00421-25 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 “We have no clue how many people live in Britain – and Starmer doesn’t care”, published on 24 January 2025.

2. The article appeared on page 14 of the newspaper, under the title “Comment” and the name, and a photograph of, its author. It included the sub-headline: “The news that one in 12 people in London is an illegal migrant is likely to be an under-estimate”.

3. The article then opened by reporting:

- I’m too easily surprised. When I last wrote on immigration back in the autumn I said I was ‘gobsmacked’ by the high legal migration ­ figures. Well, I was gobsmacked again yesterday morning when I read this newspaper’s front page, this time on illegal immigration. That as many as one in 12 people in London might be illegal immigrants is already shocking enough. The truth is, though, it might be worse than that.

- very difficult to be sure how many illegal immigrants there are in Britain. The Pew Research Centre put the number at 800,000 to 1.2 million in 2017. The consultancy study commissioned by Thames Water and reported this morning estimates the numbers in London based on the earlier study.”

4. Further to this, the article reported:

- problem is, those numbers are for 2017. The worrying thing is that the real numbers may be higher by now. […]

- difficult to know for sure what’s going on because the Home Office has given up counting. In 2020 they stopped publishing statistics related to exit checks on people leaving the country. They haven’t started them again. So no one outside the Home Office, and possibly no one within it either, actually knows how many people with a visa don’t leave.

5. The article also appeared online, in substantially the same format. This version was published on 23 January.

6. Also on 23 January, the publication had published a front-page article in print headlined: “One in 12 in London is illegal migrant”. This was the news article which the article under complaint referenced as “the newspaper’s front-page […] on illegal immigration”.

7. On 23 January, following the publication of the news article, the complainant complained to IPSO that the article, and the headline in particular, breached Clause 1.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.”

11. On 3 February, the complainant complained to IPSO about the comment article – which forms the basis of this decision. He again said that the statement that “one in 12 people in London is an illegal immigrant” was inaccurate. He also said that the research referenced by the comment article did not refer to London; the correct figure was “between one in 13 and one in 23”; and the estimates inaccurately included children born in the United Kingdom to parents who do not have authorised immigration status, and individuals with indefinite leave to remain.

12. On 5 February – one day after the complainant made it aware of his concerns regarding the comment article - the publication published the following correction in its online Corrections and clarifications column:

- an article ‘We have no clue how many people live in Britain - and Starmer doesn’t care’ (Jan,23) 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.”

13. It also amended the subheadline to say: “up to one in 13 people in London is an illegal immigrant”, and amended the text of the article to refer to “one in 13 people in London”. It also published the following as a footnote to the article:

“CORRECTION: 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”.

14. On 12 February, it also published the following correction in print, in its Corrections and clarifications column, on page 2 of the newspaper:

- an article “We have no clue how many people live in Britain – and Starmer doesn’t care” (Jan 23) 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, and 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.”

15. 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 “one in 12” claim was inaccurate, and said this was a result of a statistical error which arose in the publication of the news article.

16. In respect of the comment article, 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.

17. 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.

18. Turning to the original news article – which was referenced in the comment article under complaint - 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, which was then referenced by the article under complaint.

19. 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.

20. 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 or Sutton.

21. 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 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, and the complainant was not disputing that the publication had reported on the research inaccurately.

22. 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.

23. 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.

24. 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.

25. 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”.

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

26. The fact that the article under complaint was published in response to the news article was clear – its subheading directly referred to the “news that one in 12 people in London is an illegal migrant”, while its text went on to make clear the writer’s view that he was: “gobsmacked again yesterday morning when [he] read this newspaper’s front page, this time on illegal immigration”.

27. The publication was entitled to report on the columnist’s response to its front-page story, provided the Code was not otherwise breached. It was not a factual report on migration within the United Kingdom, nor was the columnist reporting the “one in 12” figure as fact. Rather, he was commenting on the inherent ambiguity regarding how many people – including illegal migrants – reside in Britain, in light of the publication’s previous coverage. For example, the article went on to comment: “It’s very difficult to be sure how many illegal immigrants there are in Britain”. It also noted that the Home Office had “given up counting”.

28. Further, the article went on to express the columnist’s view that the “one in 12” claim may not be accurate. The text of the article stated that as many as one in 12 people in London “might” be an illegal immigrant – and the columnist went on to set out his personal view that this number may be outdated, and in reality, higher than the publication had previously claimed. The Committee did not consider that this argument, central to the article, was undermined by the “one in 12” claim.

29. On the basis of these factors, the Committee did not consider that the article was inaccurate, misleading, or distorted. There was no breach of Clause 1, although the Committee welcomed that the publication had taken action to correct the article regardless.

Conclusions

30. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

N/A

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: 03/02/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 06/06/2025