OUR use of the new Freedom of Information Act to obtain material from Richmondshire District Council was motivated by a desire to see if the legislation worked.

It clearly does and the Darlington & Stockton Times is pleased that the council responded so speedily to our request for the cost of what was a controversial training course for its senior management team.

The cost of that course was controversial because it took place when the authority was seeking to increase council tax and there was justified scrutiny of the council's spending.

The row about the training course was spurious. Local authorities should train their staff in order to get the best from them for the benefit of all taxpayers. Good training costs money and no taxpayer should begrudge the spending of public money to ensure effective administration.

The row about the confidentiality surrounding the cost of the course was justified. The council's position in 2002 was that the information should not be revealed because it was commercially sensitive. Council contract tendering must, of course, be confidential while the tender process is taking place. But, once the decision is taken and the contract signed, there is no reason why the contract amount should not be revealed.

By not revealing the amount spent on the course, the council made the controversy much worse. Suspicions were heightened because of the secrecy.

The exercise has proved, in our view, that democracy is besed served by openness and disclosure.

That is the basis on which the Freedom of Information Act is drafted and it is gratifying to see it work in practice.