Adjudication: Mrs Anne Main MP v St Albans & Harpenden Review (From St Albans & Harpenden Review)

Adjudication: Mrs Anne Main MP v St Albans & Harpenden Review

11:38am Tuesday 20th October 2009 in News

This week, the Press Complaints Commission has adjudicated on a complaint brought against this newspaper by St Albans MP Anne Main. The full text of the PCC’s decision is set out below:

THE complainant argued that the newspaper’s coverage contained inaccuracies, and was intrusive.

It was not in dispute that the newspaper had made an inaccurate statement about the complainant’s mortgage interest payments.

While the online article had been amended, and subsequent coverage had referred to the correct figures, it was nonetheless right for the newspaper to offer to publish a correction.

The wording the newspaper had offered acknowledged the inaccuracy, contained the correct figures, and included an apology.

This offer constituted sufficient remedial action under the terms of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Code of Practice.

The complainant considered that the publication of a correction was meaningless, given the amount of time that had passed.

It was, of course, regrettable that there had been a breakdown in communication between the parties prior to the involvement of the Commission: the complainant had declined to respond to enquiries from journalists as she had not received a reply to her letter from the editor; and the editor had been informed that the complainant was not speaking to the newspaper, so had failed to make further efforts to contact her.

In these circumstances, the delay in the offer did not raise a breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy).

The Commission trusted that the offer would remain open should the complainant subsequently wish to take it up.

The complainant’s other central concern was that the newspaper had failed to uphold an agreement made by a journalist not to publish certain information (contained in grey boxes) about her expenses: the subsequent report had included details of stores where she had shopped.

The newspaper’s position was that the reporter had agreed with a researcher not to publish sensitive information, such as bank details, and that it had not broken this agreement.

Nothwithstanding any conversation between the parties or their representatives, the journalist had undertaken in writing not to reproduce information in the grey boxes, and had subsequently done so.

Clearly, any failure to adhere to a written agreement was regrettable and constituted poor practice on the part of the newspaper.

However, while the complainant’s frustration was understandable, this was not a matter which, in itself, raised a breach of the code.

The question for the Commission had to be whether the published information intruded into the complainant’s private life.

It was satisfied that the identity of the stores where the complainant had spent money was not private, and therefore that the newspaper had not disclosed any of the sensitive information contained in the grey boxes. There was no breach of Clause 3 (Privacy).

Nor did the Commission consider that the newspaper’s questioning of B&Q about the address where goods were delivered raised any issues under Clause 3 (Privacy).

The newspaper explained that it had done so after a tip-off that delivery was to the complainant’s main residence, and not her second home. The enquiries had not resulted in the publication of any article.

The complainant had other concerns, and argued that the newspaper was conducting a wilful campaign to discredit her.

For example, it had - she said - published a gratuitous article questioning who paid for cards she sent to constituents on their eighteenth birthdays, which included the claim that she had “refused to disclose” this information.

In fact, she had declined to respond to journalists’ calls. The complainant argued that, had the newspaper contacted the local Conservative Association, which funded the cards, the position would have been clear.

However, the coverage had included the comments of a number of MPs. For example, Peter Lilley had commented that Conservative MPs were prohibited from using public money to fund material such as this.

This position would therefore be clear to readers.

Moreover, the article had clarified that the newspaper had contacted the complainant’s Westminster office but that she had failed to respond.

The publication of this article did not breach Clause 1 (Accuracy) or any other clause of the code.

Reference number: 092934