Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 17282-23 Bonnar v Sunday Mail
Summary
of Complaint
1.
Steven Bonnar MP complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation
that the Sunday Mail breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of
Practice in an article headlined “SNP MP in Covid trip row/SNP chief’s
right-hand man made lockdown wedding trip”, published on 29 January 2023.
2. The
article – which appeared on page 9 of the newspaper, with a short nib appearing
on the front page – reported that the complainant had “travelled across two
council areas and flew to Northern Ireland at the height of the Covid
pandemic”. It went on to report that “MP Steven Bonnar […] went on a four-day
trip to Belfast days after Nicola Sturgeon increased restrictions amid fears
that the virus was getting out of control” and that:
“In
a message sent to [the then Chief Whip of the SNP], Bonnar set out details of
the November 22 2020 journey and wrote: ‘Other than my office, my nearest and
dearest and you in your role as chief whip, nobody else is aware of my trip.’
The
email, passed to the Sunday Mail, shows that Bonnar claimed he was obeying the
rules as he was attending a friend’s wedding, which was included in the list of
exemptions.
However,
he also told [the Chief Whip] he would be attending a wedding reception, which
was banned at the time in both Northern Ireland and Scotland.
Bonnar
said he would be collected from Belfast Airport by the groom on November 22 and
would travel to a residential address in County Down.
He
told [the Chief Whip] he would be going to the wedding on November 23 and be
travelling back to his accommodation “at end of the wedding reception”.
Bonnar
claimed he would not be leaving his accommodation until November 25, to catch
the boat from Belfast […]
Two
days before Bonnar made the trip, [the then-First Minister] moved 11 local
authorities into Level 4 restrictions, closing shops and banning people from
socialising indoors. Those areas included North Lanarkshire, where Bonnar
lived, and Glasgow, where he travelled from.”
3. The
article then said that, “when challenged by the Sunday Mail, Bonnar claimed he
did not believe he had flouted the rules or guidelines” and included a comment
from the complainant which spanned six paragraphs and included the following
quotes: “I think weddings were deemed ‘essential travel’. I believe I was in
compliance with all the rules and regulations at the time”; “I am entirely
comfortable that I remained within all of the guidelines at that time”; “I was
entirely comfortable with the decision I took and remain so. I would make the
same decision again.” It also included quotes from three politicians, criticising
the complainant for the trip; one quote said that the complainant “appears to
have broken lockdown rules” and that there should be an investigation into the
matter.
4. The
article closed with a comment from an “SNP spokesman”, who was reportedly said:
“Steven attended this wedding as the best man of a family member. His activity
was fully within the rules and guidelines set out, which provided an exemption
for people travelling to weddings within the common travel area. The wedding
also fully complied with all rules and guidance.”
5. The
article also appeared online in substantially the same form, under the headline
“SNP chief's right-hand man denies any wrongdoing as details of lockdown
wedding trip emerge”.
6. One
day prior to the article’s publication, a journalist acting on behalf of the
newspaper contacted a representative of the SNP; this email included the
allegation that “[o]n November 22, 2020 Steven Bonnar MP travelled from North
Lanarkshire [Level 4 area] to Glasgow [Level 4 area], then to Belfast, for a
wedding”, and asked “why was this permitted” and “what action will now take
place against […] Mr Bonnar”.
7. The
SNP spokesperson than responded, with a link to the Scottish Government’s
Covid-19 guidance on travel and transport, which had been published on 20
November 2020 and updated on 26 November 2020. This guidance included the
following excerpts:
“People
who live in a Level 3 or 4 local authority area in Scotland are now required to
stay in that area unless they have a reasonable excuse to travel, such as work,
education, or welfare reasons.
[…]
If you live in a Level 4 local authority area […] you must, by law, remain
within that area unless you have a reasonable excuse (see exceptions).
Under
current Scottish regulations, given the state of the epidemic in these
countries, unless you have a reasonable excuse (see exceptions) you must not travel
between Scotland and: England, Northern Ireland, Republic of Ireland, Wales”.
8. The
guidance then included exceptions to the above terms; these included the
following:
“in
Level 3 travel to attend a gathering which relates to a marriage ceremony or
civil partnership registration […] in Level 4 travel to attend a marriage
ceremony or registration of a civil partnership”.
9. This
was followed up with a further email from the spokesperson, in which they said:
“As was set out in the guidelines I have just sent you, travel to a wedding was
classed as an exemption.” The journalist responded to this email, saying:
“Well,
for a start there were not supposed to be wedding receptions, but Steven told
[the Chief Whip] he would be attending a reception, which was not permitted
under the NI rules at the time. Or the Scottish rules.
Secondly, Steven told the chief whip that only
he and his family, and [the Chief Whip], knew about his trip - unsure why he
would feel the need to say this if he felt that it was all above board.
As
I say, if the party believes this was completely in-keeping with both the law
and the spirit of the guidelines set out by [the First Minister] on November
20, 2020, then please send me a comment explaining this.”
10. The
journalist and spokesperson exchanged a number of further emails, which
culminated in the following email and response, sent from the journalist and
the spokesperson respectively:
“Just
to clarify:
1)
Stephen Bonnar visited northern ireland for four days to attend a wedding
2)
He socialised with people outside his household
3)
He told [the Chief Whip] he was attending a wedding reception despite these
being banned
4)
He travelled through two level 4 council areas before travelling overseas
5)
He said that only his family and [the Chief Whip] was aware of the trip and
nobody else knew.
6)
[The First Minister] told everyone to stay at home and not travel unless for
essential purposes two days before he made the journey.
I
am writing a story. If you want to comment on the record, send it over.”
“An
SNP spokesperson said: ‘Steven attended this wedding as the best man of a
family member. His activity was fully within the rules and guidelines set out,
which provided an exemption for people travelling to weddings within the Common
Travel Area. The wedding itself also fully complied with all rules and
guidance.’”
11. On
the same day, the journalist called the complainant; the pair had the following
exchange:
Journalist:
I am doing a story on the fact that you attended a wedding in Northern Ireland
when you were not supposed to leave your home except for essential purposes.
Complainant:
Right, I don’t think that’s accurate. I think weddings were deemed essential
travel […] Yeah, absolutely I believe I was in compliance with all the rules
and regulations at the time.
[…]
Journalist:
I’m looking at [the First Minster’s] speech from two days before you travelled
so she said, you know, ‘except for limited purposes including childcare or
caring for someone you should not go out and about over this three week
period…you should not travel outwith Scotland, there must be…
Complainant:
Aye, except for essential purpose and if you look through all the regulations
at the time on the Scottish Government website, weddings were always deemed
essential travel.
12. Two
days after the article’s publication, the complainant contacted the newspaper.
In a letter to the newspaper, he said that “at no point was a single lockdown
measure breached” and that the publication had chosen “not to include in [the]
article explicitly what the official Scottish Government guidelines were at the
time despite being provided with this information.”
13. The
complainant also said in the article that the wedding ceremony and reception
that he attended had not taken place in Northern Ireland – rather, they had
taken place in the Republic of Ireland, where the government guidelines at the
time allowed for weddings and wedding receptions to be held. The complainant
also noted in this letter that travel between Northern Ireland and the Republic
of Ireland for the purposes of attending a wedding ceremony was permitted at
the time. He requested both a retraction and an apology.
14. The
complainant then contacted IPSO with his concerns. He said that the article
breached Clause 1 as it included “inaccurate allegations [which have] unjustly
maligned [his] integrity and reputation”. He said that the article under
complaint had omitted to make clear that the Irish government regulations in
place at the time of the wedding made clear that wedding gatherings and
receptions of up to 25 people were allowed. He also said that he had acted in
line with the exemptions set out in Scottish government guidance at the time,
and that the article also omitted to mention this. He said that these omissions
created a misleading impression that he had breached the guidelines in place,
which he denied was the case. He also said that the critical comments from
politicians included in the article strengthened this misleading impression.
15. The
publication did not accept a breach of Clause 1. It said that the complainant
had, in his own words, stated that he had attended a “reception” – which, it
said, was “banned” at the time. It did not dispute that attendance at wedding
ceremonies was deemed essential travel, but it said that the article clearly
highlighted that it was the travel to the wedding reception which was an
“issue”. At any rate, it said that the article included the complainant’s
position that he had acted within the guidance at all times when making his
trip, and the SNP’s position that the travel was allowed.
16.
Turning to the question of whether the article breached Clause 1 by not making
clear that the wedding ceremony and reception had been held in Ireland – where
wedding receptions were permitted at the time – the publication said that the
complainant had not told it this until after the article was published, despite
having been given “numerous opportunities to comment prior to publication.” It
would not, therefore, have referenced the rules in place in the Republic of
Ireland at the time in the article – as there was no indication from either the
complainant’s correspondence with the Chief Whip or the comments received from
the complainant and SNP that the wedding had occurred there. For this reason,
it did not consider that omitting this information from the article rendered it
significantly inaccurate, distorted, or misleading. To support its position,
the publication provided the transcript of a phone call between the journalist
who wrote the story and the complainant, and an email sent from the complainant
to the then-Chief Whip, sent on the day of the trip. The email included the
following excerpt:
“I
write to confirm my whole plans with you before I depart.
I
am in full compliance with all Tier 4 regulations and travel restrictions in
place.
I
am and will be in full compliance with all guidelines in each local authority
area I visit.
[…]
[Link
to the Scottish government travel guidelines] States that I am permitted to
travel for an exempted reason that reason being travelling to a marriage
ceremony.
My
full itinerary is laid out below and there will be no deviation from this
schedule.
[…]
Depart
Glasgow airport at 15:45 arrive Belfast at 16:30
Collected
by […] drove to Address: [Northern Ireland address]
Monday
23rd
Drive
in private car to wedding venue.
Drive
in private car to above address at end of wedding reception […]
Stay
at above address until I depart to return to Scotland…”
17.
While the publication did not accept a breach of the Code, it proposed to add
an update to the top of the online article, clarifying that the SNP denied that
the wedding had a reception, and confirming that the complainant had not been
investigated in relation to the trip.
18. The
complainant said that the publication had incorrectly assumed the wedding was
in Northern Ireland, and that he had not told them at any point that it was. He
noted that, at the time the publication had asked him for comment on the
matter, it had been two years since the wedding, and he hadn’t felt the need to
point out the precise location of the wedding reception as no one had asked him
and said that: “having lived in Ireland, worked in Ireland, have family in
Ireland. It is Ireland to me. Belfast is also in Ireland. You would need to
understand my psyche as a nationalist and a republican to understand why I
wouldn’t feel the need to point out where the wedding venue was.” He said that
during the phone call he had referred to Ireland at all times, and it was
supposition on the part of the reporter to assume that he had been talking about
Northern Ireland.
19. The
publication did not consider that an apology was an appropriate resolution to
the complaint; however, it did propose to publish the following wording in
print and online:
Print
In
the edition dated 29 January 2023 we published an article on page 9 entitled
"SNP chief's right-hand man made lockdown wedding trip", which said
that Steven Bonnar MP travelled to a wedding ceremony and reception in Northern
Ireland at the height of the Covid pandemic. Whilst Mr Bonnar did travel from
Scotland to Northern Ireland on that occasion, he has since advised that the
wedding ceremony and reception in fact took place in the Republic of Ireland,
to which he further commuted from Northern Ireland. We are happy to clarify
this.
Online
A
previous version of this article stated that Steven Bonnar MP travelled to a
wedding ceremony and reception in Northern Ireland at the height of the Covid
pandemic. Whilst Mr Bonnar did travel from Scotland to Northern Ireland on that
occasion, he has since advised that the wedding ceremony and reception in fact
took place in the Republic of Ireland, to which he further commuted from
Northern Ireland. We are happy to clarify this.
20. The
complainant did not accept this as a resolution to the complaint, and said that
the publication had interpreted the guidance in a way that was in his opinion
“completely farcical and unclear”. He also said that, at the time of the trip
travel from a Level 4 area in order to attend a wedding ceremony was allowed,
and that his attendance at “the location of the wedding (chapel and venue)” was
undertaken in compliance with “all rules and regulations at that time in that
location”. He further said that all the rules “as stated by [the First
Minister] in her televised briefing and as published on the government website
were fully complied with”. He also said that, if he had left the Level 4 area
to travel to a wedding reception only (for instance, as an evening guest) he
would have been in breach of the law, as this was not permitted. But this was
not what had occurred – he had attended the wedding ceremony and reception,
during which there was no music, no dancing, no singing, socially distanced
tabled, and “mask wearing”.
Relevant
Clause 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
21. The
complainant had said that the article omitted specific references to Covid-19
rules and regulations in both Scotland and the Republic of Ireland in a manner
that rendered the article under complaint misleading, as it gave the impression
that he had contravened the rules or guidance. Newspapers generally have
discretion over the selection of material to publish, provided that the
omission of information does not result in the article being significantly
inaccurate, misleading, or distorted.
22. The
Committee noted that, while the article was critical of the complainant for
attending the wedding reception, the article under complaint did not assert
that the complainant had breached any rules or regulations. Instead, the
article questioned whether the complainant ought to have travelled to attend
the wedding reception, given the concerns expressed at the time by the Scottish
government over the spread of Covid-19 and the restrictions which had been put
in place in Scotland. The article
reported that the complainant had made a “lockdown wedding trip” and had
“travelled across two council areas and flew to Northern Ireland at the height
of the pandemic” – neither of which was in dispute – and repeatedly set out the
view of both the complainant and the SNP that the trip was within the rules and
guidelines in place at the time. The article did contain comments from three
politicians, criticising the complainant for this trip – but none of these
comments went so far as to claim, as fact, that the complainant had broken any
rules or regulations. One comment said it “appear[ed]” that the complainant had
broken the rules, but this was clearly attributed to the politician in question
and distinguished as their view of the complainant’s actions.
23. The
Committee then considered the information which had been omitted from the
article, and whether the omission of this information suggested the complainant
had acted improperly in a misleading manner. The complainant had pointed to the
Scottish guidelines, which set out that travel to wedding ceremonies was a
listed exemption to the travel restrictions for Tier 4, and said that the
article should have made this clear. However, this exemption was referenced in
the article: “Bonnar claimed he was attending a friend’s wedding, which was
included in the list of exemptions.” Therefore, while the precise wording had
not been included in the article, it was clear upon reading the article that
travel to wedding ceremonies was a listed exception, and this information had therefore
not been omitted from the article.
24. The
complainant also said that the article should have referred to the fact that
wedding receptions were not banned in the Republic of Ireland – which was where
the wedding ceremony and reception had taken place. However, the complainant
had not disputed that the wedding reception was held in Northern Ireland when
this was put to him prior to publication. Further, as noted above, the article
did not assert that the complaint had
breached any rules or guidance by his attendance at the wedding or the
reception, but was levelling criticism at him for his decision to travel to the
event, in light of the restrictions in place at the time. In that context, the article referenced the
guidance in place in Scotland and Northern Ireland, being the countries from
and to which the complainant had travelled in order to attend the wedding. The Scottish guidance stated that:
“in
Level 3 travel to attend a gathering which relates to a marriage ceremony or
civil partnership registration […] in Level 4 travel to attend a marriage
ceremony or registration of a civil partnership”.
Therefore,
regardless of the legal status of wedding receptions in Ireland, the rules in
place in Scotland for travel from a Level 4 area provided an exemption for “a
marriage ceremony” – rather than travel to “gathering[s] which relate[..] to a
marriage ceremony” which were permitted in Level 3. In these circumstances,
omitting to refer to the fact that the wedding reception took place in the Republic
of Ireland – where such gatherings were permitted – did not represent a breach
of Clause 1.
25. The
complainant had said that the publication’s interpretation of the guidance on
travel was “completely farcical and unclear”. The Committee noted that it was
not its role to adjudicate on whether the publication’s interpretation of the
guidance was legally sound, only whether the article was inaccurate or
misleading. Where the exemptions for travel to weddings from Level 4 areas
referenced “travel to attend a marriage ceremony” and did not make any
reference to related gatherings such as wedding receptions, the Committee
considered that there was a basis for the article’s criticism of the
complainant’s decision to travel to attend the event, and that the article was
not inaccurate, misleading, or distorted on this point in breach of Clause 1.
Conclusions
26. The
complaint was not upheld.
Remedial
action required
27. N/A
Date
complaint received: 06/03/2023
Date
complaint concluded by IPSO: 23/08/2023