Councillors' Allowances: Council's complaint to Independent Press Standards Organisation about Rochdale Online article rejected

Rochdale Borough Council's complaint to the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) that Rochdale Online breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined, “ Councillors’ allowances will top one million,” published on 19 March 2018, has been rejected by IPSO.

https://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/news-headlines/117236/councillors%E2%80%99-allowances-will-top-one-million

The article reported that a Freedom of Information request had shown that councillors’ allowances for Rochdale Borough Council now totalled £75,000 a month or £900,000 per year, and would total over £1million once National Insurance contributions were added.

It stated that this revealed the impact of the increase in councillor allowances that had come into force in December 2016. It stated that “Councillor Allen Brett, now the leader of the Council, promised not to take the increase, but then accepted it”.

The article went on to state that Councillor Brett had not responded to an invitation to comment, but included a number of statements from other council members who had not taken the allowance increase, including one council member who thanked the member of the public who put in the Freedom of Information request, “for uncovering this spending as we approach the May Council elections. Usually, figures are published in June, a month after local elections”.

The complainant said that the predicted spend on Councillors’ Allowances for 2017/18 was £883,000. Therefore, it said that it was inaccurate to report that Councillors’ allowances would be more than £1 million.

The Council also said it was inaccurate for the article to report that Councillor Brett refused all increases in his allowance, but then accepted it. It said that there were two separate Councillor Allowances that had been increased, both the basic allowance and special responsibility allowance. Councillor Brett had said that he would not accept the increase for his special allowance for his role as deputy leader of the Council, and he did not take this.

The complainant also raised concern that the publication had approached several council members for comment, but had not put these claims, including the projected cost of Councillor Allowances to the Council’s communications team. It said that councillors had made the Council aware that they had been approached for comment on this matter, and the Council had provided a statement to the publication. The Council said that omitting this statement from the article was misleading, as the Council should have been given a right to reply to these claims. It also said the article was misleading, as it believed the statement from a councillor [Andy Kelly], claiming the figures were normally published in June, suggested the Council was trying to hide this information.

The publication did not accept that it had breached the Code. It provided the information supplied in response to a Freedom of Information request to the Council, which showed that Councillor Allowances in February 2018 totalled £75,009.53. It said that extrapolating this for 12 months, gave a figure of just over £900,000, as reported in the article. It said adding national insurance contributions, it was accurate to state that the total cost for 2018 would be more than £1 million.

It said requests for comment were sent directly to the councillors concerned, as it was a political point about the specific action of these councillors. It said it was not appropriate or necessary, in these circumstances, to contact the communications department for comment. Regardless, following direct correspondence with the complainant, it included the Council’s statement in the article.

When contacted by the complainant, the publication also clarified that Councillor Brett had “promised not to take all the increase, but accepted the increased basic allowance”. It said that reporting that he had promised not to take any of the increase, and then had taken all of it, was not significantly inaccurate, as this was Councillor Brett’s position in 2017; however in 2018, when he became leader of the Council, the FOI request showed that in this new role, he had accepted the increase in both basic and special responsibility allowance.

Findings of the Committee

The Freedom of Information request had shown that the total amount spent on Councillor’s Allowances in February 2018 was just over £75,000. The publication had extrapolated this figure to calculate the projected total spend on Councillor Allowances for 2018. This information was based on information provided by the Council and there was no basis to believe the monthly figures given were not representative of average spend. There was no subsequent requirement on the publication to approach the Council’s communication team for comment. In these circumstances, the publication had taken care over the accuracy of this claim and there was no breach of Clause 1 (i).

The complainant maintained that the total spend for 2017/2018 would be less than £1 million. However, as the article made clear, it was reporting the total spend for 2018, after the increase in Councillor Allowances had been brought in, not the financial year 2017/18. The article accurately reported this projected spend, and there was no breach of Clause 1 (ii).

As Deputy Leader of the Council, Councillor Brett had stated that he would not take an increase in his special allowance for his role as Deputy Leader. However, it was accepted that several months later, when his role changed to Leader of the Council, he had accepted the increased basic and special responsibility allowance. The publication had also gone to Councillor Brett prior to publication for comment on this. In these circumstances the publication had taken care over the accuracy of the claim that Councillor Brett had “promised not to take the increase, but then accepted it”. There was no failure to take care over the accuracy of this information, and reporting this did not represent a significant inaccuracy. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

The article had accurately reported the timing of the release of figures by the Council. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

Conclusions

The complaint was not upheld.

https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/ruling/?id=02514-18