Bedford Borough Council is facing cross-party pressure to rethink its policy of deleting meeting recordings after 12 months, with councillors from every political group saying the current approach undermines transparency and makes long-term scrutiny more difficult.
The council’s webcast directory states that it “prides itself on promoting openness and transparency” so residents can “see democracy in action”.
But recordings older than a year show the message: “this webcast content has expired”, meaning meetings from November 2024 and earlier are no longer available.
This is despite many council policies and projects stretching over several years.
The council said there is no legal requirement to retain meeting recordings.
Its spokesperson said: “This did not require a formal decision and was an operational decision reflected in the contract with the supplier as there is a cost implication associated with their retention.
“The longer that webcasts are retained, the more significant the cost.
“The minutes of a meeting are the official record, which are retained indefinitely and are available for viewing either on the council’s website or for inspection at the council’s office.”
However, this approach has now been questioned by councillors across the political spectrum, who argue that deleting recordings undermines transparency and long-term public scrutiny.
Speaking for the Conservative Group, councillor Marc Frost said: “It is clear that a twelve-month limit does not meet modern expectations for transparency, nor does it support effective scrutiny of multi-year decisions.
“Significant areas such as budget setting, capital investments, planning processes and scrutiny work all require a longer and more consistent record to allow the public to track the full governance journey.
“A one-year window restricts that visibility, and it is difficult to see how it can reasonably be justified as good practice in a digitally enabled organisation.
Urgent review
Councillor Frost said his group believes audio recordings should be retained for at least seven years, with video recordings kept for a minimum of four years to align with the council’s electoral cycle.
He said officers have been instructed to begin an urgent review of the current arrangements.
Independent councillor Doug McMurdo said he was not satisfied with the 12-month limit, arguing that residents lose vital context once recordings disappear.
“Minutes are a summary of the recorded decisions,” he said.
“[They] do not give an oversight/impression of an individual’s attitudes in arriving at a decision. It is often the latter that describes the position.”
He added that councillors, not officers, should have made the decision.
The Labour Group also opposed the current policy, saying it does “not support genuine transparency or long-term public scrutiny”.
“Many of the decisions we make play out over several years,” the Labour spokesperson said.
“Budgets, capital projects and planning matters all have long timelines. Residents, journalists and councillors may need to look back at older discussions to understand how and why decisions were made.
“Limiting the record to 12 months makes that much harder,” they said.
The group said written minutes are “helpful”, but only provide summaries and do not capture tone, officer advice, or how arguments were presented.
Transparency and democracy are important
The leader of the Liberal Democrat Group, councillor Henry Vann, said: “We think transparency and democracy are important – it is disappointing that accountability is being dodged in this way.
“Binning recordings of what the people we elect say is bad. Frankly, in this day and age, it can’t be too difficult to make these things freely available.”
The Green Group said: “[It] is not satisfied that meeting recordings might be kept for only a year.
“We believe that recordings should be kept for at least the term of the electoral cycle, if not permanently.
“Decisions and outcomes frequently evolve over years and a single year is not enough of a public record to allow residents and journalists to review and scrutinise promises and challenges.
“A decision such as this, that impacts the public’s access to review and scrutinise decisions, should have been made with councillor oversight.”
A common suggestion from the groups/councillors was that the council could use “low-cost” or free alternatives, such as YouTube to store the recordings.
The council said that if a specific meeting recording is requested, it may be able to provide it, subject to availability.
The two other Independent councillors were approached for comment, but neither responded at the time of publication.
by John Guinn
Local Democracy Reporter
