AT long last, common sense has prevailed and local public notices will be restored to their rightful place in the Hexham Courant .

Within hours of its first working day, the new administration stuck to its pledge to end the farcical and unjust situation which meant that notices were placed in a paper with no circulation in Tynedale.

We are, of course, grateful for the intervention which hopefully marks the beginning of a new era of transparency and accountability by the county council; and an end to the marginalisation of our local communities.

But on this issue, serious questions remain over the conduct of the chief executive Steven Mason and the former Labour leadership.

There is no evidence to support Mr Mason’s assertion that the ban on council notices in the Courant was for financial reasons.

There is no evidence to support his assertion that the ban was implemented as part of a pilot scheme. The notion of a pilot appears to have been concocted three months after the ban was instigated on Mr Mason’s orders, and only after the legitimacy of his decision came under suspicion.

At the same time, the council sanctioned the withdrawal of the Courant from sale at leisure centres, and facilitated the availability of free copies of the Northumberland Gazette .

And when his actions came under even more scrutiny, he conveniently claimed purdah prevented him from reconsidering his decision and taking part in further debate.

His initial instruction in November to withdraw notices from the Courant coincided with our coverage of objections to the new charges introduced at leisure centres.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it remains difficult to avoid the conclusion that the ban and subsequent actions to inflict financial hardship on the Courant were some form of punishment meted out against this newspaper, and thereby a blatant assault on the principle of the freedom of the press.

And as a consequence, he was prepared to see local communities denied convenient access to public information which the law deems is their right.

These are decisions and actions for which Mr Mason, as a public servant earning in excess of £180,000 a year, must be held to account.

The erstwhile political leadership of the council must also be held to account. Let us not forget that when asked to intervene, it also conveniently hid from accountability and responsibility behind the cloak of purdah.

Now purdah is over. And the petition, signed by 2,700 people in support of the Y our Right To Know campaign, will be considered by the new administration; as will the motion agreed unanimously by West Northumberland’s county councillors in support of the campaign.

Much as Mr Mason and the previous leadership of the council may wish otherwise, they can be assured there will be no hiding place from scrutiny.

Colin Tapping,

Editor