First Refusal
Email sent March 18, 2005
Dear Ms Brooke,
Thank you for your request for information received on 18 February 2005.
We have carefully considered your request under both the Environmental Information Regulations and the Freedom of Information Act.
I am afraid that your request is of such an extent that the cost of compliance would exceed the relevant limits and/or is unreasonable. The Council is however mindful of its duty to assist and has considered the matter as if it were a request for a reasonable number of inspection reports below the relevant costs limit. The Council has concluded that such a request would be exempt for the following reasons.
Environmental Information Regulations
We have considered the presumption in favour of disclosure, the public interest test and the professional views of the officers engaged in environmental protection and food hygiene work.
We have concluded that these reports are exempt under the regulations and that it is in the public interest for these exemptions to be maintained.
This Council’s approach to food hygiene etc. is based upon working in co-operation and partnership with proprietors and the focus is on education and partnership with enforcement action very much as a last resort.
In inspecting premises officers rely very much on the assistance of proprietors rather than having to rely on statutory powers of entry etc. If proprietors were to withdraw their co-operation the Council’s ability to effectively inspect premises within its area would be greatly reduced. The Council’s default powers are for use as a matter of last resort and it is not practicable to use them on a wide scale. The co-operation of proprietors is obtained on the assumption that the inspection reports will not be made public. Clearly should it be necessary to prosecute such proceedings are in the public domain once commenced.
The Council considers that to make such information public would prejudice the proprietors’ legitimate commercial interests and result in the withdrawal of their co-operation.
The Council therefore considers that this information is exempt under paragraphs 12(5) (a) and (f) of the regulations in that its disclosure would prejudice the ability of the Council to conduct inspections due to the likely withdrawal of co-operation and because the information voluntarily supplied during the course of such inspections is not generally disclosable but for the regulations.
The Council has carefully considered the public interest test and concedes that in this case it is a difficult balance. However, given that it is essential to retain the co-operation of proprietors to maintain and improve standards of food hygiene etc., the fact that serious cases are always brought to the public’s attention through prosecutions and the fact that the reports are written for professional use which may result in them being misunderstood or misused the Council has decided that in all the circumstances the public interest in maintaining the disclosure outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.
Freedom of Information Act
In terms of the Freedom of Information Act the Council considers that this information is exempt under Sections 31 (prejudice to law enforcement functions), 39 (environmental information) and 43 (commercial interests) for the same reasons.
If you are dissatisfied with the way the Council has dealt with this matter then please write to Nigel Pallace, Director of Environment at the address given below.
Yours sincerely,
Stephanie Needham
Food Safety Manager
London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham
Environmental Protection Division
Town Hall Extension
King Street, Hammersmith, London W6 9JU
Direct Line 020 8753 4932
