00197-25 Williams-Key v express.co.uk

Summary of Complaint

1. Alan Williams-Key complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that express.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Rachel Reeves has 'made one huge mistake' - and 'now we have the proof'”, published on 18 January 2025.

2. The article opened by reporting: “Since Sir Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves moved in next door to each other on Downing Street, thousands of millionaires have left Britain, new figures reveal. The UK lost a net 10,800 millionaires last year to migration, up 157 percent from 2023”. It went on to report that the “departure of the country's richest men and women was rapidly accelerated after the summer General Election, according to New World [W]ealth”.

3. The complainant said the article breached Clause 1 because the New World Wealth figures referenced in the article did not support the headline’s claim of “’proof’” that Rachel Reeves had made “’one huge mistake’”. He said there was no basis for linking Ms Reeves to the “departure of the country’s richest men and women”, as the figures in the article were forecasts of the rate of High Net Worth Individual (HNWI) emigration in 2024, which had been issued in June 2024 and based on data collected from January to June 2024. He said he had located the figures, and these were accompanied with an asterisked note, which said: “These are provisional figures for the full year 2024. They are based on year-to-date HNWI movements to June 2024”. He noted therefore that the figures relied upon had been issued prior to Reeves becoming Chancellor in July 2024 and the Autumn Budget of October 2024, and therefore the claim ““departure of the country's richest men and women was rapidly accelerated after the summer General Election, according to New World [W]ealth” was unsubstantiated.

4. The complainant also said the article misrepresented New World Wealth’s forecast figures for HNWI outward immigration in 2024 as confirmed figures for HNWI emigration. He pointed out that the article did not include any confirmed statistics on HNWI emigration for the latter half of 2024.

5. The publication did not accept that the article breached Clause 1. It confirmed that the article’s claims were based on a press release, which stated that the issuing organisation had “teamed up with wealth intelligence firm New World Wealth to publish their latest forecast and review the potential impact of the upcoming budget on UK wealth migration trends”, and quoted the CEO of The institute for Government as having said “the outflow already generated by the economic and political turmoil in Britain risks being accelerated by further unwelcome policy decisions ahead of the election.”

6. The publication said the “proof” referenced in the headline were the New World Wealth figures, which predicted an “exodus” of HNWIs from the UK in 2024. The publication said the headline was not inaccurate, as it was reasonable to attribute bad financial decisions to Rachel Reeves, given her position as the government’s chief financial minister.

7. To support its position, it pointed to the following extract from the press release:

“The UK’s high tax rates and concerns about additional tax hikes that could be announced at the end of the month in the Labour Party’s first budget in 14 years, are highlighted as being among the main reasons for the wealth exodus. […] it’s clear that next year’s increase in tax for non-domiciled individuals, announced by the previous Conservative government in March, prompted people to start considering leaving, and this had a domino effect on UK nationals when they realized that capital gains and inheritance tax were the last ones remaining that could possibly be changed and make a difference to the budget shortfall.”

8. The publication also said that, as New World Wealth had forecast an overall increase in HNWI migration in 2024 compared to 2023, it was fair and accurate to report "the departure of the country's richest men and women was rapidly accelerated after the summer General Election, according to New World Wealth”.

9. However, in light of the complainant’s concerns, on 11 March 2025 it amended the article to read: "The departure of the country's richest men and women was rapidly accelerated in the months prior to and after the summer General Election, according to New World Wealth." It also added the following clarification at the bottom of the article:

“A previous version of this article stated that according to the New World Wealth, the departure of the country's richest men and women was rapidly accelerated after the summer General Election. We are happy to clarify that the data presented by New World Wealth was for the full year 2024, including before the General Election.”

10. The complainant did not consider the amendment and footnote correction sufficient to resolve his complaint. He said that, in light of the fact that the New World Wealth data relied upon was – as acknowledged by the publication – a forecast of HNWI emigration in 2024, it could not accurately be described as “’proof’”. He noted that this had not been corrected. He also said the headline’s attribution of “’one huge mistake’” to Rachel Reeves was not supported by the data, as the forecasted acceleration of HNWI emigration after the general election could not accurately be attributed to Rachel Reeves alone. He also said the correction was not duly prominent, and requested a standalone correction be linked to from the publication’s homepage.

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

11. The Committee noted that the article linked the emigration of high-net worth individuals to Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor of the Exchequer from July 2024 onwards, in its headline and opening line. The article used data from 2024 to support this link, which the publication had provided to IPSO. The Committee therefore first turned to this data itself, to consider whether – in using this data – the publication had taken care not to publish inaccurate, misleading, or distorted information.

12. The Committee noted that, underneath the data the publication had used as its source, there was an asterisked note which said “These are provisional figures for the full year 2024. They are based on year-to-date HNWI movements to June 2024”. This made very clear that the figures were provisional forecasts rather than confirmed figures.

13. The Committee did not consider that, in and of itself, relying on forecasted figures would represent a breach of the Code. However, it noted that the article did not make clear that it was reporting on forecasted figures; rather, they were presented as definitive “proof”, and the article reported that “new figures reveal[ed]” that “thousands of millionaires have left Britain” since the July 2024 election. In addition, the forecasts were for the entirety of 2024 – rather than the period following the General Election - and were based on data from June 2024, prior to the election. The article did not make this clear. It also noted that the figures relied upon did not demonstrate that the departure of HNWIs “rapidly accelerated” after the General Election, as these were forecasts issued prior to the election. In these circumstances, there was no basis for reporting “the departure of the country's richest men and women was rapidly accelerated after the summer General Election, according to New World [W]ealth”.

14. The publication had said that it was not inaccurate to draw a link between the emigration of HNWI and the Chancellor – given she held overall responsibility for the budgetary and taxation decisions of the UK government. The Committee agreed that drawing such a link was not, by itself, inaccurate. However, as noted above, data upon which the publication was providing to make this link was for the entirety of 2024 – not just the period during which Rachel Reeves was Chancellor.

15. In light of this, the Committee considered that the article presented the data in a misleading manner. The data – and its provisos – were available to the publication prior to the article’s publication, and formed the basis for it – but the fact that the data was provisional did not appear to have been taken into account in the article’s preparation. The Committee considered that this constituted a failure to take care over the accuracy of the article, and this constituted a breach of Clause 1 (i).

16. The Committee next considered whether the article was significantly inaccurate and therefore required correction under the terms of Clause 1 (ii). The Committee noted the complainant’s position that the headline “Rachel Reeves has 'made one huge mistake' - and 'now we have the proof'” was misleading as the New World Wealth forecast could not be considered “proof”. However, the Committee considered that it was not in and of itself inaccurate or misleading to refer to a forecast as “proof”.

17. Whilst the press release relied upon quoted the CEO of The institute for Government as having said “the outflow already generated by the economic and political turmoil in Britain risks being accelerated by further unwelcome policy decisions ahead of the election”, it did not claim that the departure of HNWIs “rapidly accelerated” after the General Election, as it was a forecast issued prior to the election. The Committee therefore considered the claim that “[t]he departure of the country's richest men and women was rapidly accelerated after the summer General Election, according to New World [W]ealth” was significantly misleading. It also considered the opening of the article to be significantly misleading; namely, the claim that “[s]ince Sir Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves moved in next door to each other on Downing Street, thousands of millionaires have left Britain, new figures reveal”. Given the article did not make clear that the figures were forecasts, and based on estimates from before the 2024 General Election – and this was central to the article’s link between the election and the departure of HNWIs - such claims were significant to the overall meaning of the article. The article therefore required correction on this point, under the terms of Clause 1 (ii).

18. The publication had amended the article on 11 March, 7 days after being made aware of the complaint, to say: “"The departure of the country's richest men and women was rapidly accelerated in the months prior to and after the summer General Election, according to New World Wealth". It had also added the following clarification at the bottom of the article:

“A previous version of this article stated that according to the New World Wealth, the departure of the country's richest men and women was rapidly accelerated after the summer General Election. We are happy to clarify that the data presented by New World Wealth was for the full year 2024, including before the General Election.”

19. The Committee noted the complainant’s concern that the clarification did not make sufficiently clear the correct position: that the data from New World Wealth was a forecast for the full year 2024, based on HNWI emigration rates from January – June 2024. He was also concerned a that the clarification has not duly prominent.

20. The Committee considered that the clarification had not put the correct position on record, as it failed to make clear that the article had misrepresented New World Wealth’s forecast figures for the latter half of 2024, by not making clear they were forecasts. Rather, it simply said that the data was for the entirety of 2024, which was not sufficient to put the correct position on record. It also repeated inaccurate information, as it stated that New World Wealth’s figures showed HNWI immigration “was rapidly accelerated in the months prior to and after the summer General Election”, which the Committee noted was not a claim supported by the report. For this reason, there was a breach of Clause 1 (ii)

21. As the inaccuracy had appeared in the text, and the clarification had appeared at the bottom of the article, the Committee considered it to be duly prominent. It also considered that the clarification, which had been published 7 days after the complaint was referred to the publication, was sufficiently prompt. Therefore, while the wording of the clarification was not sufficient to address the terms of Clause 1 (ii), there were no further breaches arising from the promptness with which the publication published it, nor its prominence.

Conclusions

22. The complaint was upheld under Clause 1 (i) and Clause 1 (ii).

Remedial action required

23. Having upheld the complaint, 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 nature, extent and placement of which is determined by IPSO.

24. The Committee considered the article was significantly misleading, as it did not make clear that the figures being used were forecasts, and based on estimates from before the 2024 General Election.

25. The misleading information appeared in the text of the article. The publication had published a clarification while engaged in direct correspondence with the complainant, albeit it did not sufficiently correct the record. Therefore, on balance, the Committee considered that a correction was the appropriate remedy. The correction should acknowledge that the article misleadingly presented forecasted figures for HNWI emigration in 2024 as confirmed emigration figures. It should also put the correct position on record, namely that the figures referred to were provisional, based on year-to-date HNWI movements to June 2024 – prior to the 2024 General Election and Autumn Budget.

26. The Committee then considered the placement of this correction. As the inaccuracy appeared in the text of the article only, if the article is further amended, the amended correction may be published again as a footnote.

27. The wording should 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.

Date complaint received: 18/01/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 03/07/2025