Your Right To Know

Richard Thomas
Information Commissioner
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Cheshire SK9 5AF

27 June 2005

APPEAL AGAINST LONDON BOROUGH OF HAMMERSMITH & FULHAM’S REFUSAL TO RELEASE OF FOOD SAFETY INSPECTION INFORMATION

Dear Mr Thomas

I would like to appeal the decision made by the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (LBHF) to withhold data requested by me under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and Environmental Information Regulations 2004. Initially I requested all inspection reports in the latest 12-month period. Later, after being contacted by the council, I narrowed this down to all food safety inspection reports in that same time period. I stated that my preferred format to receive this data was in electronic format. I have been in America for some time, hence the delay in filing this complaint.

You will see that the council has failed to issue a proper refusal notice after I sought an internal review to their initial decision made 18 March 2005. They merely state in their letter dated Thursday 28 April 2005 that they consider ‘releasing information on individual premises prejudices the proprietors’ legitimate commercial interests and results in withdrawal of cooperation.’ They have not cited the exemption under either the FOIA or the Environmental Information Regulations in this letter. They have also failed to mention that my next appeal should be to you, the Information Commissioner, rather than as they state to ‘stage 2 of the council’s complaints procedure.’

I do not feel the council met the Section 16 requirement of advice and assistance to help me formulate my request in a manner in which they felt they could answer. In addition, Mr Davis gives a pretty poor argument as to why the public interest is served by continued secrecy. It is the council’s concern to look at what affects the public’s interest (ie their public health) not the proprietors’ interest. This is outlined in greater in detail in my letter dated 30 March 2005.

In paragraph four of the 28 April 2005 letter, Mr Davis goes on to state, ‘it is well know that an educative approach is generally far more effective at securing food safety than a reliance on the use of legal powers.’ Well-known to whom? What kind of factual citation is this? Such an appeal to anonymous authority would not even pass muster in a school essay, yet this is the evidence on which the public are refused knowledge of the safety of places where they eat and buy food.

What’s more well known is the UK’s appalling track record in food safety resulting from the current system of secrecy with such crises as BSE, Foot and Mouth, Sudan dye, and the sale of illegal bush meat.

If the council is so concerned about avoiding legal enforcement, then what better way to do so and raise standards at the same time than by publishing food safety inspection reports? As I point out in my letter requesting an internal review, this is the system used in America and that country has a very high level of food hygiene. Food inspection reports are compiled at public expense and keeping them secret only protects poor restaurants at the expense of good ones. Making inspections public is also the way to improve the inspection regime ensuring professionalism. Publication would show up any inconsistencies and the frequency (or infrequency) of inspections. Some restaurants are visited only once a decade.

In the second to last paragraph, Mr Davis states that public health is protected in the current system because the council can close food premises if there is a serious risk to public health. However, it is rare that a council enforces such a prohibition. More likely are cases such as the £25,000 fine handed out to Tesco by Wimbledon magistrates in November 2004 for repeated instances of mice infestation and mouldy food (note that these are considered ‘minor’ violations). Though Tesco said the store had been undergoing a major refit “which led to some isolated problems”, a local council spokeswoman said the authority “was aware of a long history of problems at the store”. But if the inspectors knew about those problems, the customers - who actually ate the food - did not. Unless inspection reports are published on a regular basis, such ‘minor’ violations remain hidden from the public for years before.

Mr Davis also states that publishing these inspections would single out bad restaurants and the owners would then fail to cooperate with food inspectors. Firstly, this is pure speculation as no evidence is presented to support such a theory. Secondly, if ALL food inspection reports were published regularly then no particular restaurant is singled out. Thirdly, Mr Davis ignores a salient fact - food inspectors have a statutory right to inspect food premises and failure to cooperate with them is illegal.

I would appreciate acknowledgment of this complaint along with progress reports of this investigation at 28-day intervals as stated in your Memorandum of Understanding. I look forward to your timely decision on the matter.

Regards,
Heather Brooke