Appeal for Internal Review
Nigel Pallace
Director of Environment
London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham
Town Hall Extension, King Street
London W6 9JU
March 30, 2004
APPEAL FOR INTERNAL REVIEW OF REFUSAL TO RELEASE OF FOOD SAFETY INSPECTION REPORTS
Dear Mr Pallace:
I am writing to appeal the council’s decision to refuse my request made under the Freedom of Information Act and Environmental Information Regulations 2004. I narrowed down my initial request for all inspection reports, to specify only those I considered to be in the greatest public interest, namely those relating to food standards and food hygiene.
If this request, too, was unreasonable, then under Section 16 of the FOIA I should have been contacted by the council to ‘advice and assist’ me on how to further narrow my request. For example, under Section 16 the council could have explained how it holds and indexes information. Another council has done this and I now know much more about the way food safety records are kept. However, I do not know anything about H&F’s food safety records, so I am unable to narrow my request further. Therefore, I must seek an internal review of your refusal.
I fail to see how the council has in any way considered the public’s interest in making this refusal. It is an obvious matter of public health for the public to have detailed information about the safety of the food they eat and buy. A number of government initiatives are aimed at increasing the amount of information available so that people can make informed choices about their health, children’s education, etc. The public cannot make informed decisions about the food they eat and buy until the food inspection regime is made transparent and accessible.
The public taxpayer funds the entire inspection regime and so the needs of the public should always be uppermost in the minds of all public officials. Instead, Hammersmith and Fulham has turned its back on the public in favour of business.
You state that to make these reports public ‘would prejudice the proprietors’ legitimate commercial interests and result in the withdrawal of their cooperation.’ Firstly, the council’s concern when it comes to disclosing information is not how disclosure will affect business interests. It is instructed only to look at what affects the public’s interest.
You try and make the argument that if the council were to disclose such information, then it would lose the cooperation of food business and therefore the public would suffer.
Food inspection is not voluntary and neither should it be. Food inspectors have statutory powers to demand entry and do their job. If they are obstructed they have the power to force cooperation. You state that your inspectors do not have such power, but rather do their jobs at the grace and favour of food business owners. Are we too assume that Hammersmith & Fulham’s inspectors quiver in gutless fear every time they inspect a premises less they offend those they are meant to be inspecting? How can the public have any faith that their interests are being represented and protected in such a feeble system? If this is the case, then I, and many other citizens, would like to know the full limitations of the food inspection regime. If it is wishy-washy as you say, the system is clearly not working in our interests and should be changed.
You state that serious cases are always brought to the public’s attention through prosecution. But as you will know, these cases often take several years and during this time the public are kept ignorant. Again, their interest is not taken into account.
The food inspection regimes of America, one of the most litigious countries in the world, are fully transparent and publicly accessible. Inspectors there do not worry about ‘offending’ restaurant owners who poison the public with undercooked meat. It is ridiculous that a British citizen can find out more about restaurants in San Francisco than outside his or her own door.
Respect for the public demands that this decision be overturned. The public have a basic right to information about the food they buy and eat.
Regards,
Heather Brooke
