00510-25 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 plot to ‘fleece’ savers by killing off Cash Isas triggers fury”, published on 8 February 2025.

2. The article – which appeared online only – was an opinion piece. The article said: “City fund managers want Labour to take a knife to the nation’s Cash ISAs.” In addition to this, the article reported that, “[i]n a meeting with Reeves, [City fund managers] argued that if some of the £300 billion sitting in Cash ISAs was diverted into Stocks and Shares ISAs, it would give UK PLC a real boost.” It then said “[a]larmingly, Reeves seems receptive” to this idea, and “[s]he’s desperate to revive the economy after giving it the kiss of death. Pushing savers to invest their hard-earned money in UK businesses might help. She’s not the only Labour Minister who's keen. City Minister Emma Reynolds has complained that ‘hundreds of billions of pounds are sitting in Cash ISAs rather than being funnelled into the stock market.’”

3. It then said:

“It feels like a concerted attack. Especially with Reeves looking to divert our pension surpluses into UK shares too.

Our ISAs are under assault. Reeves has already frozen the annual allowance until 2030. Labour’s new Pensions Minister Torsten Bell has called for total ISA contributions to be capped at £100,000. More attacks seem inevitable as Reeves scrambles to balance the books. Ironically, ISAs were originally a Labour idea. Former Chancellor Gordon Brown launched them in 1999. Unlike most of his policies, this one remains popular. More than 12 million take out ISAs yearly. Roughly half of pensioners have one.ISA savings are tax-free for life. This costs the Treasury billions in lost tax revenues. With the nation’s finances in dire straits, they want their hands on it.”

4. The article closed by saying: “Labour attacks clearly aren't going to stop. ISAs will be whittled away, little by little.”

5. The complainant said that the article was headline was not supported by the text of the article, and was inaccurate, in breach of Clause 1. He acknowledged that the article was an opinion piece, but did not consider the text of the article supported the headline claim that Rachel Reeves was involved in a “plot” – he said there was “nothing in the article to even hint at cash ISAs being killed off”. The complainant also said that there was evidence to support the article’s claim that Ms Reeves ”appeared receptive” when the idea was put to her.

6. The publication – which was made aware of the complainant’s concerns on 11 March 2025 - did not accept the headline claim was inaccurate or unsupported by the text of the article. It told the complainant that the “plot” referenced in the headline was regarding the “killing off” of Cash ISAs. It said that the use of the phrase “plot” was an expression of the author’s opinion that Ms Reeves wanted to “kill off” Cash ISAs - which it said he was entitled to express. The publication said that, when preparing the article, the author was mindful of steps already taken by Ms Reeves which he felt supported his view that there was a “plot”, namely that she had already frozen the ISA annual allowance until 2030. The publication also noted that, in 2016, Ms Reeves had written an article for another publication, in which she had said there should be a lifetime Cash ISA cap of £500,000 – the publication considered this was an openly expressed view geared towards limiting cash ISAs. The publication also referenced other individuals in the Labour party who it said had called for changes to Cash ISAs.

7. In relation to the claim that Ms Reeves seemed “receptive” to the idea of diverting funds from Cash ISAs to Stocks and Shares ISAs, the publication said it had relied on an article published by another publication when making this claim. It said this reported that a person in attendance at the meeting with the Chancellor had said that she did not reject the idea of diverting funds from Cash ISAs to Stocks and Shares ISAs when it had been presented to her. The publication also said that the meaning of the word “receptive” was to be open to new suggestions or ideas – in light of this, it did not consider this was an inaccurate characterisation of Ms Reeves’ views.

8. The complainant did not consider that the fact that the annual ISA allowance had been frozen until 2030 was sufficient to support the view that she wanted to kill off Cash ISAs entirely. He acknowledged that MPs in the Labour Party had lobbied a reduction in the ISA allowance, but said that they had not lobbied to “kill off” cash ISAs.

9. The complainant acknowledged that an article from another publication claimed the Chancellor had not rejected the idea of diverting funds from Cash ISAs to Stocks and Shares ISAs when presented to her. However, the complainant noted that the other article also reported that "[p]eople close to the discussions said Reeves would be reluctant to change a popular form of savings, but the idea has not been ruled out”. The complainant said this showed that Ms Reeves was reluctant to change the Cash ISA scheme. The complainant maintained that this undermined the headline claim under complaint; the complainant did not consider that not ruling out an idea could be characterised as a “plot”.

10. In response, the publication argued that the article did not state as fact that Ms Reeves was “receptive” to “killing off cash ISAs”. However, in light of the complainant’s concerns, it amended the article to read as follows:

“Alarmingly, Reeves seems receptive. She reportedly did not dismiss the City firms' idea. She’s desperate to revive the economy after giving it the kiss of death. Pushing savers to invest their hard earned money in UK businesses might help”.

11. In addition to this, it published a correction, as a footnote to the article, on 3 April:

“We also previously stated that Rachel Reeves ‘seemed receptive’ to the idea of diverting potential savings from Cash ISAs to Stocks and Shares ISAs. We are happy to clarify that attendees at the meeting with the Chancellor claimed she had not dismissed the idea when presented with it. The article has been amended to include this detail”.

12. It also offered to amend the headline, as a gesture of goodwill, to state: "Rachel Reeves failure to rule out killing off Cash Isas triggers fury."

13. The complainant said that this would not resolve his concerns, as he wished for a correction to be published on 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

14. The Committee first considered whether the headline was inaccurate. It was mindful of the context of the article – a clearly distinguished comment piece - and acknowledged it was the publication’s position that the claim within the headline was the opinion of the article’s author, who held a negative view of the idea of diverting funds from Cash ISAs to Stocks and Shares ISAs and capping lifetime ISA contributions at £500,000.

15. The Committee acknowledged that the article did not reference a specific occasion in which Ms Reeves had expressed the view that Cash ISAs should be ‘killed off’. However, the Committee noted that the phrase “plot” held no one singular meaning, and the article set out its basis for characterising Ms Reeve’s actions and views in this way: it was the author’s view that Ms Reeve’s alleged receptiveness to the proposal put to her by bankers, along with statements from other Labour minister questioning the efficacy of Cash ISAs and the freezing of annual allowances until 2030, “feels like a concerted attack”.

16. The complainant had said that the measures referenced in the article – such as freezing allowances, or capping ISA contributions, did not amount to “killing off” Cash ISAs – and therefore, there could not be any plot to do so. However, the Committee noted that the article, in its closing, set out the author’s conjecture that “ISAs will be whittled away, little by little”. This followed the author’s view that “our ISAs are under assault”. The Committee therefore considered that, when read as a whole, the article made clear it was the author’s view that the actions described in the article, and which were either already in place or were being considered, would amount to “killing off” Cash ISAs. Making such accounts less attractive would, in the author’s view, “whittle” them away “little by little”, effectively killing them off.

In such circumstances, the text of the article supported the headline claim and there was no breach of Clause 1.

17. The Committee turned next to whether the article inaccurately reported that Ms Reeves s “seems receptive” to “killing off Cash ISAs” in the form of diverting money from Cash ISAs into Stocks and Shares ISAs. In this case, however, the Committee considered the claim was clearly characterised as the author’s opinion of how open Ms Reeves was to changing the current system, given the article said she “seem[ed] receptive” – it did not report, as fact, that she was receptive. Rather, it was made clear that this was the columnist’s perception of Ms Reeve’s response when the proposal was put to her. This was clearly distinguished as the columnist’s view, and there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

Conclusions

18. The complaint not upheld.

Remedial action required

19. N/A

Date complaint received: 09/02/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 13/08/2025