Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 02862-21 Castleton Farm v Daily Mirror
Summary
of Complaint
1. Castleton Farm complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the Daily
Mirror breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an
article headlined “Misery for foreign workers harvesting food we won't pick”,
published on 19 March 2021.
2. The
article, which appeared on page 25 of the print newspaper, reported on the
experiences of non-EU workers who had worked in Scotland as fruit-pickers “as
part of a special post-Brexit pilot scheme.” The article included comments from
a named worker on her experience of the scheme and employment at Castleton
Farm, a fruit-picking farm in Scotland, who had applied for the scheme “hoping
to save enough to study at university.” According to the article, the worker
“was dismissed from the farm after three weeks for missing targets” and during
her time at the farm, according to a quote from the worker, she “stayed in
three caravans in two months”.
3. The
worker was also quoted as stating that she “had to keep working and stop eating
to save the money for the ticket” home, as the article stated that “[a]fter
taking out loans in Russia to afford £244 for the visa and travel to Britain,
she ended up without even enough money for her air fare home.” It also said
that the worker had “slowly starved herself to pay for airfare home” and had
“endur[ed] what she said were poverty wages”. The article went on to include a
quote from a different worker, explaining how the payment system worked at the
farm: “There was a ‘performance management review’ every two hours where the
supervisor would check how many boxes we have done. If we hadn’t made the
National Minimum Wage, we’d be sent back to the caravan, because the farm has
to top up wages to £8.72 an hour under the law”. The article also included a
small photograph of the main worker, appearing below the main photograph in the
article. It was captioned with the statement that the worker “had missed
targets and gone home with nothing”.
4. The
article also explored the wider context of the worker’s situation, and referred
to a Focus on Labour Exploitation (FLEX) report, “the first ever report into
the experiences of people on the [pilot] scheme”, which “found evidence of
exploitation and ‘high risks of human trafficking for forced labour’”. It went
on to establish the background of the report, which was based on ”[i]nterviews
and surveys with 84 workers on 12 farms, of which 39 people were on the
scheme”. The article also included a quote from the Chief Executive of FLEX,
who said that “major flaws in the scheme’s design that have left workers open
to the real risk of modern slavery.” The
article also quoted from the report, and included a quotation from a worker in
the report who said that they felt “like a slave”. The article then included a
response from Castleton Farm, in which a spokesperson stated that “whilst the
FLEX report identified a risk to exploitation, they found no cases or evidence
of any exploitation or illegal practices on any of the 12 farms [referred to in
the report], including ours.”
5. The
article also appeared online in substantially the same format, under the
headline “Workers live like 'slaves' in caravans after coming to UK under
promise of jobs”. The online article also included a sub-headline: “EXCLUSIVE:
[Named worker] endured 'degrading' living conditions and poverty wages after
coming to the UK to work on a fruit farm and save for her education - she ended
up having to starve herself just to be able to affored [sic] to get back home“.
The online article also included the photograph of the worker which had also
appeared in the print article; however, in the online article it appeared
prominently, below the headline.
6. The
complainant said that the article included several inaccuracies in breach of
Clause 1. It said first that it was inaccurate to state that the named farm
worker, who featured prominently in the article, had been “dismissed from the
farm after three weeks”, as employment records demonstrated that she had been
employed at the farm for 10 weeks. It
also said that it was inaccurate for the photograph caption to report that the
worker “had missed targets and gone home with nothing”, where she had been paid
for her work at the farm. The complainant further said that the worker had not
said that she had “starved herself” to afford the airfare home; this was the
publication’s characterisation, and was inaccurate as the worker had earned
money and she had not earned below national minimum wage during her time at the
farm.
7. Turning
to the online version of the article, the complainant said that the headline
was inaccurate as the worker in the article had been given a job and had not
been lured with the “promise” of one, as stated by the headline. It also said
that the article was inaccurate in referencing “slaves” in the same article and
the online headline as the worker who had been at the farm had not made any
references to slavery in her quotations to the newspaper, and the report
referred to in the article had not found any incidences of illegal exploitation
at Castleton Farm.
8. Finally,
the complainant said that it had not been given the opportunity to reply to the
inaccuracies in the article, in breach of Clause 1 (iii). It said that the farm
had been contacted by the newspaper for comment prior to the publication of the
article, and provided the correspondence which showed this. However, it said
that the farm had still not been given the fullest opportunity to comment, as
it had not been given the name of the worker or her specific claims and so
could not refute the claims she made regarding her experiences, and in
particular the claims regarding her pay and the length of time she had worked
at the farm.
9. The
publication accepted that the article was inaccurate regarding the amount of
time that the worker had spent at the farm, and that she had worked there for
ten weeks rather than three. It said that this may have been a translation
error, and that the worker had in fact said three months instead of weeks; it
provided contemporaneous notes taken by the journalist which referred to the
worker having been employed at the farm for three weeks. While it did not
accept that this represented a significant inaccuracy, it proposed to publish
the following correction in its regular Corrections & Clarifications column
on page 2 of the print newspaper to put the correct position on record:
“Our
article 'Misery for foreign workers
harvesting food we won't pick' 19 March, reported that farmworker [named
worker] worked on Castleton Fruit Farm three weeks. In fact, [the worker] worked
on the farm for three months. We are happy to clarify this.”
It also
offered to amend the online article to make the true position on this point
clear, and to include the following footnote to make the true position clear:
“A
previous version of this article reported that [the worker] worked on Castleton
Fruit Farm three weeks. In fact, [the worker] worked on the farm for three
months. We are happy to clarify this.”
The
publication offered to publish the correction and footnote 12 days after IPSO
referred the complaint as raising a possible breach of the Editors’ Code.
10. The
publication did not accept that the article included any additional
inaccuracies in breach of Clause 1. Regarding the alleged inaccuracy which the
complainant said arose from the article reporting that the worker had returned
home “with nothing”, it noted that the article did not state that the work was
underpaid, nor that she had not been paid at all. Rather, it reported that
after paying for food and additional costs – including “the visa and travel to
Britain” referred to in the article – the worker said that she had broken even
and had not returned home with additional money.
11. Turning
to the complainant’s concerns over the reference to an unnamed worker saying
they felt “a slave” in the article, the publication noted that the basis for
this was a quote from another worker – who was not reported within the article
as having worked at Castleton Farm – and that this worker had been fairly and
accurately quoted. In any event, it also noted that since the article’s
publication, the named Castleton Farm worker had submitted an official
complaint to the Agricultural Wages Board (AWB) in which she also referenced
“people being treated as slaves”. It also noted that the article included a
quote from the Farm, in which it stated that “whilst the FLEX report identified
a risk to exploitation, they found no cases or evidence of any exploitation or
illegal practices on any of the 12 farms, including ours”.
12. The
publication said it had given Castleton Farm a fair opportunity to comment on
the article prior to publication and that with the exception of the point noted
above, there were no inaccuracies requiring a reply. Nevertheless, it said that
it would be happy to consider inserting a further comment from the Farm,
responding to the specific experiences detailed in the article, into the online
article.
13. The
complainant said, that by reporting that the worker had returned home “with
nothing”, the article was misleading, as it implied she had been poorly paid or
not paid at all. It therefore said that he wished for this information to be
corrected and further noted that she was not obliged to stay on site. He went
on to say that the worker’s later official complaint to the AWB was irrelevant,
where the newspaper had not been aware of this complaint at the time of
publication and could therefore not have relied on it. It also disputed that he
had been given an adequate opportunity to comment on the article, where the
response had been general and the farm could not comment on the specifics of
the worker’s situation, as it was not aware of her identity prior to the
article’s publication.
14. The
complainant said that it would only be content to resolve the complaint should
the newspaper amend the online article to remove all references to slavery, and
for a correction to accompany these changes. It said that he also wished for
the correction to include an apology, and to make clear the actual amount of
time the worker worked at the farm.
15. The
newspaper said that it did not consider it would be appropriate for a
correction to include the alleged inaccuracies regarding the reference to
worker being treated “like slaves”.
Relevant
Code Provisions
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
newspaper accepted that it was inaccurate to report that the worker “was
dismissed from the farm after three weeks for missing targets”; it was not in
dispute that the worker had actually spent 10 weeks at the farm. The claim that
the worker had spent “just” 3 weeks at the farm was contradicted within the
article itself, which included a quote from the worker stating that she had
“stayed in three caravans in two months” while working at the farm. Where the
information was, on the face of it, contradictory and it did not appear that
the publication had noted this contradiction nor taken any steps to resolve it
or establish the true position prior to publication, the publication had not
taken care over the accuracy of the claim that the worker “was dismissed from
the farm after three weeks”. There was a breach of Clause 1 (i) on this point.
17. This
inaccuracy was significant in the context of an article about the allegedly
poor working conditions and treatment of workers on the fruit farm.
Additionally, this worker’s experience at the farm was a key part of the story
and, as such, the length of time she had spent there was relevant to the
account and its reliability. In this context, reporting that she had been at
the fact for 3 weeks instead of 10 was significantly inaccurate. As such, the
publication was required, under the terms of Clause 1 (ii), to correct the
inaccuracy.
18. The Committee turned to the question of
whether the action offered by the newspaper was sufficient to avoid a breach of
Clause 1 (ii) on this point. The publication had offered to publish a print
correction, amend the online article, and footnote the online article on 19
April, 12 days after it had been made aware of the alleged inaccuracy through
IPSO’s complaints process. The correction and footnote proposed set out both
the original inaccuracy and the correct position, and the publication had proposed
to publish the print correction in its established Corrections and
Clarifications column on page 2 of its print edition, and the footnote below
the amended online article. The Committee was satisfied that the corrective
action had been offered promptly, where it was made aware of the true position
on 7 April and had attempted to establish how the inaccuracy had occurred – by
referring to contemporaneous notes and the fact that a translation error may
have occurred. The proposed location of both the correction and footnote were
duly prominent: the proposed correction would appear in an established
Corrections & Clarifications column on page 2, and the original print
article had appeared on page 25; and the footnote would appear directly below
the amended article. For these reasons, the Committee found that the remedial
action proposed by the newspaper was sufficient to avoid a breach of Clause 1
(ii).
19. The
complainant had also disputed a number of descriptions by the woman and the
publication of her experiences on the farm. While the Committee understood that
the complainant disputed the worker’s characterisation of her wages as “poverty
pay”, it was clearly distinguished as her opinion of her pay in accordance with
the terms of Clause 1 (iv), which makes clear that comment can be published,
provided it is distinguished from fact: the “poverty pay” characterisation was
attributed to the worker, and the article included factual information about
pay levels that the complainant did not appear to dispute, including that
workers were paid a minimum wage but would undergo regular performance reviews
to ensure they met productivity targets. The Committee understood that the
complainant also disputed that the worker had “starved herself” to afford to
pay for her air fare home; however, the basis for this characterisation by the
publication was set out in a direct quote from the worker in which she said
that she “stop[ped] eating” to afford the air-fare home, and the complainant
was not in a position to dispute what steps the worker had taken to save money
to travel home. The complainant had also denied that the worker had returned
home “with nothing”, and said that this implied the worker had not been paid or
had been paid below legal minimum wage. The Committee considered that this was
not a claim that the worker had not been paid or had been paid in contravention
of minimum wage laws. Rather, as the article explained, this was a reference to
the woman’s account that she had not been able to save money for her studies.
Included within the woman’s description of her experiences was the fact that
the farm was obliged to “top up” pay to the minimum wage, and there was no
suggestion that it failed to do so. There was no breach of Clause 1 on these
points.
20. The
complainant had also said that the online headline and both versions of the
article were inaccurate, where they included references to workers “living
‘like slaves’”. The Committee first noted that the basis for the headline came
from a quotation from the FLEX report which had been included in the article,
in which another anonymous worker referred to feeling “like a slave”. The
Committee also noted that it was not clear where the second worker was based,
as all workers in the FLEX report were anonymised and the names of the farms
where they worked were not given. Nevertheless, the quotation acted as a basis
for the headline, and there was no dispute that a worker had said this about
their experience of working at a fruit-picking farm. The publication was entitled
to quote the anonymous worker and rely on their experiences as the basis for
the headline, where the article reported not only on Castleton Farm but on the
pilot scheme in general. In addition, the article made clear that workers at
Castleton were paid for work, and included an extensive response from the farm
which made clear that “whilst the FLEX report identified a risk to
exploitation, they found no cases or evidence of any exploitation or illegal
practices on any of the 12 farms [referred to in the report], including
[Castleton Farm]”. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
21. The
publication had contacted Castleton Farm prior to publication and had requested
its comment on issues raised by the FLEX report. The request for comment did
not refer to the specific case of the named worker who had spoken to the
publication about her time at Castleton Farm. However, the Committee did not
consider that it was necessary for the publication to put the specific claims
raised by the worker to the publication prior to publication. One significant
inaccuracy had arisen from the article – the length of time that the worker had
been employed at the farm – and the publication had offered to correct this, in
line with the terms of Clause 1 (ii), after being made aware of the true
position from the complainant; there was no requirement for a further comment
from the complainant to address this significant inaccuracy, where the
newspaper had accepted that it was inaccurate and had proposed to publish a correction.
Other claims made by the worker were based on her own experience and perception
of the farm and the scheme, and were clearly presented as such. They did not
constitute significant inaccuracies. There was no breach of Clause 1(iii).
22. The complainant
had said that the online headline had breached Clause 1, where it referred to
workers coming to UK due to the “promise of jobs”. The Committee did not
consider this to be inaccurate, where it was not in dispute that the workers
referred to in the article had travelled to the UK to obtain work. The use of
the term “promise of jobs” in the headline did not imply or claim that there
were no jobs available, when read in conjunction with the article itself, which
made clear that workers travelling to the UK had obtained employment. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this
point.
Conclusions
23. The complaint was partly upheld under Clause
1 (i).
Remedial
Action Required
24. The
corrections which were offered clearly put the correct position on record, and
were offered promptly and with due prominence, and should now be published.
Date
complaint received: 19/03/2021
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 14/09/2021
Back to ruling listing