03798-25 Portes v telegraph.co.uk

Summary of Complaint

1. Jonathan Portes complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that telegraph.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “We’re running out of time to stop post-Covid mass migration from becoming permanent”, published on 12 September 2025.

2. The article was a comment piece, which appeared below a prominent author byline, setting out the writer’s view on UK immigration policy. The article said that “the vast majority of those who have come to this country since 2021 are not earning very much. Most didn’t come to work, and even those who did are mostly not high earners. In 2022-23, nearly three quarters of those who came here on a so-called ‘skilled worker’ visa earned below the average UK salary. Over a quarter of a million people came on the Health and Social Care visa, for which the minimum income threshold was between £20,480 and £25,000. For the more than half a million people who came here as dependents of those groups, there was no income requirement at all”.

3. The complainant said the article breached Clause 1 as it reported, “[i]n 2022-23, nearly three quarters of those who came here on a so-called ‘skilled worker’ visa earned below the average UK salary.” He said that, according to a 2025 UK government analysis and data from the Oxford Migration Observatory, the median salary of individuals granted a skilled worker visa from 2023-24 was higher than the UK average salary.

4. The complainant also said that the article inaccurately reported that “the vast majority of those who have come to this country since 2021 are not earning very much.” He said that, according to Oxford Migration Observatory data, immigrants who had arrived in the UK in 2021 and 2022 were earning more than the average UK employee in 2025, and that those who arrived in 2023 were earning about 95% of the average.

5. The complainant also said the article breached Clause 1 by stating that most migrants to the UK since 2021 “didn’t come to work”. He said that, according to Oxford Migration Observatory data, 1.8 million migrants to the UK who had arrived since 2021 were employees, and a significant number would be self-employed. He said disproved the claim that most “didn’t come to work”.

6. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It said the article’s claim that in 2022-23, “nearly three quarters of those who came here on a so-called ‘skilled worker’ visa earned below the average UK salary” was based on research published by the Centre for Policy Studies, which said that in 2022-23 “72% of those on skilled worker visas came to occupations where the median salary was less than the mean earnings of full-time workers”. The research also stated “the Home Office is unwilling to publish data on what salaries people are arriving on in general. But we do have access to data on how many visas are being issued against different occupational codes for the skilled worker routes, which we can cross-reference with median salary data for those occupations […t]o repeat, this is based on occupational median salaries, not migrants’ actual salaries”.

7. The publication added that the remainder of the relevant paragraph in the article under complaint made clear the additional context behind this claim: “Over a quarter of a million people came on the Health and Social Care visa, for which the minimum income threshold was between £20,480 and £25,000. For the more than half a million people who came here as dependents of those groups, there was no income requirement at all”. It noted that the complainant had not said that this was inaccurate.

8. The publication added that the UK government research cited by the complainant was for 2023-24 and was therefore not relevant to the claim being made. It also said that the data provided by the complainant did not disprove the article’s claim on this point, as it only included figures for those on skilled-worker visas in non-healthcare occupations, which only made up 30% of skilled worker visas. It noted that skilled-worker visa recipients in healthcare related professions were exempted from the minimum salary requirement of £38,700.

9. Notwithstanding the above, the publication amended the article to ensure that the article was clear as to the writer’s position. As such, 12 days after being made aware of the complaint, it amended the text of the article to instead state that nearly three-quarters of those who arrived in the UK in 2022-2023 “were likely” to be earning below average. On the same date, it also published a form of the following wording as a standalone correction in its online Corrections and Clarifications column and as a footnote to the article:

“An article “We’re running out of time to stop post-Covid mass migration from becoming permanent” (Sept, 12) stated that in 2022-23 nearly three quarters of immigrants on a ‘skilled worker’ visa earned below the average UK salary. The research the author was referring to looked at how many visas were issued in 2022-23 for different job types on skilled worker routes and compared them with salary data for those occupations. The article therefore should have read that they were likely to be earning below the average UK salary. We are happy to correct the record.”

10. Notwithstanding the above, the publication said the article was clearly distinguished as an opinion piece, as signified by it appearing in the opinion section and the fact that it appeared below a prominent author byline. It said that the writer was entitled to express her opinion that individuals may be “not earning very much” or “not high earners”, even if they earn more than the median UK salary. It added that the data provided by the complainant related only to migrants who were in payrolled employment, and that the data included the caveat that it “does not include self-employment, and there is certainly anecdotal evidence that substantial numbers of recent migrants are in relatively low-paid self-employment (notably delivery jobs in the ‘gig economy’)”. The publication said the data provided by the complainant was therefore limited in its scope.

11. The publication also said that ONS statistics demonstrated that between 2021 and 2024, just under two thirds of long-term non-EU immigrants to the UK cited non-work related reasons for their immigration decision, whereas 34.2% cited a work-related reason. It said that, although a number of immigrants who arrived in the UK during this period for non-work related reasons may have later gone on to obtain employment, it did not consider this meant the article breached the Code by setting out the author’s view that where the claim “most” immigrants to the UK “didn’t come to work”, given ONS data showed that the majority of visa applicants did not come to the UK for work related reasons.

12. The complainant said the correction did not address his point that the 2023-24 UK government data showed that the median salary of Skilled Worker visa recipients was higher than the UK average salary. He said the publication had not provided any evidence that it was not the case also for 2022-23, and that this meant the corrections’ assertion that migrants “were likely to be earning below the average UK salary” was without basis.

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

13. The Committee noted that the first disputed claim – that in “2022-23, nearly three quarters of those who came here on a so-called ‘skilled worker’ visa earned below the average UK salary” – was based on Centre for Policy Studies research, which said that “72% of those on skilled worker visas came to occupations where the median salary was less than the mean earnings of full-time workers”. However, the Committee also noted that this research was caveated with the following: “the Home Office is unwilling to publish data on what salaries people are arriving on in general. But we do have access to data on how many visas are being issued against different occupational codes for the skilled worker routes, which we can cross-reference with median salary data for those occupations […t]o repeat, this is based on occupational median salaries, not migrants’ actual salaries”.

14. In such circumstances, the Committee considered that the publication had not taken care over the accuracy of the article when reporting on the salaries of skilled worker visa recipients. This was because the data It had provided to support this claim was clearly caveated to make clear that it was not based on actual migrant salaries, and instead was based on median salaries for occupations. The publication did not appear to have taken this caveat into account in the preparation of its article, rendering the claim inaccurate. There was, therefore, a breach of Clause 1 (i) on this point.

15. The Committee noted that the inaccurate information was used to support a wider rhetorical point the article was making about immigration. As such, it was significantly inaccurate in the context of the article and required correction under the terms of Clause 1 (ii).

16. The Committee turned next to the question of whether the correction published by the publication addressed the terms of Clause 1 (ii). It noted the complainant’s concern that there was no basis for the claim made in the correction that basis to say that: “The article therefore should have read that they were likely to be earning below the average UK salary”. However, the Committee noted the data the complainant provided to counter this claim was for a different period – 2023-24. It also noted considered that, given it was not in dispute that data showed that “72% of those on skilled worker visas came to occupations where the median salary was less than the mean earnings of full-time workers”, there was a sufficient basis for the correction to make the qualified claim that such migrants were “likely” to be earning below average – given this was not presented as undisputed fact, but rather as the publication’s assessment of the data.

17. The Committee therefore considered that, where the corrections reflected the data presented in the Centre for Policy Studies report the article had relied upon, they put the correct position on record – namely: ”The research the author was referring to looked at how many visas were issued in 2022-23 for different job types on skilled worker routes and compared them with salary data for those occupations“.

18. The corrections were published 12 days after the publication received the complaint. The Committee considered that this represented sufficiently prompt action on the part of the publication, given the nature of the inaccuracy – the reporting of statistics relating to migration - would have required the publication to conduct further research to ensure its published corrections were correct.

19. The Committee considered the corrections to be duly prominent, as they appeared in the position a reader would expect to find them – at the bottom of the amended online article, and as a standalone correction in a regular Corrections and Clarifications column.

20. In light of this, the Committee was satisfied that the publication had fulfilled its obligations in respect of Clause 1 (ii). There was no further breach of the Code on this point

21. In considering the article’s claim “the vast majority of those who have come to this country since 2021 are not earning very much”, the Committee first noted that the article was an opinion piece, as distinguished by the prominent author byline and the piece’s polemical tone. Given this context, it considered it was clear that the reference to “not earning very much” was distinguished as the writer’s subjective view of the salaries paid to those who had immigrated to the UK since 2021.

22. While this was the writer’s view, the Committee noted that – to ensure that inaccurate, misleading, or distorted information was not published – it was important that the publication demonstrated some form of factual basis for the writer’s subjective assessment. The publication had noted that, although UK government data provided by the complainant showed that – on average – immigrants who had come to the UK since 2021 earned more than the UK average wage in payrolled positions, this did not account for individuals who are self-employed or not in employment. The dataset referenced by the complainant also noted that “there is certainly anecdotal evidence that substantial numbers of recent migrants are in relatively low-paid self-employment (notably delivery jobs in the ‘gig economy’)”. As such, the Committee did not consider that the article was inaccurate on this point in the manner alleged by the complainant. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

23. When considering the article’s claim that most migrants who had come to the UK since 2021 “didn’t come to work”, the Committee noted that the publication had provided ONS data which showed that between 2021 and 2024, just under two thirds of long-term non-EU immigrants to the UK cited non-work related reasons for their immigration decision,. As such, the Committee was satisfied that the publication had set out a sufficient factual basis for the article’s claim on this point, and there was no breach of Clause 1.

Conclusions

24. The complaint was partly upheld under Clause 1 (i).

Remedial action required

25. The published correction put the correct position on record and was offered promptly and with due prominence. No further action was required.

Date complaint received: 16/09/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 03/02/2026