Decision of the Complaints Committee 05072-19 Smith v
Daily Mail
Summary of Complaint
1. Heather Smith complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that the Daily Mail breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the
Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Labour tax raid on family
homes” published 1 July 2019.
2. The article, which featured on the front page and
continued on to page two, reported that the Shadow Chancellor had "signalled
major reforms to inheritance tax"
under Labour and that he was interested in “replacing the current levy
with a ’lifetime gifts tax’ on cash or
homes given to children". The article reported that under these proposals,
far more homes would be subject to inheritance tax and that "he claimed
the plan, which the Tories say would affect 10 million households, could ensure
‘wealth is more fairly distributed’". It went on to report that "at
present, the inheritance tax threshold is £475,000, or £950,000 for
couples". The article reported on the front page that “only 640,000
households end up paying the tax each year”.
3. The article appeared in substantially the same format
online under the headline: “Labour's tax raid on family homes will slash
legacies for millions of children, say Tories: Shadow Chancellor McDonnell
signals plan to tax parent's gifts to kids to redistribute wealth 'more
fairly'” published 30 June 2019.
4. The complainant said that it was inaccurate to report
that 640,000 households "ended up paying" inheritance tax each year.
She said the correct number of estates that paid inheritance tax in the latest
year for which figures were available (2015-2016) was 24,500 and that the
reported figure was, therefore, inaccurate by a multiple of 26. The complainant
said that the inaccuracy was significant as it had been published in a
prominent position, on the front page of the newspaper, within an article which
reported on a contentious political issue. The complainant also said that it
was inaccurate to report that “households” paid the tax, as it is paid by
estates. During IPSO’s investigation, the figures for 2016-2017 were released,
which recorded that the number of estates which had paid inheritance in that
year stood at 28,100.
5. The publication accepted that it had inaccurately
reported the number of households that paid inheritance tax each year. It said
that the figure of 640,000 was derived from an estimate provided by the
Conservative Party press office of the number of homes in the UK which are
worth £1,000,000 or more, being the number of households potentially liable to
pay inheritance tax under the current arrangements. It said that the intention
had been to present the 640,000 figure by way of contrast with the Conservative
Party's estimate that 10 million homes would be affected by the new proposals;
it said that "each year" had been mistakenly added during the
subediting process. Whilst the publication accepted that it was inaccurate to
report that 640,000 households paid inheritance tax annually, it did not accept
that this inaccuracy undermined or rendered the overall thrust of the article
inaccurate, namely that under the proposed reforms significantly more
properties would be subject to tax than under the current inheritance tax
scheme. The publication noted that neither the Labour Party nor the
Conservative Party had complained that the article was inaccurate.
6. In its first response to the complainant, the publication
offered to publish a correction in its corrections and clarifications column,
which ordinarily appears on page two. The publication also offered to publish
the correction as a footnote to the online version of the article. The
publication revised its offer following comments from the complainant and
proposed the following wording:
Our front-page article on July 1 about Labour’s proposed
inheritance tax reforms said that under current rules, 640,000 households pay inheritance
tax ‘each year.’ In fact, this figure represents an estimate by Tories of the
total number of houses worth over £1m – whose owners would potentially be
affected – and only approximately 24,500 estates pay the tax each year. We
apologise for the error.
7. The publication said that its corrections and
clarifications column was familiar to its readers as the position in the
newspaper where corrections are published and that a correction published in
the column was, therefore, suitably prominent. It noted the requirement of the
Code for due prominence, rather than equal prominence, and argued that where an
inaccuracy appears in an article is not the only factor to be taken into
account; it said that the inaccuracy was relatively insignificant and,
therefore, that a front page correction was not warranted.
8. The complainant said that the newspaper had failed to
distinguish between comment, conjecture and fact, as it had reported a
Conservative Party press office quote as fact. She also said the publication's
offer was inadequate, as any correction would need to be published on the front
page, where the original inaccuracy had appeared, given that this page was the
most read page of a newspaper. The complainant said that many people who had not
bought a copy of the newspaper that day would nevertheless have seen the front
page on web and mobile applications and in shops, as a result, the published
correction should be afforded equal exposure. Further, the complainant also
said that any correction could state the number of households which paid
inheritance tax in the latest year for which figures were available, making
clear that the figure represented just 4.6% of the number of deaths. The
complainant also said that the number of individuals who would pay inheritance
tax under the current arrangements was likely to decrease and proposed that
this also be included in the wording.
Relevant Code Provisions
9. 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.
v) A publication must report fairly and accurately the
outcome of an action for defamation to which it has been a party, unless an
agreed settlement states otherwise, or an agreed statement is published.
Findings of the Committee
10. It was not in dispute that it was inaccurate to report
that 640,000 households paid inheritance tax each year; the number of estates
which paid the tax in the latest year for which figures were available at the
date of publication was approximately 24,500. The publication accepted that the
mistake had been made in the subediting process so that the Conservative party
estimate of the number of homes that were worth over £1 million had been
misinterpreted. The Committee found that there was a failure by the newspaper
to take care not to publish inaccurate information in breach of Clause 1(i).
11. The inaccuracy was significant, as readers would
understand that the number of households which paid inheritance tax each year
was substantially higher than the true figure. A correction was therefore required under Clause 1(ii) of the Code.
12. The publication had amended the online article as soon
as it was made aware of the inaccuracy by the complainant. The publication then
offered to publish a correction in its first response to the complainant during
the referral period and had made several offers to accommodate the
complainant's suggestions in an attempt to resolve the matter; the Committee
considered that the final wording, offered before IPSO begun its investigation,
was sufficiently prompt. The correction made clear that the reported figure of
640,00 referred to the number of houses estimated by the Conservative party as
worth over £1m and potentially affected and confirmed that approximately 24,500
estates pay inheritance tax each year. The Committee considered that this
correction addressed the published inaccuracies and referencing the percentage of
deaths which are affected by inheritance tax was not necessary.
13. The Committee acknowledged that established corrections
and clarifications columns demonstrate a commitment to correct inaccurate or
misleading material while also providing a consistent position in which to
correct inaccuracies for readers. The Committee considered whether the
correction should also be published or referenced on the front page. The
Committee did not consider that that this was necessary bearing in mind the
significance of the inaccuracy in light of the report as a whole. The Committee
considered that, in the circumstances, page 2 was a suitably prominent position
to correct the inaccuracy and that the terms of the offered correction was
sufficient to avoid a breach of Clause 1(ii).
14. The Committee acknowledged that inheritance tax is paid
by estates, but the reference in the article to “households” paying the tax was
not significantly inaccurate or misleading in circumstances where the article
was focussing on the number of properties which might be affected by the
proposals based on their value. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point,
but the Committee nevertheless welcomed that the publication had clarified that
inheritance tax is paid by estates in the correction which it had offered to
publish.
Conclusion
15. The complaint was upheld under Clause 1(i).
Remedial Action Required
16. Having upheld the complaint, the Committee considered
what remedial action should be required.
17. The publication had offered to publish a correction in a
prominent position and sufficiently promptly as to meet the requirements of
Clause 1(ii). This should now be published to avoid a breach of Clause 1(ii).
Date complaint received: 01/07/2019
Date decision issued: 06/12/2019
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.