Secrecy is corrosive, handle with care.

So yesterday the Justice Secretary confirmed that the government would be keeping secret the transcript of the Cabinet discussion leading up to war in Iraq. Even though the independent Information Commissioner and Information Tribunal had instructed them to release the information, ministers have a veto. Jack Straw has now exercised that veto, the first time it has been used in the four years or so the act has been in force.

The government's argument is essentially constitutional, or at least procedural. They say that the Cabinet needs to meet behind closed doors in order to have a free and frank exchange of views. Once the Cabinet reaches a decision then every member is bound by that decision. This system would be undermined if everyone knew what each minister argued. 

There are persuasive arguments against the Government's position but that isn't really the point. Jack Straw has laid out a valid and arguable case for keeping some information secret and that is a strong position for the government to find itself in with two key risk areas:

• the whole process has highlighted the fact that there was a debate amongst elected officials which we, the electors, are not privy to. This will reduce trust in the governing party.
  
• if any minister, ever, breaches the tight (and apparently vital) code of ministerial secrecy then the Government's case for suppressing this document crumbles. You can't preserve a constitutional principle only when it is in your interests.

The same risks hold true for the rest of us. Keeping secrets reduces trust and when we do refuse to publish or discuss some information it should be on a clear and principled basis. You can decide to reveal some information in order to rubbish a client who is attacking you in the press but if you subsequently refuse to reveal information about a client that your local paper has developed a keen interest in then your reputation will take a well-deserved hit.

In general it is better to reveal information and then explain and debate it. When you do keep secrets make sure you know what you are doing.

Image is "Corroded Rivets" by Karl Palutke distributed under CC-SA-2.0

Do what it says on the can

Pardon me while I take the opportunity to blow my own trumpet. I used to work for North Shropshire District Council. When I joined it was considered by the government's inspectorate to be one of the worst performing councils in the country. When I left it was considered to be one of the best. That was good news but not quite excellent news.

You see, though satisfying the Audit Commission is important, the real measure of success is satisfying the people the Council serves. The measure used across local councils in England is the question "How satisfied are you with the way the local authority runs things". You can, and I have, criticise this as a measure of customer satisfaction but it has the advantage of being standardised and widely understood.

In 2005 only 46% of the people we served were satisfied with the way we ran things. By 2007 we had moved that to 54%: an eight point increase at a time when satisfaction was tending to decline. We were pleased with the progress but it still compared badly with other district councils (half of the district councils in the country have satisfaction ratings of 55% or above). 

I've just been sent the satisfaction data for 2008 and now 61% of local residents are satisfied with the way the council runs things. That puts the council into the top band for district councils and means that satisfaction jumped a further 7 points in just one year.

So how did we do this? Well clearly we started providing better services, really good services actually. Councillors became much more confident in making and sticking to decisions. We set up a range of mechanisms to listen to the concerns of local people and businesses and we changed and adapted what we did in response to what they said. We were clear about how we were going to improve people's lives (and how we weren't) and we told people what we were up to. 

In short we used communications as a tool to improve the business. This is strategic communications. It isn't rocket science, you should be doing it, it does work and I can prove it.

Image is Trumpet by MauritsV and used under CC-SA-2.0

Wealden and Noel Edmonds (forsooth)

Dangerous stuff dealing with planning applications. 

As every local government wonk knows, people miss the point about planning. The Council spends years trying to interest people in the planning polices that it develops to ensure that your district develops in the way that everyone wants. No one pays any attention. The Council decides that your application to build a delightful holiday cottage complex is not in line with these policies. Suddenly planning seems interesting.

Wealden District Council refused an application to build a home for a crippled soldier because it was not in line with the policies of the Council. Unfortunately for the Council, Noel Edmonds has a lovely new show and so Sky TV waded in on the act (as Mark Borkowski explains). The story went national and even the Prime Minister exhorted the Council to think again.

Now Wealden is a good council and makes good planning decisions. I know this because the Audit Commission says so. They also now appear to be inflexible, unpatriotic and abitrary. Journalists (like so make of us) do not understand the planning system and so it would be too much to hope that the outraged stories in the Sun or the Express would explain why they came to the decision they did.

It would not be too much to expect that the Council's own web site would explain. But I reproduce below, in its entirety, the detailed explanation of the truth lying behind this national news story:

A scheme has now been agreed in principle which planning officers consider is supportable.

Mr Carter who is Joe's grandfather will now submit a new application.  Mr Carter said "We have had a fruitful discussion and I am optimistic that the scheme will meet Joe's needs and will receive a fair hearing.  I am grateful to the Council for being open to a new approach".

Councillor Pam Doodes, Leader of Wealden District Council said "We have been anxious to resolve this difficult issue from the start and are glad that a solution has been identified.  However, this case has raised a number of deep concerns over national policy and I shall be writing to the Prime Minister urging him to issue further Government guidance on the provision that local authorities make for servicemen and women disabled in the service of their country".

Another way of writing this would be

We've changed our minds because Noel Edmonds got lots of publicity for this story.

Which surely can't be what they intended. Can it?