unfitness for the purpose of the regulations unless it specifically declares the food in quesion not to have been fit for human consumption at the time of examination. Officers of my Department have discussed these implications with representatives of the Association of Sea and Airport Health Authorities.