00251-25 Portes v The Daily Telegraph

Summary of Complaint

1. Jonathan Portes 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 “One in 12 in London is illegal migrant”, published on 23 January 2025.

2. The complainant was one of a number of individuals who raised concerns about this article; in line with IPSO’s usual procedures, he was selected as IPSO’s lead complainant for the purpose of investigating the complaint.

3. The article appeared on the front page of the newspaper, above the sub-headline: “New research adds to fears over borders and increased pressure on public services”. It then opened by reporting that “London is home to as many as 585,000 illegal migrants, equivalent to one in 12 of the city’s population, according to a previously confidential report.”

4. The article also reported the “new estimate has emerged in a study commissioned by Thames Water, obtained by The Telegraph under freedom of information-style laws”. It then reported:

- report for Thames Water by Edge Analytics, a group of demography and data experts at Leeds University, aimed to quantify the ‘hidden’ and ‘transient’ users of their services to help them meet demand.

- based its analysis on academic estimates of illegal migrants nationally, including the Pew Research Centre in the US, London School of Economics, Office for National Statistics data and other research. It then used National Insurance registrations for non-EU foreign nationals over a nine-year period to estimate the number of ‘irregular’ migrants in each London borough.

- the whole of London, it produced a range of 390,355 illegal migrants at its lowest to 585,533 at its highest, with a median figure of 487,944. With an estimated population of 7,044,667, that would mean one in 12 of the capital’s population is an illegal migrant.”

5. The article also appeared online, in substantially the same format, under the headline: “One in 12 in London is an illegal migrant”. The was amended, within three minutes of publication, to read: “Up to one in 12 in London is an illegal migrant”. The line: “With an estimated population of 7,044,667, that would mean one in 12 of the capital’s population is an illegal migrant” was also amended, to refer to “up to one in 12”.

6. On 23 January, the complainant complained to IPSO that the article, and the headline in particular, breached Clause 1.

7. He said that, according to the Office of National Statistics, London’s population was around 9 million, not roughly 7 million, as the article reported. Secondly, he said that the publication had taken the “upper bound” figure from the estimated number of illegal migrants in London to calculate the “one in 12” figure. Given this, he said the headline statement was inaccurate and misleading – the correct position was that between one in 23, and one in 15, people in London were estimated to be illegal migrants. He said that the headline “grossly and deliberately” misrepresented the data.

8. On 26 January, the complainant also complained directly to the publication. In this complaint, alongside the points set out above, he also raised two further points.

9. Firstly, citing research by Migrant Observatory, he said that Pew Research Centre’s estimates – whose analysis was used in the Thames Water report central to the article – included a large number of individuals, possibly hundreds of thousands, with indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom. He said it also included children born in the United Kingdom to parents who do not have authorised immigration status. Neither group, he said, could be defined as an “illegal migrants”; the former had permission to remain in the country, and the latter were not migrants, as they would have been born in the UK.  

10. The complainant also noted that a number of other newspaper had published articles repeating the claims, following the publication of the article under complaint.

11. On 29 January, IPSO made the newspaper aware that the complainant’s concerns raised a possible breach of the Editors’ Code. On the same day, the publication contacted the complainant, and proposed to publish a series of corrections to resolve his complaint. First, it proposed to publish the following correction as a footnote to the online article:

- figure of 7,044,667 referred to in this article is the estimated population for the whole of the Thames Water London Water Resource Zone in which it supplies water services, rather than the full geographical area of London which has an estimated population of about 9 million. We are happy to make this clear.”

12. It also proposed to publish the following in its online Corrections and clarifications Column:

- the online article headed ‘Up to one in 12 in London is an illegal migrant’ (22 Jan) and the print article in the Daily Telegraph (23 Jan) headed ‘One in 12 in London is illegal migrant’, the figure of 7,044,667 referred to is the estimated population for the whole of the Thames Water London Water Resource Zone in which it supplies water services, rather than the full geographical area of London which has an estimated population of about 9 million. We are happy to make this clear.”

13. It also suggested publishing the following in print:

- an article (23 Jan) headed ‘One in 12 in London is illegal migrant’ the figure of 7,044,667 referred to is the estimated population for the whole of the Thames Water London Water Resource Zone in which it supplies water services, rather than the full geographical area of London which has an estimated population of about 9 million. We are happy to make this clear.”

14. The complainant said that the proposed corrections failed to address a number of the inaccuracies he had identified.

15. Firstly, he said they failed to make clear that – based on the figures reported in the article – the correct figure was “between one in 12 and one in 18”, not “one in 12”, as the headline reported. Secondly, he said the corrections failed to make clear that the estimated 585,000 figure for illegal migrants from Pew Research Centre included people with indefinite leave to remain and children born in the UK to parents without authorised legal status – neither of which he considered to be illegal migrants. 

16. Finally, he also said, as he understood it, that the 7-million figure for the population of the Thames Water London Water Resource Zone was misleading in the context of the article – it excluded the estimated irregular population of 585,000 and should therefore be 7.5 million. He said the corrections did not make this clear, and did not explain how this had affected the accuracy of the article.

17. Two days later the publication proposed to publish the following correction as a footnote to the online article, and to amend the article to take account of the correction:

- figure of 7,044,667 in this article is the estimated population of the Thames Water London Water Resource Zone, rather than of geographical London which is about 9 million. That figure does not include irregular migrants. Hence 'up to 1 in 12 illegal migrants' is incorrect and ought to have been 'up to 1 in 13', based on the study's upper figure for irregular migrants. This figure includes children born in the UK with irregular status and, it is understood, those with indefinite leave to remain. We are happy to make this clear and to correct the record.”

18. It proposed to publish the following in its online Corrections and Clarifications Column:

- the online article headed ‘Up to one in 12 in London is an illegal migrant’ (22 January 2025) and the print article in the Daily Telegraph for 23 January 2025 headed "One in 12 in London is illegal migrant", the figure of 7,044,667 is the estimated population of the Thames Water London Water Resource Zone, rather than of geographical London which is about 9 million. That figure does not include irregular migrants. Hence 'up to 1 in 12 illegal migrants' is incorrect and ought to have been 'up to 1 in 13', based on the study's upper figure for irregular migrants. This figure includes children born in the UK with irregular status and, it is understood, those with indefinite leave to remain. We are happy to make this clear and to correct the record.”

19. It also proposed to publish the following correction in print:

- an article headed "One in 12 in London is illegal migrant" (23 January 2025) the figure of 7,044,667 is the estimated population of the Thames Water London Water Resource Zone, rather than of geographical London which is about 9 million. That figure does not include irregular migrants. Hence 'up to 1 in 12 illegal migrants' is incorrect and ought to have been 'up to 1 in 13', based on the study's upper figure for irregular migrants. This figure includes children born in the UK with irregular status and, it is understood, those with indefinite leave to remain. We are happy to make this clear and to correct the record.”

20. While the complainant considered the corrections broadly acceptable, he maintained that the corrections were not explicitly clear that the headline was inaccurate to report that “one in 12” people in London was an illegal migrant, rather than “up to one in 13”. He also said it was not explicitly clear that neither children born in the United Kingdom to parents who do not have authorised immigration status, nor those with indefinite leave to remain, could be classified as illegal immigrants. He also said that he considered a prominent front-page correction appropriate.

21. On 31 January, the publication confirmed that it had published online corrections, and would be publishing a print correction the following day. It published the following footnote correction to the online article:

- The figure of 7,044,667 is the estimated population of the Thames Water London Water Resource Zone, excluding irregular migrants, not geographical London which is about 9 million. “Up to 1 in 12 illegal migrants” in a previous version was incorrect and ought to have been “up to 1 in 13”, based on the study’s upper figure for irregular migrants, which includes children born in the UK with irregular status and, it is understood, those with indefinite leave to remain. We are happy to correct the record.

22. It published the following in its online Corrections and clarifications column:

- an online article “Up to one in 12 in London is an illegal migrant” (Jan, 22), the ­figure of 7,044,667 was the estimated population of the Thames Water London Water Resource Zone, excluding irregular migrants, not geographical London which is about 9 million. “Up to 1 in 12 illegal migrants” was incorrect and ought to have been “up to one in 13”, based on the study’s upper ­figure for irregular migrants, which includes children born in the UK with irregular status and, it is understood, those with indefinite leave to remain. We are happy to correct the record.

23. It also published the following in print, in its Corrections and clarifications column, on page 2 of the newspaper:

- an article ‘One in 12 in London is illegal migrant’ the ­figure of 7,044,667 is the estimated population of the Thames Water London Water Resource Zone, excluding irregular migrants, not geographical London which is about 9 million. One in 12 illegal migrants was incorrect and ought to have been up to one in 13, based on the study’s upper ­figure for irregular migrants, which includes children born in the UK with irregular status and, it is understood, those with indefinite leave to remain. We are happy to correct the record.

24. It also amended the online article to accompany this – the headline was changed to read: “Up to one in 13 in London is an illegal migrant”. The following was also introduced to the text of the online article: “The analysis by Thames Water, done to help assess demand for its services, suggests that the equivalent of up to one in 13 of its users is an illegal migrant”.

25. The complainant objected to this – he did not consider the wording of the corrections, nor their prominence, adequate to sufficiently correct the record. IPSO therefore began an investigation into the complaint.

26. The publication did not accept a breach of the Editors’ Code – it accepted, however, that the “one in 12” claim was inaccurate. It said the range of estimates for the population of illegal migrants in London was taken from a Thames Water report, which the publication supplied to IPSO. The report included the estimates reported in the article: “390,355 illegal migrants at its lowest to 585,533 at its highest, with a median figure of 487,944”. The report also cited the population of “London”, under the heading “Water Resource Zone”, as “7,044,667” – the population figure used in the article. The publication said that it had used the upper bound figure to calculate the “one in 12” headline figure, and that the article made clear this was the case: the opening sentence stated that London is home to “as many as” 585,000 illegal migrants, and the article went on to quote the lowest and highest estimate. 

27. The publication said that, when calculating the “one in 12” figure, the estimated illegal migrant population figure of 585,000 had not been added to the overall population figure – the population of the Thames Water London Water Resource Zone, not including illegal migrants, which was 7,044,667 - as reported in the article. The population figure given in the article was therefore smaller than it should have been, resulting in the “one in 12” figure also being smaller than it would have been, had the illegal immigrant population figure been added to the overall population figure. The publication said this was due to human error, but that it was an error of “statistical detail”, as opposed to an error which fundamentally altered the meaning of the article. The publication said that, in light of this, the article ought to have reported that there were “up to one in 13” illegal migrants in London.

28. During IPSO’s investigation, the publication supplied a map of the Thames Water Resource Zone. The map showed a red line distinguishing the Resource Zone from London. The Zone covered the majority of central London but did not cover parts of Greater London, such as Dagenham or Harrow. The Zone also included areas which were not located within Greater London, such as Watford, Hemel Hempstead, and St Albans,

29. Turning to the complainant’s concern that the estimates of illegal migrants included individuals with indefinite leave to remain and children born to illegal migrants, the publication stated that this was a matter of debate for Pew Research Centre, and did not mean the article under complaint was inaccurate. It said it understood that these groups were included in the estimates from Pew Research Centre – which meant that they would have been referred to in the Thames Water report. It said the complainant was not disputing that the publication had reported on the research accurately.

30. The publication also referred to a report from Pew Research Centre from November 2019 which, it said, listed children born in the UK with irregular status, or children who do not have an authorised immigration status, as “unauthorised immigrants” in its “terminology” section. It also referred to an analysis from Migrant Observatory in 2020, which also noted that Pew Research Centre does not include people with indefinite leave to remain as part of its “legal resident population”. Given this, the publication did not consider that it was significantly inaccurate to include these groups of people in its calculations for the number of illegal migrants in London.

31. Further, it also cited a 2025 Briefing paper from Migrant Observatory, which stated: “There are four main ways for a person to become an unauthorised migrant in the UK […] 4. Being born in the UK to parents who are unauthorised migrants, because the UK does not have birthright citizenship”. The publication later supplied all of these documents to IPSO.

32. At any rate, the publication considered that the matter had been corrected. The correction had made clear: that the population of London is around 9 million; the original article was based on the population of the Thames Water Resource Zone, which was around 7 million; that the “upper bound” figure had been used to calculate the “one in 12” figure; that the correct position was that “up to 1 in 13” people were illegal migrants; and that individuals with indefinite leave to remain and children born to parents with unauthorised legal status were included in the estimated number of illegal migrants in the UK.

33. The publication also considered that the corrections had been published with due prominence, as required by the terms of the Editors’ Code. It said they were published in the normal and established way, that was known to its readers – in its Corrections and clarifications columns, and as a footnote to the online article.

34. The publication also reiterated that the error was a statistical one – it had inaccurately reported “one in 12”, as opposed to “one in 13” – and its position was that the inaccuracy did not undermine the central thrust of the article.

35. In response, the complainant noted that – had the figure been correctly calculated in the manner set out by the publication - the range would have been between “one in 13” and “one in 19”. He said, however, “between one in 13 and one in 19” was not the same as “up to one in 13” – he considered the latter statement was less misleading, and should have been made clear in the corrections. 

36. Further, the complainant said that the article referred to “London”, in the headline, as well as the “whole of London” and “the capital” in the text – this was not, he said, “remotely the same thing” as the Thames Water London Water Resource Zone, which does not cover large parts of London, and covers areas that are not London. He said this was not made clear in the correction.

37. Regarding the inclusion of individuals with indefinite leave to remain and children without regular migration status in its figures for those who were illegal migrants, the complainant accepted that these individuals were included in the research from Pew Research. Therefore, he said he considered the publication had taken care over the accuracy of this particular reference. He maintained, however, that this was significantly inaccurate and misleading to categorise these groups of people as “illegal migrants” – for the reasons referenced above – and said the correction was not explicit on this point.

38. In support of his position regarding children born to parents with unauthorised legal status, he cited the “official definition” for an illegal immigrant as set out by the UN: “A person who moves to a country other than that of his or her usual residence for a period of at least a year”. He also cited the Home Office website’s definition for indefinite leave to remain: “Indefinite leave to remain is how you settle in the UK... It gives you the right to live, work and study here for as long as you like, and apply for benefits if you’re eligible”.

Relevant Clause Provisions

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

39. The Committee recognised, from the outset, that there was not an official count of how many illegal migrants reside in London. Neither the publication, nor the complainant, were able to provide this information, for which no confirmed and official statistics appeared to exist – the Thames Water report, and consequently the article, were based on estimates.

40. Committee was clear that the publication was entitled to report upon the information from the Thames Water report. Doing so did not represent a failure to take care in and of itself; the publication was not responsible for the accuracy of the data contained within the report and the article made clear it was based on the findings of this report. However, the publication was required to take care not to report on the Thames Water findings in a way that was inaccurate, misleading, or distorted. It was also required to correct any significant inaccurate or misleading information it published.

41. The “one in 12” claim was not included in the report – rather, the publication had calculated it using the estimates the report provided. By its own admission, it has done so inaccurately. It had failed to add the estimated migrant population to the overall population it had based the article upon. In addition, it had not taken account of the fact, in its reporting, that the report was based on the population of the Thames Water London Water Resource Zone - rather than of London itself. This represented a failure to take care on the part of the publication – and had resulted in the publication of inaccurate information, which had appeared in the headline, and on the front page, of the newspaper. 

42. The Committee also noted that the headline referred to “one in 12” in London being an illegal migrant - it was not made clear that this was, in fact, “up to one in 12”, based on the publication’s calculations. The Committee considered that this also represented a failure to take care. While the article went on to report that “London is home to as many as 585,000 illegal migrants”, it considered that reporting that “[o]ne in 12 in London is illegal migrant”in the headline – rather than up to one in 12 - was misleading. This was because it gave the misleading impression that it had been established by the figures given in the report that this was the definitive position – rather than the highest estimated figure.

43. For these reasons, the Committee considered that the publication of the “one in 12” claim – both in the headline and the text of the article - constituted a lack of care of the publication’s part. While it was entitled to rely upon the Thames Water report, the Committee did not consider that it had taken due care in its presentation of the report’s findings. There was a breach of Clause 1 (i).

44. The publication had also included individuals with indefinite leave to remain, and children born to parents of unauthorised legal status, within the estimated “illegal migrant” population. The complainant had said that doing so was inaccurate.

45. However, the Committee was satisfied that, on this point, the publication had accurately reported the estimates provided by the report, which had included both of these categories of individuals within the “illegal migrant” population. The complainant disagreed with this categorisation, and the Committee's view was that, ordinarily understood, the term illegal immigrant was not apt to describe those with indefinite leave to remain. However, the publication was not responsible for the accuracy of the original report. Rather, it was responsible for ensuring it accurately reported on the contents of the report, and did not present it in an inaccurate, misleading, or distorted manner. Given this, there was no breach of Clause 1 (i) on this point.

46. The Committee then turned to Clause 1 (ii). The Committee recognised that, although the “one in 12” claim was an inaccurate and misleading interpretation of the Thames Water report, there was some basis for the claim provided within the article.

47. Despite this, the Committee considered that the misleading headline was significant – the estimated population of “illegal migrants” within London was an important matter of both social and political concern and discussion. The “one in 12” claim had also appeared in the headlines of both articles – and the front page of the print newspaper - increasing its prominence and visibility to a reader. For these reasons, the headline required correction, as per the terms of Clause 1 (ii).

48. The publication had published an online correction on 31 January, both as a footnote to the online article, and as a standalone correction in its Corrections and clarifications column. It also amended the text of the article to accompany this, and to remove the “one in 12” claim. The following day, it had published a correction in print, also in its Corrections and Clarifications column.

49. Where the corrections had all been published within three days of IPSO making the newspaper aware that the complaint raised a possible breach of the Editors’ Code, the Committee was satisfied that this represented prompt action on the publication’s part. 

50. Committee then turned to the wording of the corrections, and their prominence. As noted above, it did not consider itself, the complainant, or the publication, in a position to definitively rule how many “illegal migrants” live within London.

51.  However, the corrections did set out the basis on which the publication had reached its calculations, as well as the errors in its original calculations. They clarified that the population figure utilised was the Thames Water Resource Zone, as opposed to the population of London itself. They also clarified that the publication had used the maximum estimated figure in its calculations. Further, they also made clear that its calculated figure should have been “up to one in 13”.

52. Finally, the Committee considered the prominence of the corrections. The Committee generally requires that corrections appear on the same page, or further forward, than where the original inaccuracy appeared – though, on occasion, other factors may mean that a more or less prominent location is required.

53. In respect of the print article, the inaccurate information had appeared on the front page of the print newspaper. The Committee had regard, however, that front page corrections or front-page flags to corrections are generally reserved for the most serious of breaches. In this case, given the prompt steps taken by the publication to put the correct position on the record, the Committee did not consider that this represented such a breach. The Committee also recognised that a publication’s corrections and clarifications column will often represent due prominence, given it is the position in which a reader would expect a correction to appear.

54. In these circumstances, the Committee was satisfied that the position of the correction represented due prominence. Although it had appeared further back in the newspaper, it was in the position a reader would expect to find it.

55. With respect to the online article, the Committee recognised that the inaccuracy appeared within the headline, and the text. However, as the inaccurate information had been removed from the article, and a footnote correction added – with a standalone correction also published in the appropriate column – the Committee was again satisfied that this represented due prominence.

56. For these reasons, the Committee was satisfied that the action taken by the publication had put the correct position on record, and sufficiently addressed the terms of Clause 1 (ii). There was no further breach of Clause 1 (ii).

Conclusions

57. The complaint was partly upheld under Clause 1 (i).

Remedial action required

58. The published corrections put the correct position on record and were offered promptly and with due prominence. No further action was required.

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.

Date complaint received: 23/01/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 06/06/2025