Fermanagh and Omagh District Council have been paying a Belfast-based communications firm, owned by a serving SDLP councillor, for advice on managing the backlash surrounding its decision to provide hot food to councillors.

Despite having its own communications department, the Council has used ratepayers’ money to pay MW Advocate a fee since the company was engaged in April. It covers several areas of “strategic communication” including how to respond to queries about why it voted in secret for its members to have plates of quiche.

The company’s co-owner, Carl Whyte, who serves as a councillor on Belfast City Council, now finds his firm providing advice to another local authority.

When asked how much money MW Advocate has been paid by Fermanagh and Omagh District Council this year, co-owner Brendan Mulgrew said: “The relationship between us and our clients, including Fermanagh and Omagh District Council is confidential”.

There is no suggestion of wrongdoing by Councillor Whyte whose business partner, Mr. Mulgrew said any suggestion of a conflict of interest “has no foundation and is incorrect”.

Although the Council last week claimed it is a “fully accountable public body whose decision making is thorough, open and transparent” it is this week refusing to disclose how much public money has been spent on the private PR firm’s services.

Firstly, it was asked to outline the role that MW Advocate has played in any capacity related to the Council. In addition, it was asked to explain the purpose of the council’s relationship with MW Advocate and provide details of when discussions with the company were first initiated.

In response, a spokeswoman said: “Fermanagh and Omagh District Council engaged MW Advocate in April to support strategic communications and engagement on key projects.”

In a second batch of questions to the authority, The Impartial Reporter asked for the Council to clarify where exactly in the minutes on fermanaghomagh.com the outcome of MW Advocate being awarded this tender is listed.

It was also asked how much money has been paid to MW Advocate for strategic communication services since the tender was awarded, up to the present date.

And for a second time, we asked how many staff members are currently employed within the council’s communication department.

In response, a spokeswoman offered just 27 words: “Fermanagh and Omagh District Council engaged MW Advocate to support strategic communications and engagement on key projects. A procurement process was undertaken in line with Council processes.”

However, the Council has also declined to specify where the decision to hire the external company can be found on its website. Two elected representatives, who asked to remain anonymous, have said they were unaware of the decision to hire the PR firm.

Last week it emerged that Fermanagh and Omagh District Council had lost its complaint against The Impartial Reporter after the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) ruled that the articles about its hot food purchases did not breach the Editors’ Code of Practice.

The Council had raised concerns over several reports published by the newspaper, claiming that the coverage contained inaccuracies and amounted to harassment. However, following a thorough investigation, IPSO concluded that there were no grounds to pursue the complaints.

The dispute centred around four articles published between April and May 2024. The articles, which included headlines such as “Feasting on Ratepayers: ‘The Very Hungry Councillors’” and “Gravy Train,” focused on the Council’s provision of free meals to Councillors at ratepayers’ expense. These reports sparked significant public interest, with allegations that the Council had been less than transparent in disclosing information related to the expenditure.

The first complaint pertained to an article headlined “Feasting on Ratepayers: ‘The Very Hungry Councillors,’” published on 18 April 2024. The article appeared on the front page with the title “Gravy Train,” while a similar version was also available online.

The Council objected to several aspects of this report, claiming that it contained factual inaccuracies. Specifically, it argued that the article misrepresented the information provided by the Council in response to a Freedom of Information (FOI) request.

The second article, titled “Lack of openness in Council’s free meals is the real story,” published on the same date, was also challenged by the Council, alongside a subsequent report titled “Council launches probe to uncover leak,” published on May 2, 2024.

This latter article addressed the Council’s investigation into how details of the free meals had been leaked to the newspaper. The final article, “I wouldn’t lower myself to answer’ - Councillors grilled on food vote,” published on 9 May 2024, covered a Council meeting in which Councillors were questioned about their involvement in the decision to provide free meals.

Fermanagh and Omagh District Council raised several concerns regarding the accuracy of these articles, arguing that the reporting had misrepresented the information available in the FOI responses and had portrayed the Council unfairly.

One key aspect of the Council’s complaint was that The Impartial Reporter inaccurately claimed that the Council had redacted “key information” in its FOI response. The Council argued that, while some information — such as the names of the Councillors who proposed the motion for free meals — had been redacted, most of the relevant details, including the vote, costs, and meal choices, were made available.

The Council also contended that the article inaccurately suggested that details regarding the Councillors who availed themselves of the free food were withheld under the Data Protection Act.

Additionally, the Council took issue with how The Impartial Reporter sourced some of its information, alleging that the newspaper had used details from an internal email that had been disclosed without authorisation. The Council argued that this was misleading and suggested that the information came from the FOI response, rather than an unauthorised source.

In response to these claims, IPSO carefully examined whether the articles breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice. After reviewing the Council’s submissions and the content of the articles, IPSO concluded that there was no breach of Clause 1.