00351-25 Portes v telegraph.co.uk

Summary of Complaint

1. Jonathan Portes complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that telegraph.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined: “Enough learnt helplessness. Here’s how Britain ends illegal migration”, published on 24 January 2025.

2. The article was a comment piece which appeared online only. It opened by reporting:

- could be home to over half a million illegal immigrants, according to a confidential report. The study, commissioned by Thames Water, comes after years of speculation that the true size of the British population might be much higher than is officially recognised. Levels of sewage produced, electricity used, the amount of food bought, active SIM cards and individual vaccinations during Covid all suggest there is a significant hidden population living here.

- is a sobering thought that every Londoner will walk past several illegal immigrants every single day, given that they make up one in 12 of people in our capital city.”

3. Further to this, the article reported: “As illegal immigrants do not pay taxes and are often willing to live in squalor that would not be acceptable to British workers, they can undercut the labour market and degrade the housing market.”

4. On 23 January, the day prior to the comment article’s publication, the publication had published a front-page news article in print headlined “One in 12 in London is illegal migrant”.

5. On the same day, following the publication of the news article, the complainant complained to IPSO. The complainant complained to IPSO that the news article, and the headline in particular, breached Clause 1.

6. 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 news article’s headline statement was inaccurate and misleading – the correct position was that between one in 23, and one in 15, would be an illegal migrant. He said that the headline “grossly and deliberately” misrepresented data.”

7. He also said, citing research by Migrant Observatory, that the Pew Research Centre’s estimates – whose analysis was used in the report central to the news 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.

8. On 31 January, in relation to the news article, the newspaper published a form of the following correction as a footnote to the online version of the news article, and in its online Corrections and clarifications column. It also published it in its print Corrections and clarifications column the following day:

- 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.”

9. On 30 January, the complainant complained to IPSO about the comment article. For the reasons stated in his original complaint, as set out above, he complained that the statement “[i]t is a sobering thought that every Londoner will walk past several illegal immigrants every single day, given that they make up one in 12 of people in our capital city” was inaccurate.

10. On 3 February, IPSO made the publication aware that the complainant’s complaint regarding the comment article raised a possible breach of the Editor’s Code. On 4 February, the publication contacted the complainant, and said that it had corrected the article. It amended the disputed extract to read: “It is a sobering thought that Londoners will walk past several illegal immigrants every single day, given that they make up to one in 13 of people in the Thames Water London Water Resource Zone“. It also published the following correction, as a footnote to the article:

In a previous version of this article it was stated that one in 12 people in London is an illegal migrant. This was incorrect. The figure is up to one in 13 in the Thames Water London Water Resource Zone, which does not cover the whole of London. We are happy to correct the record.”

11. The same day, it also published a standalone correction in its online Corrections and clarifications column:

- an article ‘Enough learnt helplessness. Here’s how Britain ends illegal immigration’ (Jan, 24) it was stated that one in 12 people in London is an illegal migrant. The figure is up to one in 13 in the Thames Water London Water Resource Zone, which does not cover the whole of London. We are happy to correct the record.”

12. The complainant objected to this. He considered the publication had acted in bad faith, as it had published the correction without choosing to engage with him in correspondence. He also said that the correction was inadequate, as it failed to address several errors “admitted” by the publication, notably the inclusion individuals with indefinite leave to remain and child born to parents with unauthorised legal status when calculating the number of illegal migrants in the UK.

13. On 5 February, the complainant also disputed the line “illegal immigrants do not pay taxes” – he said this was not the case. In support of his position, he cited research from the Greater London Authority, and an article in the BBC, published in 2010, titled “The tax-paying illegal workers living in London”. He also stated that “all irregular migrants pay VAT and other consumption taxes”. The complainant said that this too needed correction.

14. On 10 March, IPSO began a formal investigation into the article. During this investigation, the publication did not accept a breach of the Editors’ Code. It accepted, however, that the “1 in 12” claim was inaccurate, and said this was a result of a statistical error which arose in the publication of the news article, which the article under complaint was commenting on.

15. Turning to the article under complaint, the publication stated that it was a comment piece, published after and in response to the news article. It therefore included the statistical error from the news article that it was commenting on. The publication said, however, that the statistical error did not undermine the essential thrust of the comment article, which concerned the reported high level of illegal immigrants in the London area.

16. The publication also considered that the comment article had been sufficiently corrected and amended, given the corrections it had already published as set out above. It did not consider it necessary for the correction to reference the inclusion of individuals with indefinite leave to remain, or child born to parents with authorised legal status, in the correction in question – it said this clarification was not “appropriate, necessary or proportionate” in the context of a statistical error in a comment piece commenting on an earlier news article. It also noted that the correction, in its online Corrections and clarifications column, appeared alongside its correction to the news article, which contained the reference, and was therefore easily visible for a reader.

17. Turning to the original news article, 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 news article: “390,355 illegal migrants at its lowest to 585,533 at its highest, with a median figure of 487,944”. The publication said that it had used the upper bound figure to calculate the “one in 12” figure in the news article.

18. 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. 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 migrant population figure been added to the overall population figure. The publication said this was due to human error, but said it was an error of “statistical detail”, as opposed to an error which fundamentally altered the meaning of the article under complaint. 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.

19. During IPSO’s investigation, the publication supplied a map of the Thames Water Resource Zone, taken from the Thames Water Final Water Resources Management Plan 2019. 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 and Sutton.

20. 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 – which had produced the original data - and did not mean the article was inaccurate. It said it was 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 also noted that the complainant was not disputing that the publication had reported on the research inaccurately.

21. 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.

22. Further, it 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.

23. Regarding the complainant’s concern that the article inaccurately reported that “illegal immigrants do not pay taxes”, the publication first stated that the article was not an “analysis of the work and tax status of all illegal immigrants in the UK”. It said the starting position is that, given illegal immigrants are not allowed to work in the United Kingdom, they do not pay tax.

24. Further, it commented that the BBC article supplied by the complainant, which quoted one individual identified as an illegal immigrant who pays tax, did not amount to evidence which would undermine the position set out in the comment article. Further, it noted that the Greater London Authority paper included the following extract which, again, it did not consider disproved its position: “Evidence from the USA (which 13 seems to be the closest comparable case) indicates that many (perhaps a half of) irregular migrants already pay income tax and the equivalent of national insurance. Some regression analyses with UK evidence suggest a similar pattern may apply here too”.

25. The publication also stated that the complainant’s contention that illegal migrants pay VAT and consumption taxes was “stretching the concept of paying taxes” – it said the statement in the article clearly related to payment of work-related taxes.

26. In response, the complainant disputed that the correction had sufficiently corrected the record. 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. Further, the complainant said that correction did not make clear that the Thames Water Resource Zone was very different – both in terms of geography and population – to London.

27. Further, he stated that the correction did not mention that the estimates included two categories of people who are not illegal migrants. He also maintained that the article was significantly inaccurate and misleading on this point. 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”.

28. The complainant also commented the article had not been corrected until he had made subsequent complaints to IPSO, despite his original complaint being ongoing.

29. Regarding the disputed reference to illegal immigrants paying taxes, the complainant disputed the publication’s argument. The complainant also supplied a number of further articles to demonstrate that illegal immigrants do, indeed, pay taxes – these articles included an individual in the United Kingdom’s personal account of paying tax from her salary due to working with “another person’s documents”; a paper written by the complainant and another academic titled “The Impact of Regularisation”, which included an analysis of the extent to which regularising immigrants can impact tax revenues; and an analysis from the Institute of Taxation and Economic Policy regarding the contribution of undocumented immigrants to federal, state and local taxes in the USA. 

30. Finally, he also stated that many illegal immigrants pay taxes via PAYE, such as if they were employed legally but their right to reside in the UK had since expired.

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 Complaints Committee

31. The Committee began with the disputed “one in 12” claim. It 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 original news article, were based on estimates.

32. The Committee was clear that the publication was entitled to report upon the information from the Thames Water report in relation to its original news story - and in its subsequent coverage of this news article. However, the publication was still required to take care not to print inaccurate or misleading information, and to correct significantly inaccurate or misleading information – the fact the comment piece was reported in response to the front page did not, in of itself, absolve the publication of these obligations.

33. The “one in 12” claim was not included in the original Thames Water 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 news 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.

34. The Committee also noted that the article referred to “one in 12” in London being an illegal immigrant - 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. Where the article specifically also omitted the range of possible estimates, 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.

35. The Committee also took into account that it did not appear the publication had conducted further research, or attempted to verify the statement, beyond relying on the inaccurate information it had previously reported.

36. For these reasons, the Committee considered that the publication of the “one in 12” claim in the comment 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 in the first instance – the replication of this inaccurate claim constituted a further failure to take due care, where it again led to the publication of inaccurate information. There was a breach of Clause 1 (i).

37. 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 used to calculate the “one in 12” figure The complainant had said that doing so was inaccurate.

38. However, the Committee was satisfied that, on this point, the original Thames Water report had included both of these categories of individuals within the “illegal migrant” population. While 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 – the publication was not responsible for the accuracy of the Thames Water 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. There was no breach of Clause 1 (i) on this point.

39. The Committee then turned to whether the inaccuracy was significant, and in need of correction. The Committee considered that the estimated population of “illegal migrants” within London was an important matter of both social and political concern and discussion. For this reason, the article required correction, as per the terms of Clause 1 (ii).

40. The publication had published an online correction on 4 February as a footnote to the online article. It also amended the text of the article to accompany this, and to remove the “one in 12” claim.

41. Where the corrections had been published within two 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. 

42. The 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 say how many “illegal migrants” live within London. However, the corrections did clarify that the population figure utilised was the Thames Water Resource Zone, as opposed to the population of London itself. They also made clear that its calculated figure should have been “up to one in 13” – the correct position, on the basis of the publication’s interpretation of the Thames Water report. The Committee was satisfied, therefore, that the corrections put the correct position on record.

43. Finally, the Committee considered the prominence of the correction. The Committee recognised that the inaccuracy appeared as a solitary reference within the text of the article. The article had been amended to remove the inaccuracy, and a correction added as a footnote. Where this was the case, and the publication also published a standalone correction in the appropriate column, the Committee was satisfied that this represented due prominence.

44. 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).

45. The Committee then turned to the complainant’s concern that the article had inaccurately reported that illegal immigrants “do not pay taxes”. It noted the information supplied by the complainant – this included a number of studies in support of his position.  

46. The Committee took this into account – it also considered, however, the context of the article. The disputed reference formed part of a longer piece, and, crucially, the Committee considered it was concerned with taxes paid by employed individuals specifically – rather than consumption taxes, such as Value Added Tax - given the article went on to discuss “the labour market” in relation to this point. The Committee considered there sufficient basis for the columnist’s view that illegal migrants do not pay said taxes – it considered his point was broad, and not necessarily disproven by the existence of isolated examples to the contrary, such as those supplied by the complainant. The overall point being made – that people who are illegally resident in the UK will not face the same tax burdens as legal residents – did not appear to be in dispute. It did not find a breach of Clause 1 on this point.

Conclusions

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

Remedial action required

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

Date complaint received: 30/01/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 06/06/2025

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.