Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 23874-22 Hancock v Daily Mirror
Summary
of Complaint
1. Matt
Hancock complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the
Daily Mirror breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in the
following articles:
·
“No stranger to ridicule or reinvention”, published on 2 November 2022
·
“Shameful record of blunders”, published on 2 November 2022
·
“He’s no jungle hero... lying Hancock threw us all to the wolves”, published on
11 November 2022
·
“SOLIDARITY IS EMOTIONAL”, published on 3 December 2022.
2. The
first article of complaint was a brief summary of the complainant’s career. The
article reported that the complainant, after being made Secretary of State for
Health and Social Care in 2018, “presided over PPE contracts being handed out
to acquaintances of ministers and officials, including his ex-pub landlord”
during the Covid-19 pandemic.
3. The
second article under complaint was another summary, focussing specifically on
what the article described as the complainant’s “blunders” while he “served as
Health Secretary from July 2018 to June 2021”. One such “blunder” listed in the
article was that he “[b]roke ministerial code by failing to declare he held
shares in a family firm that won an NHS contract”.
4. The
third article appeared as part of a weekly column, discussing the complainant’s
appearance on I’m a Celebrity…Get Me Out of Here! The article said that
the complainant was “a failed health secretary and cheating husband who broke
the lockdown rules he wrote, doubled down on the lies he told, helped enrich
his mates via the infamous VIP PPE lane, and couldn’t resist monetising the
infamy he acquired as a result of his ineptitude at managing the pandemic.” The
article also appeared online in substantially the same form, under the
headline, “'Matt Hancock is no jungle hero, he's a lying cheat who threw us all
to the wolves'”; this version of the article was published on 10 November 2022.
5. The
fourth article under complaint was an interview with a trade union leader. The
article included the individual’s comments about the complainant: “Matt Hancock
might have gone into the jungle seeking forgiveness, but some of us won’t
forget […] We won’t forget who those contracts went to. It’s disgusting.” The
article also appeared online in substantially the same form, under the
headline, “EXCLUSIVE: Frances O’Grady's deep personal pain serves as a reminder
of trade union movement roots”; this version of the article was published on 2
December 2022.
6. The
complainant said that all of the articles were inaccurate and misleading in
breach of Clause 1, as he did not “decide, price or sign off government Covid
contracts”. He said the correct position was that the Civil Service did so, and
that the Civil Service was independent of government ministers, such as
himself. He further noted that the “pub landlord” referred to in the first
article was actually awarded a subcontract – which, the complainant said, was
“totally different and not something in the control of civil servants, let
alone the government or ministers”.
7. The
complainant further said that the second article under complaint – “Shameful
record of blunders” – omitted key information, which he said rendered the
article unbalanced. He said that the article, when referring to the fact that
he “[b]roke ministerial code”, should have made clear that the Advisor on
Ministers’ Interests stated that he had acted “properly and honestly” and “with
integrity throughout” the investigation in question. He also said that the
contract in question was awarded by NHS Wales “through the correct process”,
and that – as healthcare was a devolved matter – he had no role to play in the
decision-making process.
8. The
complainant said that the publication should publish written corrections,
accepting that the articles were inaccurate and apologising to him. He said
that the newspaper should also offer an assurance that the same information
would not be repeated in further coverage, and called for the newspaper’s
publisher to “remove all references [to] this false narrative from all historic
articles from the [publisher] group”.
9. The
publication did not accept that any of the articles under complaint were
significantly inaccurate, misleading, or distorted. It first noted that, at the
time of the Covid contracts in question being awarded, the complainant was
Secretary of State for Health and Social Care; the oversight of such contracts
was therefore his legal responsibility as office holder.
10. Turning
to the claims regarding the “ex-pub landlord”, the publication said that it had
been “widely reported at the time” that the individual in question had
initially offered his services directly to the complainant prior to the
contract being awarded, by sending him a WhatsApp message. It provided links to
the coverage in question; the articles reported that: the landlord “has
previously acknowledged exchanging WhatsApp messages with the health secretary
– but has denied any impropriety”; and that “[a]sked about his contact with
[the complainant, the landlord] said: ‘I got his phone number from a former
neighbour of his and simply sent a text message. I introduced myself in full
because... I hadn't spoken to him by that stage in probably three years. And he
simply kindly replied and said, 'Please send the details of this to my
Parliamentary email address', which I did.’ [New provider] has seen this
exchange and can confirm that [the complainant] responded by providing his
Parliamentary email address.”
11.
Furthermore, the publication said that the landlord in question had been
awarded a subcontract from Alpha Laboratories during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Alpha Laboratories was a company which had been awarded a government contract
during the pandemic; the contract was between the laboratory and the Secretary
of State for Health and Social Care. The contract in question had been signed
by a civil servant on the complainant’s behalf in December 2020, and the same
contract stipulated that the work would be subcontracted to the company owned
by the landlord. Therefore, the publication did not accept that it was
inaccurate to report that the complainant “presided over PPE contracts being
handed out to acquaintances of ministers and officials, including his ex-pub
landlord”.
12. The
publication said that the Advisor on Ministers’ Interests had found that the
complainant’s failure to declare he held shares in a family firm that won an
NHS contract was “in technical terms, a minor breach of the ministerial code”.
It did not, therefore, consider that it was inaccurate for the second article
to report this.
13.
Turning to the third article’s claim that the complainant “helped enrich his
mates via the infamous VIP PPE lane”, the publication said that this was clearly
presented as the columnist’s view of the complainant “based on the widespread
news of the 'VIP lane' at the time”. The publication said that an organisation
had found that two companies had been awarded contracts worth between £38
million and £500 million after having donated money to the Conservative Party
and then being put in touch with the complainant. It also said that the phrase
“mates” was used colloquially and, in the context of an opinion piece, was
intended to demonstrate that there were links between the complainant and the
companies who had been awarded Covid contracts. It also provided a link to a
contemporary news article, form another publication, which reported that: “The
government gave ‘VIP treatment’ to a firm offering Covid testing facilities
which had entered the system ‘informally’ because Matt Hancock was ‘a good
friend’ of somebody working with the company, according to internal emails seen
by” the other publication.
14. The
publication also said that the fourth article under complaint did not breach
the Code – both for the reasons previously set out and where the reference to
“Covid contracts” was presented as a direct quote from the union leader, rather
than a claim of fact.
15. The
complainant said that “there was a call to arms where the Government and
[himself] were asking the public to come forward with any leads as part of a
national effort to tackle coronavirus.” He said that he couldn’t control who
then chose to contact him, but that he could control how he dealt with such
contact – and he had done so properly by forwarding such contacts to be dealt
with through official channels.
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
16. The
complainant disputed that he had played a direct role in allocating contracts
during the Covid-19 pandemic. However, it was not in dispute that, as the
then-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, he held overall
responsibility for healthcare delivery and performance in the UK. It was also
not in dispute, that, during the complainant’s tenure as Secretary of State, a
contract – explicitly naming the company of his acquaintance, who had been a
pub-landlord in his local area – had been signed in his name. This supported
the position that the complainant held ultimate responsibility for the
allocation of such contracts. Therefore, the Committee did not consider that
the first article had been inaccurate by reporting that the complainant “presided
over PPE contracts being handed out to acquaintances of ministers and
officials, including his ex-pub landlord”. The first article did not breach
Clause 1.
17.
Where the complainant had been found to have breached ministerial Code in
relation to his shares in a family company, it was not inaccurate for the
publication to report this. The complainant had said that the article should
have also included the advisor’s positive comments about his behaviour when
reporting this, but newspapers ultimately have the discretion to choose what to
publish – provided omitting information does not breach the Code. In the
context of a brief reference to the complainant having breached ministerial
Code, the Committee did not consider that omitting the positive comments
rendered the article significantly inaccurate, misleading, or distorted. There
was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
18. In
assessing whether the third article breached Clause 1, the Committee first
noted the context of the alleged inaccuracy: it appeared in a tongue-in-cheek
opinion piece, which was strongly critical of the complainant and written in a
polemical style. In this context, the use of the phrase “mates” denoted that
there were links between the complainant and companies in receipt of Covid
contracts, rather than a statement of fact that the complainant was friends
with the companies themselves. In addition, the publication had been able to
provide contemporaneous reporting which referred to the complainant’s personal
links with people who worked at such companies. Taking these factors into
account, the Committee did not consider that the third article was
significantly inaccurate, and there was no breach of Clause 1.
19. The
alleged inaccuracy in the fourth article was clearly framed as an individual’s
personal view of the complainant and his oversight of the awarding of Covid
contracts, and formed a brief reference in an interview which otherwise dealt
with other topics. The publication was entitled to publish the union leader’s
view of the complainant, and that she “won’t forget who those contracts went
to”. There was no breach of Clause 1.
Conclusions
20. The
complaint was not upheld.
Remedial
action required
21. N/A
Date
complaint received: 30/01/2023
Date
complaint concluded by IPSO: 29/06/2023
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.