Decision of the Complaints Committee – 01815-21 Muslim
Council of Britain v The Daily Telegraph
Summary of Complaint
1. The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) complained to the
Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Daily Telegraph breached
Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined
“Minister criticised over talks with Muslim Council leader”, published on 22
February 2021.
2. The article reported on the criticism faced by an MP
after a meeting she had with a representative of the complainant. It reported
that the MP had “since been accused of undermining Whitehall’s long-standing
policy, in place since 2009, of ’zero engagement‘ with the [complainant].” It
also gave a quote from government insiders who insisted the MP had met the
representative “in a personal capacity as a constituency MP, rather than on
behalf of the Government”.
3. The article also appeared online under the headline
“Minister under fire for meeting with head of Muslim Council of Britain” and
was published on 21 February 2021 in substantially the same format.
4. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in
breach of Clause 1 as there was no “zero engagement” policy that had been in
place since 2009. The complainant said the correct position was that there had
been a non-engagement policy instigated in 2009, but that this had not been
continuous until the present time. It said the correct position was that Labour
had instigated a non-engagement approach in 2009, the Conservative party had
such a policy during the coalition government from 2010-2015 and the government
from 2015-present. The complainant provided several instances of interactions
between the complainant and the government since 2009. It provided a Tweet by
former Labour MP John Denham from 2018 which said it was wrong to say that
Labour broke relationships permanently with the complainant as he had
re-established relations in 2010 when he was Secretary of State for Communities
and Local Government; an article from 2014 which said that the deputy prime
minister had written to the complainant to express concern about Islamophobia
in schools; and said that the complainant had engaged with the Home Office in
2017-2018 and the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government in
2019-2020.
5. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It
noted the information provided by the complainant, but said the policy had been
confirmed by the Prime Minister’s official spokesman who said: "It's a
longstanding policy since 2009 and obviously it's the case that the Government
is free to decide who and which organisations it does and doesn't meet with, as
long as it doesn't act unlawfully”. The newspaper also said that it had put the
matter to the Home Office prior to the publication of the article who had told
it that “It has been Home Office policy not to engage with [the complainant]
since 2009”.
6. The publication said that it was widely reported in 2009
that the Labour Party initiated a policy of zero engagement and referred to
several further articles which discussed the non-engagement policy, and
provided a letter from 2009 from the then Secretary of State for Communities
and Local Government, which stated that “it is only appropriate for us to
suspend our engagement with the Muslim Council of Britain”. The publication
said that the article made clear that the policy was of “Whitehall” and “the
government”, which would be understood to mean that the policy was one of no
official or meaningful engagement by the government and Whitehall.
7. The publication also said that the examples provided by
the complainant did not demonstrate the policy had ended; it noted that the
Tweet did not provide evidence of active meaningful engagement, and that if
relations were established by a Labour Party MP in 2010 this only constituted
less than four months prior to a general election, and the complainant accepted
that the Conservatives had a continuing policy of zero engagement since 2010.
It also said that the letter from the deputy prime minister in 2014 related to
personal concerns rather than formal engagement, and that the unspecified
instances of engagement referred to by the complainant did not disprove the
policy of Whitehall and the government. The publication said that the fact that
there had been individual acts of engagement did not mean that the policy had
been overturned. It noted that the article under complaint demonstrated an MP
engaging with the complainant, but did not suggest that there had been a change
in government policy. It noted that the Tweet from John Denham, relied upon by
the complainant referred to Sadiq Khan having stated that Labour broke
relations permanently with the complainant. The publication also noted that the
complainant had published a document in 2015 which stated that: “Over the
years… there has been no meaningful and proper engagement with Muslim
communities, not least the Muslim Council of Britain” and provided several
other articles which stated that there had not been any engagement, including
an interview with the complainant’s Secretary General who said there had been
no “opportunities to engage since 2010”.
8. Whilst the publication did not accept that the Code had
been breached, it offered to publish the following wording in its
clarifications column and as a footnote to the online article:
We have been asked to clarify (Minister under fire for
meeting with head of Muslim Council of Britain, Feb, 21) that while there has
been a Whitehall policy of zero engagement with the Muslim Council of Britain
since 2009, in January 2010 John Denham, for the Labour Government, announced
he would re-establish relations. This proposal came to an end with the
dissolution of Parliament on 6th April 2010.
9. The complainant did not accept the publication’s position.
It said that the Labour Party had reinstated engagement, and the length of time
this was for was not relevant. It also said that the Liberal Democrats did
formally engage with the complainant during the coalition, including formal
meetings with the Minister for Communities in September 2014, the Energy
Secretary in 2014 and the Deputy Prime Minister September 2015 as well as
Liberal Democrat Ministers attending the complainant’s functions and public
letter exchanges with Liberal Democrat ministers. The complainant said that the
policy therefore only applied to the Conservative Party.
Relevant Code 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
10. The complaint related to the reference contained in the
article to “Whitehall’s long-standing policy, in place since 2009, of ’zero
engagement‘ with the [complainant]”, the accuracy of which was disputed by the
complainant. The first matter for the Committee to consider was the basis for
this statement and whether the publication had taken sufficient care over the
accuracy of the reference. The
publication had reported the contested claim after a spokesperson for the Prime
Minister had said that there had been such a policy from 2009, and it had also
approached the Home Office, which had stated that it was Home Office policy not
to engage with the complainant since 2009. Given the story related to a
governmental policy, the publication was entitled to rely on a statement given
by the Prime Minister’s representative and had taken further care by contacting
the Home Office prior to publication of the article. In these circumstances,
the Committee found that the publication had taken sufficient care not to
publish inaccurate information and there was no breach of Clause 1(i).
11. The Editors’ Code calls for the correction of
significant inaccuracies, even where care was taken to report information
accurately. The Committee, therefore, also had to consider whether the claim
amounted to a significant inaccuracy which required correction. The article
focused on criticism of the minister who recently met with the complainant, and
mentioned briefly the historic nature of the policy of zero engagement, and clearly
ascribed this policy to “Whitehall” rather than a particular political party.
The complainant had demonstrated that there had been some contact between
various MPs and the complainant over the period in question; however this did
not in itself mean that the policy had necessarily been overturned: as with the
recent example reported in this article, meetings could occur whilst a policy
of zero engagement remained in place. While the actions of individuals might
have been inconsistent with the policy, such instances of interaction did not
amount to a withdrawal of the official policy.
12. It was not in dispute that a formal policy of
non-engagement commenced in 2009, and although the complainant had demonstrated
that there had been a few examples of interaction, there did not appear to be
any formal communication stating the policy had ended; indeed, on occasions
throughout this period representatives of the complainant had publicly referred
to the absence of the engagement with government. While the Tweet from John
Denham suggested the policy instigated by his government in 2009 was overturned
in 2010, where that government was only in power for a few months of that year,
it was not significantly inaccurate to omit reference to this alleged brief hiatus.
The policy in question was a governmental policy, and officials representing
the government were therefore best placed to pass comment on the status of that
policy: government officials have twice confirmed the ongoing existence of a
policy of non-engagement dating from 2009 when approached for comment. In these
circumstances, the Committee did not find the assertion that a policy of
non-engagement had been in place since 2009 amounted to a significant
inaccuracy or misleading statement, and no correction was required under Clause
1(ii). It did, however, welcome the newspaper’s offer to publish a
clarification.
Conclusions
13. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
14. N/A
Date complaint received: 22/02/2021
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 30/06/2021
Independent Complaints Reviewer
The complainant complained to the Independent Complaints Reviewer about the process followed by IPSO in handling this complaint. The Independent Complaints Reviewer decided that the process was not flawed and did not uphold the request for review.
Back to ruling listing