Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 02739-21 Matinvesi v Mail Online
Summary
of Complaint
1. Esa
Matinvesi complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Mail
Online breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an
article headlined “Number of EU citizens living in UK is now HIGHER than before
Brexit with 4.6million people granted right to remain – compared to 3.1million
before Britain left bloc”, published on 13 March 2021.
2. The
article reported that “in total, 4.6 million people have been granted the right
to remain in the UK after Brexit” by the Government’s EU Settlement Scheme and
that this was higher than the estimated 3.1 million EU citizens in the UK
before Brexit. The article went on to expand on the headline figure, stating
that “So far, 5.1 million people have applied to the EU Settlement Scheme with
4.6 million applications concluded. Of these, 2.5million have been granted
permanent leave to remain and 2 million have been granted pre-settled status”.
The article stated that Home Office figures “suggested” that there were “at
least one and a half million more EU citizens living in the UK than before
Brexit”.
3. The
complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1. He said
that the article falsely claimed that the cumulative number of applications
received and processed by the Home Office was equal to the number of
individuals who had applied, and wrongly suggested that these figures could be
compared with previous estimates of the number of EU citizens living in the UK.
He said this was inaccurate, for three reasons: firstly, some people may have
made more than one application, inflating the apparent numbers of people
involved; secondly, the scheme can also apply to non-EU citizens; and thirdly
it did not take into account that many people who received such a status may no
longer reside in the UK. The complainant also provided a link to the published
data set, which stated that “The data in this report account for the number of
applications to the system, including individuals making applications on more
than one occasion. An individual who has been granted pre-settled status can
make a new application at a later stage to apply for settled status. As these
are separate applications with separate outcomes, they are counted separately
in the statistics”. It also stated that “Figures in this publication refer
specifically to applications made to the EU Settlement Scheme and cannot be
directly compared with estimate of the resident population of EU/EEA nationals
in the UK”.
4. The
publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It first said that it was
satisfied that the broad point of the article – that “the number of EU citizens
residing in the UK is substantially higher than the previous estimates that had
been made pre-Brexit” – was accurate, as an increase of EU citizens with the
right to remain would naturally follow from an increase in applications,
regardless of the exact figures. It said that the article was based on another
article, published by a separate newspaper, which had been based on the publicly
available data released by the Home Office. The publication said this article
also reported that 4.6 million people had been granted the right to remain. It
noted the other newspaper’s article had not been amended.
5. The
publication accepted that the complainant was correct in that the figures
included multiple applications from some people and applications from some
non-EU citizens, but said that the proportions of these were small and did not
affect the overall point of the article. It did not accept that any significant
inaccuracy arose from its presentation of the report’s data. With respect to
the multiple applications from one person, it said that the same report
indicated that repeat applications represented “fewer than five per cent of
applications received”; this would equate to fewer than 230,000 applications,
or 115,000 individuals. In relation to the non-EU applicants, it said that this
issue related to 290,440 people. Taking into account both of these points, it
calculated that a figure of 4.26 million people was accurate. With respect to
the complainant’s point that some applicants might have left the UK, it said
that as it was necessary to have lived in the UK for five continuous years to
qualify for the settlement scheme, it was reasonable to consider the figure as
indicating that the people were living, at least until very recently, in the
UK. It also noted that the number of applications had risen since publication.
6. The
publication also said that, regardless of whether the data for applications had
been caveated with the warning that the figures “cannot be directly compared
with estimate of the resident population of EU/EEA nationals in the UK”, the
figures were still the best indicator of the number of EU nationals with the right
to remain in the UK. It noted that other statistics on the subject released by
the Office for National Statistics also had caveats, warning that not all EU
nationals would be included in the figures. The official data was, therefore,
unclear on this matter.
7. The
publication said it was accurate for the headline to report that “4.6 million
people” had been granted the right to remain, but offered to amend the headline
to read “4.26 million”, and add a footnote to the article which would state:
This
article has been amended since it was first published to take into account the
number of repeat applications and the percentage of applicants who are EU
citizens. This has changed the headline figure from 4.6million to 4.26million.
We are happy to set the record straight.
The
publication also proposed to add bullet points to the article, to appear above
the body of the article itself, to set out how it had reached the 4.26 million
figure.
8. The
complainant said that the publication’s proposed offer was not sufficient to
resolve his complaint, where it did not address his concerns about the article
conflating applications to remain in the UK with the number of EU citizens
granted the right to do so. He also noted that the use of an exact, inaccurate
figure rendered the article inaccurate regardless of whether its wider point –
about the increase in the number of EU citizens with the right to remain in the
UK – was accurate or not.
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
9. The
article reported that 4.6 million EU citizens had been granted the right to
remain in the UK since Brexit and that this was higher than the estimated 3.1
million EU citizens in the UK before Brexit. In fact, the figure of 4.6 million
related to the number of applications, which, as the publication accepted,
could differ from the number of EU citizens in the country for several reasons,
including that one person could make several applications; some EU nationals
may have left the country; and non-EU nationals were entitled to make
applications.
10. The
publication said that it had taken care over the accuracy of the story because
it had relied on reporting by another publication; it said that it was entitled
to do so, particularly where it was aware that the figures were official
government statistics. Furthermore, it said that any discrepancy was minor and
would not affect the overall conclusion that there were more EU citizens in the
country after Brexit; it estimated that the correct figure for EU citizens in
the UK was 4.26 million.
11. The
Committee noted the publication’s position with regard to the previous
publication of the figures but considered that it had an obligation to take
care over the accuracy of the reporting, which was not satisfied by relying on
their previous publication elsewhere, particularly where the figures were
publicly available.
12. The
Committee made clear that the publication was entitled to publish (or
republish) analysis of the official statistics and to make estimates of how
these compared with previous estimates for the number of EU citizens in the UK,
provided that it took care over those calculations and appropriately qualified
any claims made as a result.
13. However,
the claim that “4.6 million people“ had been granted the right to remain had
presented the number of applications as “people” when the published data itself
made clear that was not the case. The data had been clearly presented at source
as “experimental statistics” that related to the number of applications rather
than people in the country. The data included a warning that the figures
provided could not be directly compared with estimates of EU/EEA nationals in
the UK. The presentation of figures relating to applications as representing
people constituted a failure to take care to report accurate information and a
breach of Clause 1(i).
14. The
publication’s position was that the discrepancy in the figures did not amount
to a significant inaccuracy, where its estimate of the actual number of
individuals who had been granted the right to remain was 4.26 million; the
publication considered that this was not significantly different from its
headline figure of 4.6 million, particularly given that it was still greater
than the previous estimate.
15. The
Committee noted that the actual number of EU citizens who have the right to
remain in the UK was not reported and that the publication’s estimate as to the
correct figure was based on its own calculations. The Committee also noted that
the revised estimate relied on the publication’s assumptions about which
factors might be relevant to its adjustment and how they should be applied.
Given the absence of an official source and the complexities of the data, the
Committee did not take a view as to the accuracy of the revised estimate. It
was beyond question that the article’s claim that “4.6 million people have been granted the
right to remain in the UK after Brexit” under the EU Settlement Scheme was an
inaccurate representation of official statistics. The misreporting of
government data on a topic of national significance was significant and
required correction under the terms of Clause 1(ii).
16.
Whilst the newspaper offered to amend the figures it had published based on
adjusted estimates and to publish a footnote, this did not acknowledge the
inaccuracy – that the figure of 4.6 million referred to applications and did
not represent the number of people who had been granted the right to remain. On
this basis, the amendments to the article and the offered clarification were
not sufficient under Clause 1(ii), and there was an outstanding breach.
Conclusion(s)
17. The
complaint was upheld.
Remedial
Action Required
18.
Having upheld a breach of Clause 1, the Committee considered what remedial
action should be required. In circumstances where the Committee establishes a
breach of the Editors’ Code, it can require the publication of a correction
and/or an adjudication, the terms and placement of which is determined by IPSO.
19. The
Committee considered that the publication did not take the necessary care when
reporting the data on applications for the right to remain and that its
correction had been inadequate to fulfil the requirements of Clause 1(ii).
Nonetheless, in the circumstances, where the Home Office figures could arguably
suggest that the number of EU citizens in the UK had risen after Brexit, the
Committee considered that the appropriate remedy was the publication of a
correction to put the correct position on record with regard to the published
figures relating to the EU Settlement Scheme. The Committee considered that the
appropriate remedy was the publication of a correction to put the correct
position on record.
20. The
Committee then considered the placement of this correction. This correction
should be added to the article as a footnote and appear as a standalone
correction in the online corrections and clarifications column. This wording
should make clear the nature of the inaccuracy, that the article had claimed
that 4.6million people had been granted right to remain under the Scheme, and
the correct position, that this figure related to the numbers of applications
that had been granted. The wording should also be agreed with IPSO in advance
and should make clear that it has been published following an upheld ruling by
the Independent Press Standards Organisation. If the publication intends to
continue to publish the online article without amendment, the correction on the
article should be published beneath the headline. If the article is amended,
the correction should be published as a footnote which explains the amendments
that have been made.
Date
complaint received: 15/03/2021
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 19/01/2022
Back to ruling listing