01233-24 Fermanagh and Omagh District Council v The Impartial Reporter

Summary of Complaint

1. Fermanagh and Omagh District Council complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Impartial Reporter breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Council's 'cosy cartel' cannot continue - we need answers”, published on 29 February 2024.

2. The article, which appeared on page 25 under the title “Opinion”, set out the columnist’s views on the District Council and its recent actions. It opened by reporting: “It is a few weeks since the country was transfixed by the ITV Drama, ‘Mr. Bates vs The Post Office’. There is widespread agreement that the Post Office bosses behaved shamefully towards decent people who were just trying to serve their community and make a living at the same time”.

3. The article went on to say: “Returning to focus on our own Council there are serious questions about its operation and effectiveness, with one or two exceptions. For the ninth year in a row since amalgamation, the Executive has sought, and the councillors have nodded through, a rate increase. Since 2015, the increase has been 70 per cent. Since 2015, the number of employees has risen to in excess of 1,000, with 80 per cent of the revenue raised paying for staff wages and pension benefits”. It added: “When Mark Ovens – an increasingly impressive UUP councillor – asked legitimate questions about all of this, he got no reply, instead being criticised for even asking the questions. This cosy cartel cannot continue for ever. The ratepayers live in the real world, and have to find this money”.

4. Further to the above, the article reported: “In the week of the outstanding achievements of Irish swimmer [a named individual], the Lakelanders Swimming Club [..] took to the press to seek a response from the Council as to what were the plans for its swimmers during redevelopment of the Lakeland Forum. It is a scandal that they, the Council, have not engaged with them, and prepared proper contingency measures. In the application for levelling up money, Council officials [three named individuals] were named as the main drivers. Surely some or all of them could emerge from their Townhall Street bunker to engage with the club? Better still, why not call a public meeting ASAP and explain to the public what it is going to cost, why the new building cannot be built on another site, and what arrangements are being made to cater for the swimmers – and also the 1,500 members of the Forum?”

5. The article also included a photograph of three Council members alongside a representative of the Lakeland Forum. The photograph showed these four individuals posing while holding a sign that said “£20m”.

6. The article also appeared online under the headline: “Reggie Ferguson: Fermanagh people having every right to answers”. This version of the article was published on 2 March 2024.

7. On 5 March, the complainant complained directly to the publication. It said that the article inaccurately reported that, since 2015, rates had increased 70%, the number of employees had risen to in excess of 1,000, and 80% of the revenue raised by the rates increase had paid for staff wages and pension benefits. It said that, since 2015, rates had increased by 25.68%, in the year ending 31 March 2023, the average number of full-time equivalent employees was 707, and the Council’s salary costs represented 54% of total revenue.

8. In addition, the complainant stated that the following part of the article was inaccurate, and the publication did not have evidence for it: “When Mark Ovens - an increasingly impressive UUP councillor – asked legitimate questions about all of this, he got no reply, instead being criticised for even asking the questions’”.

9. The complainant said that article was inaccurate to report that the Council had not engaged with the Swimming Club or prepared “proper contingency measures” – it said that Council officers had engaged with representatives of the Swimming Club on a number of occasions since 2019 and that these meetings included discussions “on the support the Council may be able to provide to the Club during the redevelopment phase”.

10. It also objected to the statement: “Better still, why not call a public meeting ASAP and explain to the public what it is going to cost, why the new building cannot be built on another site, and what arrangements are being made to cater for swimmer – and also the 1,500 members of the Forum?”. The complainant stated that this was misleading because a comprehensive range of engagement activity with the public and key stakeholders was ongoing.

11. Finally, the complainant said that the article breached Clause 1 due to its “extremely misleading, emotive and potentially prejudicial language”. It said the print headline and photograph showing a council official was not supported by the text of the article. It also said the use of the word “cartel” implied it had engaged in illegal behaviour, and the article’s use of the term, and reference of the Post Office Horizon Scandal, inaccurately implied wrongdoing by council officials.

12. Upon receipt of the complaint, the publication removed the online article.

13. On 20 March the complainant complained to IPSO, and on 28 March, IPSO made the publication aware that the complaint represented a possible breach of the Code.

14. The publication accepted that the article inaccurately reported the figures relating to the rates increase, the complainant’s number of employees, and their salary costs as a percentage of total revenue. It said that the figures had been supplied by the columnist, and that, regrettably, it had not checked them prior to publication.

15. On 11 April, following correspondence between the two parties, the publication the following on its Letters page, under the headline “Clarification”:

“FERMANAGH and Omagh District Council has disputed the contents of an Opinion piece by Reggie Ferguson published on February 29, 2024 [‘Council’s ‘cosy cartel’ cannot continue - we need answers’.

The Council say the claim that rates have been increased by 70 per cent since 2015 is “factually incorrect”. Since the inception of Fermanagh and Omagh District Council in 2015, the district rate element for the domestic ratepayer has increased by 25.68 per cent (cumulative calculation).

According to its most recent audited accounts, Statement of Accounts for the year ended March 31, 2023, the average number of employees (Full-Time Equivalent) was 707, not “in excess of 1,000”, as was reported. This comprises 562 full-time and 230 part-time employees.

The total salary costs (including pension contributions) as detailed within the Council’s most recent audited accounts, Statement of Accounts for the year ended March 31, 2023, was £30,201,188. The total revenue raised by the Council during this period was £56,408,968. Salary costs represented 54 per cent of total revenue raised by the Council for the year-end 2022/23, not 80 per cent, as was claimed.

The claim that the Council has not engaged with Lakelanders Swimming Club and prepared ‘proper contingency measures’ ahead of the development of the Lakeland Forum has also been disputed.

The Council says its officers have engaged with representatives of the Club on several occasions since 2019 to discuss the proposed redevelopment of Fermanagh Lakeland Forum. These engagements have included discussion on the support the Council may be able to provide to the Club during the redevelopment phase. Engagement began in 2019, with the Club feeding into the Pre-Strategic and Outline Case Consultation.

The Council says its officials and technical consultants for the project have met with Club representatives on at least four occasions (March 3, 2022; June 19, 2023; August 21, 2023; and October 17, 2023), and says it has invited the Club to engage at each key stage of the project development, seeking input. This engagement continues.

The Council says a comprehensive range of engagement activity with the public and key stakeholders has been ongoing on this important strategic project for the region. This has included a Pre-Strategic Outline Case Consultation, in 2019, and a Planning Pre-Application Consultation, from November 28 to December 19, 2022.

The Impartial Reporter is committed to both scrutinising public authorities and expressing robust opinions on various matters. However, should any articles authored by our staff or freelance contributors contain inaccuracies, we will promptly review them.

Therefore, we are happy to outline Fermanagh and Omagh District Council’s position and provide this clarification”.

16. However, the publication did not accept that the article was inaccurately reported on the Council’s engagement with the Swimming Club. It referred to a previous article it had written, in September 2023, headlined: “Fermanagh swimming club could end due to centre’s revamp” to support its position. The previous article reported:

“[The Head Coach of the Club] has criticised the Council for the way it has handled information around the redevelopment and added that offering Omagh Leisure Centre as an alternative swimming pool was ‘just to tick a box”’.

[…]

‘It feels very underhand,” said [the coach].’The way the Council have done it, I think they’ve kept everything very low key and quiet on purpose to cause the least amount of kickback from the public. I don’t think people actually realise that when the centre closes, nothing is going to be there and provided for leisure for anyone. I think people just think the Forum is going to close and they’re going to build a brand new Forum. That’s great. And that’s the angle the Council has gone down. But what they haven’t told people is that there will be no leisure facility for three years. This closure for the redevelopment will have an impact on all users of the Lakeland Forum but [the Coach] believes it could spell the end of the Lakelanders as a club’.”

17. The publication also did not accept that the article inaccurately reported that the Councillor Ovens hadn’t received a reply, and had been criticised, in response to his questioning of the Council’s rates increase. It referred to a public meeting in February 2024, in which it said Councillor Ovens “asked questions about how sustainable it was to keep increasing rates and was heavily criticised” by a different Councillor for his comments. It added that Councillor Ovens “asked the Council to consider “greater transparency”” but his remark was not acknowledged or actioned.

18. The publication supplied IPSO with a video of the Council meeting. The video included the following exchange:

Councillor Ovens: Chair, really, and this is a point I raised before several times both with our officers and in other forums as well. I am concerned, I am very very concerned about the trajectory this Council is on in terms of expenditure. I mean, [a named Councillor] has just explained very well about the hook we now find ourselves on in terms of so much of this Council’s revenue budget is going toward salary and wage costs – far and above beyond the Northern Ireland average, and that is to the detriment of services. So it’s a broader point, and I know I’m reiterating the point, but I just want to make the point again tonight, because its an important meeting, that this Council is on an unsustainable trajectory and it will require tough decisions, and I don’t see those tough decisions included in these rates tonight.

[…]

Councillor Maguire: I don’t really know where to start. I know the previous mandate I referred to some ongoings in the Chamber as nonsense politics. I think I’m going to have to refer to some of the shenanigans tonight as nonsense economics. […] I can’t believe the Ulster Union Party […] that they would suggest the rate we are setting, which is coming in at a remarkably low figure given the restrictions that have been on the economics this Council has faced for the last two or three years - I have to commend the staff for coming in with such a low figure. […] And we have Councillors here that are sitting saying we are paying too much in wages – which inevitably would leave to redundancies in our area. And any knowledge of redundancies, and how it works, it would cost this Council millions upon millions to facilitate the redundancy packages of our workers. Its absolute nonsense economics. It’s not the first time the Ulster Union Party has come in here with their zero rate increase nonsense. Nonsense politics, nonsense economics.

19. Finally, the publication did not accept that the article was inaccurate or misleading to use emotive language such as “cartel”, or to draw links to the Post Office Horizon Scandal. It stated that these references were the writer’s opinion, which it was entitled to report.

20. In response, the complainant stated that the publication’s response made clear the article was inaccurate. It added that the publication’s clarification used wording such as “'The Council has asked...”, which did not reflect that the publication now knew the article was inaccurate.

21. The complainant also said that the publication’s interpretation of the council meeting was a “red herring”, as the two Councillors in question spoke at different points of the meeting. It said it was inaccurate to use this as evidence that the questions of one of the Councillors went unanswered, as reported in the article.

22. The complainant also added that – in light of the alleged inaccuracies – it considered that the publication should also publish an apology.

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

23. The Committee started by considering the accuracy of the figures reported in the article concerning the Council’s rate increases, employee numbers, and salary costs. The complainant had challenged these figures and supplied what it said were the correct figures, which the publication had accepted. Given the publication had not checked the accuracy of its columnist’s figures prior to the publication of the article, and these figures were ultimately incorrect, this constituted a lack of care taken over the accuracy of the article on these points. This was a breach of Clause 1(i).

24. The Committee then turned to the question of whether the inaccurate figures were significantly inaccurate, where Clause 1 (ii) requires the correction of significantly inaccurate information. The Committee had regard for the context of the article – it expressed the author’s critical view on the Council, and as part of this, had discussed the rate increases, employee numbers and salary costs, and the figures were the factual basis upon which at least a portion of his criticism relied. In addition, the accurate reporting of matters relating to local government is generally of the utmost importance. Taking this into account, the Committee considered these three figures were significantly inaccurate. This information therefore required correction under the terms of Clause 1(ii).

25. The publication had published a correction in its print edition on 11 April. This was 37 days after the complainant had first contacted the publication – however, it was only 11 days after IPSO had informed it that the complaint raised a possible breach of the Code. The Committee also noted that the publication had remained in correspondence with the complainant in the meantime, and that the newspaper itself is a weekly newspaper. Taking all of these factors into consideration, the Committee was satisfied that the correction was sufficiently prompt. Further, the Committee considered the newspapers Letters page to be a sufficiently prominent position for the correction. In many publications, this can be one of the most-read pages, and therefore a correction placed here would be widely seen.

26. The Committee appreciated that the complainant disagreed with the wording of the correction, in particular where it read: “The Council say […]”. Nevertheless, the Committee was satisfied that it identified the inaccurate statistics, and put on record the correct position, as the complainant had supplied in its original complaint. The Committee further noted that attributing these figures to the Council was not inaccurate; they were the best source of information for such figures and they had supplied the newspaper with the correct position. The Committee was satisfied that the publication had fulfilled its obligations under Clause 1(ii), and there was no breach of Clause 1(ii) in relation to the print article.

27. However, the publication had not published a correction online. Although it had removed the online article, for the reasons set out above, the online article also breached Clause 1(i) and given a correction had not been published, this was a breach of Clause 1(ii).

28. The Committee noted that the complainant considered that the publication should have apologised. There may be some circumstances where an apology would be required under Clause 1 (ii), and a failure to offer such an apology would – in these cases – lead to a breach of this sub-Clause. However, in this case, the inaccurate information in the article pertained to general points of fact, rather than – for instance – details about a particular individual which would adversely affect their reputation. In addition, the publication had promptly responded to the complainant’s concerns and had expressed regret in correspondence that the inaccuracies had been published. In light of this, the Committee did not consider that an apology was required to avoid a further breach of Clause 1(ii).

29. Next, the Committee turned to the alleged inaccuracy regarding the complainant’s engagement with the Swimming Club and the local community; namely, the following portions of the article: “It is a scandal that they, the Council, have not engaged with them, and prepared proper contingency measures”, and “Better still, why not call a public meeting ASAP and explain to the public what it is going to cost, why the new building cannot be built on another site, and what arrangements are being made to cater for swimmer – and also the 1,500 members of the Forum”.

30. The Committee noted, firstly, the subjective nature of the statements under dispute. The first related to whether the Council had “engaged” and prepared “proper” measures. The Committee considered that the extent to which someone could be described as having “engaged” with a particular group or whether prepared measures were “proper” was a matter of opinion which could differ greatly from person to person. While the Council considered that their engagement was thorough and their measures appropriate, the newspaper was allowed to publish the comments and opinions of those who disagreed with this subjective assessment. The latter statement was clearly expressing the view that the Council could take further action to engage with the public. The Committee did not consider the fact that the Council had held meetings with the Swimming Club, or members of the public, therefore rendered these statements inaccurate or misleading; the article clearly reported the author’s personal view – in what was clearly a comment piece - that the Council’s engagement with the Club, and with the public, had not been sufficient.

31. The Committee also had regard for the previous article supplied by the publication, which made clear that members of the Swimming Club had been critical of the Council’s approach and did not feel that there had been a sufficient level of engagement with it. In all, the Committee was satisfied that the publication had distinguished between comment and fact, and there was no breach of Clause 1. The Committee also welcomed that the publication had put the complainant’s position on record on these points regardless.

32. Next, the Committee turned to the complainant’s concerns regarding the article’s reporting of statements made by the councillor. The Committee had regard for the Council meeting video, which showed Councillor Ovens – a member of the Ulster Unionist Party - criticising the Council in regard to the rate increases. Subsequently, it showed a different Councillor expressing criticism of the Ulster Unionist Party for “economic nonsense” and “political nonsense” in response to statements made at the same meeting. In addition, while the complainant had said that this single portion of the video did not demonstrate that his question had not received a response, it has also not pointed to an instance of Councillor Ovens’ comments being responded to.

33. In these circumstances, the Committee was satisfied that the publication had provided a sufficient basis to support its claim that Councillor Ovens “got no reply”, and was “criticised for even asking the questions”. In the Committee’s view, the publication had taken care of the accuracy of the article on this point, and where, during the course of IPSO’s investigation, the complainant had not pointed to an instance of the comments being responded to, the Committee was satisfied that the article was not significantly inaccurate or misleading. There was no breach of Clause 1.

34. Finally, the Committee considered the complainant’s concerns that the article was “extremely misleading, emotive and potentially prejudicial”, including by using the word “cartel”, and drawing links to the Post Office Horizon Scandal. Newspapers have the right to choose which pieces of information they publish, as long as this does not lead to a breach of the Code – while the Committee appreciated the complainant disagreed with this assessment of the Council, it recognised that the author was entitled to publish his personal view, where it was distinguished as such.

35. The headline used the term “cosy cartel”, which the complainant considered was unsupported by the text of the article in breach of Clause 1. However, the Committee considered that this was clearly distinguished as the writer’s opinion – when read in conjunction with the article, a critical first-person opinion piece on the Council’s perceived failures – rather than a claim of fact that the Council was a cartel. Further, the Committee also did not consider the use of an image of Council members to be inaccurate or misleading, given the topic of the article. The article was not inaccurate or misleading on either of these points, and there was no breach of Clause 1.

Conclusions

36. The complaint was partly upheld under Clause 1.

Remedial action required

37. Having partly upheld the complaint, the Committee considered what remedial action should be required. In circumstances where the Committee establishes a breach of the Editors’ Code, it can require the publication of a correction and/or an adjudication; the nature, extent and placement of which is determined by IPSO.

38. The Committee noted that the article had inaccurately reported a number of figures relating to the Council’s rates, employees, and turnover – the inaccuracies had appeared in the text of the article which was, otherwise, accurate. The publication had taken corrective action and had fulfilled its requirements under Clause 1(ii) in regard to the print article. It had failed to do so in relation to the online article, however.

39. Therefore, on balance, the Committee considered that a correction should now also be published online. As the article had been deleted, the correction should appear as a standalone correction on the publication’s website. The correction should identify the inaccurate statistics the publication had reported, and should put on record the correct position. The Committee noted that the version already run by the publication in print would satisfy this requirement, should the publication wish to re-publish this online.

40. However, in light of the fact that the complaint was upheld under Clause 1(ii), in relation to the online article, the correction should also make clear that IPSO had upheld a complaint. The wording of this addition should be agreed with IPSO in advance.

Date complaint received: 20/03/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 03/09/2024