Bedford Borough Council has said its report into the end of its contract with Fusion Lifestyle will remain hidden from the public, claiming the balance of the public interest in the report “lays in withholding the information”.
During November’s Audit Committee, a report (called Internal Audit Plan Update 2024/25 (Appendix B)) was discussed in the private session of the meeting, with members of the press and the public excluded.
As this audit report into Fusion Lifestyle’s contract may have examined how public money was managed during the operation of leisure facilities, the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) considered this a matter of direct public interest.
Fusion Lifestyle has faced significant criticism for its management of leisure facilities in the borough, as highlighted in previous news stories, and by questions raised by members at Full Council meetings.
Read: Our full coverage of Fusion Lifestyle (39 stories)
The LDRS submitted a Freedom of Information request asking for a copy of the report.
But the council said this information is “exempt under section 43(2) of the FOIA, commercial interests”.
It added that this section exempts information where disclosure would, or would be likely to, “prejudice the commercial interests of any legal person (an individual, a company, the public authority itself or any other legal entity”).
As this is not an absolute exemption, the council is required to consider the public interest in withholding or releasing the information.
The council added: “We acknowledge the need to promote transparency in the accountability of public funds, ensuring that public money is being used effectively, however the information pertains to a third-party contractor which is independent of the council.
“Disclosing the information would be likely to have a detrimental impact on the company. Releasing the information could impact on their commercial reputation and the confidence that their customers, suppliers or investors may have in their products or commercial operations.
“Disclosure could also impact on the council, it may deter companies from working with the council in the future. This could consequentially impact on the wider duties of the council in serving its residents, which is not within the public interest.
“In considering the factors favouring disclosure and the factors against releasing the information we have concluded that the balance of the public interest lays in withholding the information.”
The council’s decision not to extend Fusion’s contract was significant and came amidst criticism.
The audit report might provide insights into the council’s decision-making process and whether any lessons have been learned to prevent similar issues with future contractors.
The decision to withhold information hampers the public’s ability to scrutinise the council’s performance and financial dealings during the contract.
The LDRS has asked the council for an internal review into this decision not to publish the report, stating that to apply Section 43(2), there must be a real and significant likelihood of prejudice to commercial interests.
Adding that the reasoning provided in the council’s response does not demonstrate this likelihood with sufficient certainty.
The council said it aims to provide a response “as soon as possible”; otherwise, by the statutory due date of 30 January 2025.
By John Guinn
Local Democracy Reporter
