Bedford Borough Council’s decision not to publish a report into why it cancelled its contract with Fusion Lifestyle is to be investigated by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).
The council has denied Freedom of Information (FOI) requests for transparency over the report, citing commercial confidentiality.
The complaint, submitted by the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) challenges the council’s reliance on Sections 43(2) and 41 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, and argues that the exemptions have been misapplied.
The LDRS argues that the public has a right to scrutinise the use of taxpayer funds.
An ICO spokesperson said: “We have received a complaint regarding the handling of an FOI request by Bedford Borough Council.
“We will allocate it to a case officer as soon as we can.”
However, it could be months before it publishes its findings, in December the LDRS was told ICO case workers were handling complaints submitted in September.
The council defended its position after an interval review (requested by the LDRS) by claiming that releasing the information could damage Fusion Lifestyle’s commercial reputation and deter other businesses from working with the local authority in the future.
The LDRS argues that this reasoning is speculative and that confidentiality exemptions do not automatically apply to contracts involving public funds.
And that shielding financial data from public view undermines confidence in local governance.
The complaint highlights the importance of transparency in public spending, and that “scrutiny and accountability are fundamental to maintaining trust in the council’s procurement processes.
The council also has yet to comment on a request for more detailed minutes of November’s Audit Committee debate on the report, which occurred after the public was excluded from the meeting.
Under the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985, when the press and public are excluded from a meeting due to confidential or exempt information, the minutes must still record the proceedings in a way that provides a general understanding of the discussion and decisions made—without disclosing restricted details.
A brief summary of the agenda item should be included in publicly available minutes – ensuring transparency while protecting legally exempt information.
However, the minutes just state, “To consider the financial position following the ending of a contract”.
By John Guinn
Local Democracy Reporter
