Decision of the Complaints Committee 01825-17 McHugh v
Sunday Herald
Summary of Complaint
1. Martin McHugh complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that the Sunday Herald breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of
the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Revealed: The secret
multi-million-pound corruption report at scandal-hit Labour council”, published
on 27 November 2016.
2. The article reported on a “contracts scandal”
surrounding North Lanarkshire Council’s procurement and contract management
arrangements. It said that this related to the Council’s corporate property
contracts, which had been obtained under the previous leadership of a former
Councillor.
3. It explained that “corruption investigators” had
written a report, entitled “Report Examining Allegations of Fraud and
Corruptions around Aspects of the Council's ’Procurements and Contracting
Arrangements”. The article said that the report had revealed “the sheer scale
of multi-million-pound unsanctioned overspend at the authority, through
massively inflated public contracts”.
4. The article reported that “auditors found that firms
were getting much more work than their original contracts allowed for and this
work was being carried out at a higher than expected rate of pay”. It said that
one of the contractors which had been referred to in the report, was a company
called Taymore, which was owned and run by the complainant. It said that
“Taymore, the auditors discovered, received more than £6m for work under a
contract originally for £1.25m worth of doors, screens and blacksmith works.
Some 54 per cent of the firm’s work was done at its more expensive day rate, as
opposed to the one per cent detailed in the original contract.”
5. The article also explained that the auditors had
investigated the personal relationships between contractors and officials
associated with North Lanarkshire Council. It said that investigators had found
that a “recently retired senior maintenance and improvement officer” had
“accepted hospitality from Taymore which he had not declared, including a trip
on the Northern Belle luxury train, a golf holiday in Donegal and other golf
outings”.
6. The article continued by reporting that the auditors
had found that: “although we have identified evidence which indicates a
personal relationship between [the former Councillor] and Martin McHugh there
is no evidence that Taymore benefitted directly from this relationship”.
7. The complainant expressed concern that, in
circumstances where the auditor’s report had found that there had been no wrong
doing on his part, the references to him in an article which reported on
allegations of corruption, gave the misleading impression that he, and his
company, had been involved in corrupt practices. He further said it was
inaccurate to refer to the authors of the report as “corruption investigators”
and to refer to the report as a “corruption” report.
8. Whilst the complainant accepted that Taymore had
received a payment of £6 million for work, he said that the article
inaccurately suggested that this figure had been an excessive fee, in
comparison to an agreed price. He said that the article had not made it clear
that the £1.25m figure represented an annual cost of the contract and the £6m
figure represented the total cost of the contract, following an extension of
the original contract from three years to five years.
9. The complainant denied that he had a “close personal
relationship” to, or that he or his company had provided hospitality for,
members of North Lanarkshire Council. He said that the examples of hospitality
referenced in the article had been charity events; he said that attendees had
been required to pay in order to attend, and had not been invited as his guest.
10. The newspaper did not accept a breach of the Code. It
said that the article was a fair and accurate account of the auditor’s report.
11. It said that it was not inaccurate to refer to the
auditor’s report as a “corruption report”, or to refer to the auditors as
“corruption investigators”, where the title of the report had been: “Report
Examining Allegations of Fraud and Corruptions around Aspects of the Council's
’Procurements and Contracting Arrangements”.
12. The newspaper said that the auditors’ report had
reported on allegations about councillors, council staff and internal processes
and did not investigate the role of external third parties, beyond the
information available in council records.
13. It said that it was in those circumstances, that the
references to the complainant and his company had arisen. It said that the
auditor’s report had concluded that Taymore had received extended contracts
which had been awarded by Council officials in breach of the Council’s
tendering process, but that there was no evidence that the complainant or his
company had obtained a direct benefit as a result of relationships with members
of the Council. It said this conclusion had been reported prominently in the
article, and this conclusion had been put to the complainant before
publication, and his express denials of any wrongdoing had been reported in the
article.
14. It said that the report had made a specific finding
that the complainant had a close personal relationship with senior maintenance
and improvement officers, and this had been accurately reported in the article.
Relevant Code Provisions
15. Clause 1 (Accuracy)
i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate,
misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not
supported by the text.
ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or
distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and — where
appropriate — an apology published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence
should be as required by the regulator.
iii) A fair opportunity to reply to significant
inaccuracies should be given, when reasonably called for.
iv) The Press, while free to editorialise and campaign,
must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.
Findings of the Committee
16. The article had reported on a number of findings
which were contained in an auditor’s report, the name of which had specifically
made reference to allegations of corruption. The Committee did not conclude
that it was significantly inaccurate or misleading to refer to the document as
a “corruption” report, or the auditors as “corruption investigators” in those
circumstances.
17. It was by reporting on the contents of the auditor’s
report, that the references to the complainant, and Taymore, had been made. The
report had focussed upon allegations of corruption, directed at councillors and
council staff at North Lanarkshire Council, in the procurement and management
of public contracts. It had made clear that there was no evidence that the
complainant, or Taymore, had benefitted directly from a relationship with those
individuals. The Committee further noted that the newspaper had also spoken to
the complainant prior to publication, and his denials of any wrong doing had
been reported in the article. In those circumstances, the Committee did not
conclude that the article had suggested that the complainant had been involved
in corrupt practices.
18. The Committee noted the complainant’s position that
the article had not made it clear that the £1.25m figure represented an annual
cost of the contract and the £6m figure represented the total cost of the
contract. The article had accurately reported the auditor’s findings, which did
not specify the annual cost of the contract, but instead had referred to a total
contract value, including the contract extension period. Furthermore, in
circumstances where it was not in dispute that Taymore had received a payment
of £6m for contractual work, the Committee did not consider that it was
significantly inaccurate or misleading to report on this increased cost, where
the article had made clear that the auditors had not found that the
complainant, or Taymore, had been involved in any wrong doing.
19. The auditor’s report had made a specific finding
which said that auditors had identified evidence which had indicated a personal
relationship between the complainant and a former councillor, and that council
officials had accepted hospitality from Taymore. The newspaper had taken care
to publish an accurate account of the findings of the auditor’s report. There
was no breach of Clause 1.
Conclusion
20. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial action required
N/A
Date complaint received: 13/03/2017
Date decision issued: 19/06/2017