Be frank, be open

Eleven of them recently attended an adventure training weekend at Aske Hall designed to improve their management skills.

Whether or not that is an entirely appropriate thing to do so soon after announcing a hefty increase in council tax is not the main issue. And perhaps the assurances of the council's chief executive, Harry Tabiner, that the course was good value for money should be accepted. Unfortunately, that's difficult because the council will not say how much it cost.

The principle that the council's senior officers should benefit from training certainly should be accepted. No organisation, be it in the public or private sector, can ignore its responsibility to get the best from its staff. Training is essential to do that.

What is not acceptable is the secrecy surrounding the issue. Last week, the council decided details of the costs and the content should be given to council members but that it should be treated as commercially-sensitive information and therefore not released to the general public.

This is tosh. Certain, limited, aspects of local authority activity should remain confidential and legislation governing access to information allows for this. It includes details of individual council employees, tenants, fostering/care arrangments, legal advice from counsel and, most pertinently in relation to this issue, information relating to the supply of goods or services if disclosure of that information would prejudice tendering negotiations.

As this is a service which has been received, and perhaps even paid for, it does not fall into this category. Indeed, under the Local Government Finance Act of 1982 the information must be, in time, disclosed to "any persons interested". The duty of the council is to be open and release this information.

It is also more likely that the mountain made out of this molehill by the council's critics will be cut down to size if the council is entirely frank about the training course.

Unnecessary and unjustified secrecy only breeds suspicion.