00529-24 Universities UK and the Russell Group v The Sunday Times

Summary of Complaint

1. Universities UK and the Russell Group complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Sunday Times breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 10 (Clandestine devices and subterfuge) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Cash for courses”, published on 28 January 2024.

2. The article appeared on page 8 of the newspaper, under the title “Investigation” and the sub-headlines: “Back-door route into best universities for overseas students with low grades” and “While Britons need straight As to get onto prestigious Russell Group degree courses, their international classmates can buy their way in through secret ‘pathways’”.

3. It opened by reporting on an undercover exercise conducted at Exeter University by reporters posing as parents of prospective students. It reported that the reporters “were told their children could both secure places at Exeter because of special pathway courses open to only foreign students. Despite their grades, they could take the course, and within a year both could be studying for a degree at the university. ‘I think, generally speaking, you don’t have to worry too much about how difficult it is. We do have these successful progression rates,’ one staff member said.”

4. The article subsequently reported a number of quotes provided by employees of a recruitment agency associated with Exeter University, whom the publication’s reporters had been “advised to speak to”. This included:

“Some of the students are referred to the company after failing to obtain the necessary grades in the Ucas system. ‘We work really closely with the international team at the University of Exeter,’ [a named employee] explained. ‘If a student doesn’t quite meet the [required standard of English language] or the total requirements etc, they will refer them on to us.’

[…]

The exams appeared to be a formality. ‘We do have a very high progression rate for International Year One ... Last year for certain countries it was 100 per cent. Overall it was 93 per cent,’ she said.

[…]

There was an exam to pass at the end of the foundation course, but [a named employee] said: ‘I think, generally speaking, you don’t have to worry too much about how difficult it is. We do have these successful progression rates.’”

5. The article also reported: “They [the publication’s reporters] had discovered that thousands of foreign students with poor academic grades are obtaining places at some of Britain’s top universities. These institutions are paying middlemen to recruit wealthy foreign students on to two types of ‘pathway’ courses which give privileged access to highly competitive degree courses“. Further to this, it noted: “[o]verseas students can apply with English or the equivalent foreign qualifications and the requirements for both are much lower via the pathways. “

6. The article also reported on statistics from the Higher Education Statistics Agency, reporting that “overseas students take a third of all UK university places […] This trend was particularly pronounced at the Russell Group universities. In the decade before the pandemic, they boosted their numbers of lucrative foreign entrants by 21,000 while the number of UK entrants fell by 15,000. This contributed to the biggest rejection rate of domestic applicants yet recorded in 2022, with four out of ten UK candidates turned away”.

7. Further to this, the article reported that an employee from “Egyptian-owned British Educational Services Group”: “described how the company had put 8,000 students through International Foundation courses in recent years and 97 per cent of them had progressed to UK universities […] He said: “The [pathways] are only for international students. British students don’t have this kind of privilege”. The article then reported: “the reporter asked why the universities offered the pathway option for international students: was it ‘because they want to get more money’? [A named employee] replied: ‘Exactly. And to be honest with you … this is the main reason.’”

8. Finally, the article included responses from multiple universities, as well as the complainants. It reported “[l]ast week Durham University […] declined to comment”, as well as a “joint statement [from] the Russell Group universities” which ”said several universities provided similar pathways for UK students with ‘under-represented backgrounds’”.

9. The print article also included images of three recruitment agents named in the article.

10. The article also included a graphic, titled: “UNEVEN PLAYING FIELD”. The graphic listed the grade “[e]ntry requirements for an economics degree” at a number of Russell Group universities, under three subset of students: “UK students”; “Overseas students: Foundation course, aged 18+ (A-Levels)”; and “Overseas students: Foundation course, aged 16 or 17 (GCSEs)”.

11. The article also appeared online, in substantively the same format, under the headline: “Cash for courses: top universities recruit foreign students on low grades”. This version was published on 27 January 2024.

12. The online article opened by reporting: “Britain’s top universities are paying middlemen to recruit lucrative overseas students on far lower grades than those required of UK applicants, an undercover investigation has revealed. Foreign students can buy their way on to highly competitive degree courses with as little as a handful of C grades at GCSE. The courses require British students to have A or A* grades at A-level”.

13. Further to this, the online article reported:

“The special pathways — which are called International Foundation and International Year One — purport to provide an extra year of tuition after school to help students catch up with their UK counterparts.

International Foundation is a one-year course at the end of which students are moved on to the university’s full undergraduate course. Most of the universities allow overseas students to start studying the pathway course aged 16 or 17.

On International Year One, students take the course as an alternative to the degree’s first year before moving straight into year two of the undergraduate programme.

Neither of the two pathways is available to British students. Students on the pathways have to pass exams at the end of the year before joining the undergraduate degrees. However, the universities’ recruitment officials admitted that the exams were so easy that passing was a formality”.

14. The online article also included the same graphic as the print article, as well as a second graphic, titled: “How the courses compare”; this compared the entry requirements, fees, and course length for standard UCAS entry to UK undergraduate courses with two different International Foundation courses: International Foundation and International Year One. Under the heading “Course”, it stated that: standard UCAS degrees “start in year one”; International Foundation courses had an “[a]dditional year of tuition. Start degree in year one”; and International Year One had “[o]ne year of tuition. Start degree in year two.”

15. Between 22 January and 25 January, prior to the article’s publication, the publication wrote to several universities, requesting their comment on the story. Its email to the majority opened with the following, before detailing specific questions for each respective University.

“We are writing an article for this weekend’s Sunday Times (January 28th, 2024) that will highlight the use of international pathways - International Foundation and International Year One - by Russell Group universities to attract students from overseas. The article will report that shortfalls in funding are leading universities to increase their numbers of foreign students as they pay higher tuition fees.

“It will say that these pathways allow students to enter the universities with much lower exam qualifications than those required from UK students who apply through the UCAS system and have no access to these alternative routes. This creates an inequality with UK students being turned away even though they have higher grades.”

16. On 24 January Durham University wrote to the publication. Their email opened with: “The following response is not for publication. You have asked us to respond to information supplied, on a factual basis. We are providing the response below for your background and consideration, not publication”.

17. On the same date, Russell Group responded to the publication, and provided a response to “share the rationale behind these programmes”. Its statement included the following:

“The latest UCAS data shows domestic student numbers at Russell Group universities are rising faster than international student numbers. […] In addition, many of our universities run foundation programmes and similar pathways for UK students, designed to support students from underrepresented backgrounds to access higher education. Given the wide range of routes to university, our members provide targeted support to help students from all backgrounds to succeed on their courses.”

18. On 4 February, in an email sent to the publication, Universities UK stated: “the agents filmed by your undercover reporters are not employed by and do not represent the views of UK universities in any way”.

19. On 2 February, the complainants complained to IPSO. Their complaint was not submitted on behalf of any of the recruitment agencies reported on in the article, or any of the individuals who had been filmed or pictured. During the course of IPSO’s investigation, the complainants detailed their relationship with the recruitment agencies - none of the individuals quoted, named or pictured were direct employees of any of the respective universities or the complainants themselves.

20. The complainants said the article breached Clause 1 because it was based on a misleading comparison between undergraduate degree entry requirements and entry requirements for International Foundation courses. They said that this was not a “like-for-like” comparison; International Foundation programmes were different to degree programmes, with separate admissions processes and different entry requirements.

21. The complainants also said that the article inaccurately reported that, at the end of the International Foundation courses, students “are moved on to the university's full undergraduate course”. They stated that the foundation programmes did not guarantee entry to degree courses, and that 20-25% of students did not progress to degree courses at the same university. They also said that, in order to progress to the full undergraduate course, students were required to complete exams at the end of the foundation course which met the universities’ entry requirements. Therefore, it was misleading to claim that acceptance onto a foundation programme meant that a student could access full undergraduate programmes directly, or that access to a full degree can be ‘bought’ via a foundation programme.

22. In addition, they also stated that the article misleadingly implied special treatment for international students over their domestic counterparts - they said that similar foundation year programmes were available for UK students, and that this was only mentioned at the end of the article.

23. The complainants stated that the publication had set out to “portray the institutions as secretive and uncooperative” because it fitted with the narrative of the article. They said that the article misleadingly suggested that the foundation programmes and their entry requirements were secret – they said that information is published on university websites, but the International Foundation programmes were generally not advertised to UK students as they are unsuitable.

24. They also objected to the publication not revealing that it had conducted an undercover investigation when it approached them for comment. They said the publication had spoken to “third parties claiming to represent the position of those universities” – and by not notifying the complainants of its undercover reporting, it allowed a series of claims to be presented as facts, and to go “unchallenged” in the article. They said, had the universities been informed of the undercover filming, they would “considerably altered” the responses they provided pre-publication.

25. The complainants also stated that the publication had ignored the responses provided to it by the respective universities. Specifically, they said that the article reported that Durham University had declined to comment – this was inaccurate, they said, as the University had provided detailed answers prior to the article’s publication.

26. The complainants also stated that the article inaccurately reported that “in the decade before the pandemic” the number of UK students being accepted at Russell Group universities had dropped “significantly”, while admissions of overseas students “escalated rapidly”. They also disputed that the number of foreign students entering Russell Group universities rose by 21,000 while the number of UK entrants fell by 15,000 during this period. In their original complaint, they said that the number of UK domiciled first degree undergraduates admitted to Russell Group universities rose from 289,025 in 2010/11 to 326,830 in 2019/20, and that the number of all UK students admitted (including postgraduates) rose from 427,815 to 449,685 during the same period.

27. The complainants also complained that the publication breached Clause 10. They stated that the publication’s decision to go undercover was unjustified – the information obtained by the publication could have been obtained in other means, namely via press offices and publicly available information on university websites. They also reiterated that they were not informed prior to publication that the publication’s allegations had been obtained in this manner.

28. The publication did not accept a breach of the Editors’ Code. Regarding the complaint that the article conflated undergraduate degree entry requirements and entry requirements for International Foundation year courses, the publication stated that this was “simply wrong”. It said that the article, throughout, made clear their separate entry requirements and the different pathways they provide to a degree. It also stated that the question of whether they were a “like for like” comparison was immaterial: The international pathways provided a route to access degree programmes for “lower achieving” foreign students that was not available to UK students, and the publication’s investigation cast significant doubt that these students were required to meet the same academic standard as their UK counterparts.

29. The publication disputed that the article inaccurately reported that progression from the foundation courses is guaranteed, and omitted that students on the foundation pathways have to pass exams to transfer onto the full degree programme. It said this was reported in the article multiple times, in particular in the following line: “Students on the pathways have to pass exams at the end of the year before joining the undergraduate degrees”. It also stated that the complainant’s contention that 20% - 25% of students did not progress to the full undergraduate course at the same university did not mean that this percentage failed their exams – they may have dropped out for any reason, or transferred to another university.

30. Regarding the complainants’ concern that foundation programmes are also available for UK students and that the article did not make this sufficiently clear, the publication said that the two types of courses were fundamentally different. It said that, while International Foundation courses were available for all foreign students, UK Foundation courses were only open to students from deprived areas, disadvantaged backgrounds or under-represented ethnic or social groups.

31. The publication also disputed that it had set out the “portray the institutions as secretive and uncooperative”. It said there was a “considerable amount of secrecy” regarding the programmes – for example, figures regarding how many overseas students had been accepted on to universities’ undergraduate courses from foundation courses were not publicly available. Similarly, it said that many universities do not publish their international pathway grade requirements online – it had only discovered this information by going undercover, it said - whereas the direct degree requirements are readily available.

32. The publication did not accept that, by not disclosing that it had used undercover reporters prior to publication, it had breached Clause 1. It said it had written to every party it intended to name and gave the opportunity for them to respond – it was not obligated to reveal the source of its allegations when doing so. It also said its initial approaches for comment made perfectly clear the substance of the allegations.

33. Further, the publication stated that the article accurately reported that Durham University had not provided comment. It noted that the University’s email, sent to the publication before the article was published, opened with: “The following response is not for publication”.

34. Turning to the disputed admission figures, the publication said that it had obtained its statistics from the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) – the designated data provider for higher education. It supplied IPSO with its correspondence with HESA, along with the raw data supplied by HESA.

35. The publication also added that the complaint ignored the article’s reference to ”a decade before the pandemic” when reporting on the rise in student admissions. It said it used figures from this period because lockdown and travel restrictions caused by the Covid-19 pandemic distorted the numbers of overseas students, and therefore the pre-pandemic data provided a better indication of the long-term trend.

36. The publication also questioned the statistics provided by the complainants. It said they did not match the figures shown on the Russell Group’s own website - its “For Students” page stated: “Every year, more than 160,000 students from the UK and nearly 90,000 from the rest of the world choose to join the 320,000 students who are already studying at a Russell Group university”.

37. The publication denied a breach of Clause 10. It acknowledged that it had engaged in subterfuge. However, it said that it considered the article to be in the public interest, and set out the considerations and discussions it had had internally to determine whether engaging in undercover reporting was justified. They said their investigation begun with extensive background research, from which they concluded that neither the universities, nor the recruitment agents, would talk openly about the current recruitment practices. The decision to use undercover reporting was therefore taken to fully test the veracity of the concerns the publication had heard – the decision to use undercover reporting, and to film the recruitment agents via subterfuge, was signed off by senior editorial staff at the newspaper.

38. In response to the publication, on 14 March, the complainants maintained that the article rested on an inaccurate comparison between foundation and regular degree courses. They pointed to multiple statements in the article which did not account for the fact that British students are eligible for foundation courses, and that all foundation course students have to meet the entry requirements for undergraduate degrees to progress on to those degrees. They also added that the graphics used in the article - which they said were likely to quickly draw the reader’s attention – did not account for this; in particular, they noted that one of the online graphics used phrases such as “start degree in year one/two”, indicating that progression would be automatic.

39. Regarding the disputed admission figures, the complainants said the statistics it had provided referred to the total number of UK undergraduates at Russell Group universities, rather than intake. They maintained that the article’s assertion was incorrect, and supplied HESA figures for first degree UK domiciled undergraduate intake into Russell Group universities. These figures rose from 85,870 in 2010/11 to 117,970 in 2021/22. They also provided the UCAS figures for UK undergraduate entry to higher tariff providers, which rose from 105,755 in 2014 to 125,360 in 2023.

40. Where the complainant had objected to the graphics within the article, the publication said that these would be read in the context of the article as a whole - which made clear that those completing foundation courses were required to pass an exam before progressing to a degree course.

41. Regarding the disputed admission statistics, the publication noted that the numbers for the total UK students at Russell Group universities was not equivalent to the number of admissions. During the course of IPSO’s investigation, the publication explained how they had used the raw data supplied by HESA to calculate the change, per year, in admissions of UK and foreign students from 2008-2019, and 2019-2022 – and, therefore, to obtain the figures reported by the article, that “in the decade before the pandemic, [Russell Group universities] boosted their numbers of lucrative foreign entrants by 21,000 while the number of UK entrants fell by 15,000.”

42. In response, during IPSO’s investigation on 6 August, the complainants raised a number of points regarding the admission statistics. Firstly, they stated that the publication’s interpretation of the data was flawed – it showed an inconsistent rise in admissions, which dipped in 2012/13, and the article did not acknowledge this. They also disagreed with the decision to use the 2008/09 academic year as its starting point – they said this was prior to the “decade before the pandemic”, and that the publication was “cherry picking” to present a misleading narrative. If the publication had started from what they considered to be a “decade before the pandemic” - namely 2010/11 to 2019/22 – the number of UK students admitted would have fallen 5750, or 5%, which would not be “significant”. Likewise, the number of foreign students admitted would have risen 15,920, not 21,000.

43. Secondly, the complainants stated that the statistics concerned “all undergraduate courses”, which was not what the article implied. It said its own statistics showed “first degree undergraduates”, which was a more accurate picture in the context of the article – “first degree” is commonly known as a “bachelor’s degree”, whereas “other undergraduate” includes all undergraduate courses, not just bachelors.

44. They also disputed the accuracy of the following statement in the article: “This contributed to the biggest rejection rate of domestic applicants yet recorded in 2022, with four out of ten UK candidates turned away”. They said that there was no evidence given, and no explanation for this statement - indeed, they stated that 2021/22 recorded the highest number of UK undergraduate entrants.

45. In response, the publication stated that it was reasonable to include the academic year of 2008/09 as part of “the year before the pandemic”, given the pandemic began in the academic year of 2019/20. It said that the article simply “presented a broad direction”, and that if the publication had used the complainant’s preferred dates, the trend it had reported – that admissions of foreign students at Russell Group universities had risen, while admissions of domestic students had fallen - would still have been evident.

46. Turning to the disputed statement that the rise in foreign student admission had “contributed to the biggest rejection rate of domestic applicants”, it stated that this had been reported by itself, and another publication, in the past – and that to its knowledge, the complainants had not disputed it. It set out that, ultimately, its investigation demonstrated that overseas students are being admitted into universities on lower grades than UK students – it was logical, therefore, to report that that some UK students would lose out. At any rate, it also noted that this point was fairly ancillary to a far longer article.

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.

Clause 10 (Clandestine devices and subterfuge)*

i) The press must not seek to obtain or publish material acquired by using hidden cameras or clandestine listening devices; or by intercepting private or mobile telephone calls, messages or emails; or by the unauthorised removal of documents or photographs; or by accessing digitally-held information without consent.

ii) Engaging in misrepresentation or subterfuge, including by agents or intermediaries, can generally be justified only in the public interest and then only when the material cannot be obtained by other means.

Relevant IPSO Regulations

Regulation 8

The Regulator may, but is not obliged to, consider complaints: (a) from any person who has been personally and directly affected by the alleged breach of the Editors' Code; or (b) where an alleged breach of the Editors' Code is significant and there is substantial public interest in the Regulator considering the complaint, from a representative group affected by the alleged breach; or (c) from a third party seeking to correct a significant inaccuracy of published information. In the case of third party complaints the position of the party most closely involved should be taken into account. The Regulator may reject without further investigation complaints which show no prima facie breach of the Editors' Code and/or are without justification (such as an attempt to argue a point of opinion or to lobby) and/or vexatious and/or disproportionate.

Findings of the Committee

47. The complainants said that the article as a whole rested on a misleading comparison between undergraduate degree entry requirements and entry requirements for International Foundation year courses – and that this was a breach of Clause 1. They said that the comparison was not accurate, as the pathways had different entry requirements and a separate admissions process.

48. The Committee was clear, firstly, that the publication was under no obligation to ensure that it was comparing the two pathways on a ‘like for like’ basis – they were entitled to report on the two as they wished, provided they did so accurately, and made clear the factual basis for any comparison. In addition, the Committee did not accept that the article did not make clear that the pathways had different entry requirements and a separate admissions process; the article clearly reported that the international foundation courses were subject to different entry requirements than undergraduate degrees; and made clear that international foundation courses are available for, and indeed are marketed to, foreign students specifically as opposed to domestic students. This was clear throughout, such as the following extract: “[o]verseas students can apply with English or the equivalent foreign qualifications and the requirements for both are much lower via the pathways”.

49. The article also clearly set out the purpose of the foundation courses - progression from a foundation programme can act as a bridge between academic qualifications which would not usually allow for entry to an undergraduate degree programme, to allow for progression to a full UK undergraduate degree. The Committee recognised that the complainants disagreed with comparing the different pathways. However, the Committee was satisfied that the article made clear how foundation programmes differed from full undergraduate degrees, and therefore the factual basis behind its comparison was not inaccurate, distorted, or misleading. In light of this, there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

50. The complainants had stated that the article was inaccurate to report that, at the end of the foundation programme, students “are moved on to the university's full undergraduate course” – they had said this was inaccurate, and that students are subject to examination at this stage. For the same reason, they had objected to the article reporting that foreign students can “buy” their way on to degree programmes.

51. The Committee noted, firstly, that both versions of the article made explicit reference to exams at the end of the foundation year programmes. For instance, the article reported that “[t]here was an exam to pass at the end of the foundation course”, while the online article specifically reported: “Students on the pathways have to pass exams at the end of the year before joining the undergraduate degrees.”

52. Further, it recognised that the article did not state, as fact, that entry to a full degree programme was guaranteed, or that every student on an international foundation course proceeds to the full degree programme. Rather, the article reported on what the publication’s reporters had been told during the course of their investigation. For example, the article reported that: “the universities’ recruitment officials admitted that the exams were so easy that passing was a formality”, and that “[a named employee] said: ‘I think, generally speaking, you don’t have to worry too much about how difficult it is’.”

53. The complainants had pointed to specific parts of the article which they considered did not make clear that the courses had fundamental differences and should therefore not be compared. However, the Committee noted articles should be read as a whole – the article did not need to explicitly state, in every reference to the international pathways, that they are subject to examinations at the end of the foundation year and are different from undergraduate degrees to avoid a breach of the Code. When read as a whole, the Committee was satisfied that the article did not report that progression to a full degree was guaranteed, and made clear that any progression was subject to examination. The article was not inaccurate or misleading, and there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

54. The Committee then turned to the complaint that the article omitted to make clear that foundation degrees were available to UK students, and therefore misleadingly suggested that foreign students received more favourable treatment. The Committee noted that the article referenced the fact that foundation programmes exist for UK students; when reporting the statement provided by the complainants, the article said: “several universities provided similar pathways for UK students with ‘under-represented backgrounds’”. It further noted that the focus of the article was an investigation into whether international students using international foundation degrees were able to utilise a “back-door route” to progress on to undergraduate courses, and that it was not in dispute that the specific pathways reported on by the article were not available to UK students – as the complainant had acknowledged, this is why they were not advertised to UK students. In such circumstances, the Committee considered that the article made it sufficiently clear that separate foundation courses were available to UK students, and the article was not misleading on this point. There was no breach of Clause 1.

55. The Committee then turned to the disputed admission statistics. The complainants had contended that the data the publication had obtained was incorrect – they had also objected to its interpretation of the data it had received.

56. The publication had contacted HESA, which the Committee recognised is the designated data body for higher education. HESA had supplied the publication with data for the numbers of first year undergraduate students by HE provider, subject area, and domicile. From here, the publication had explained how the raw data it had been supplied had been interpreted, and the calculations it had used to obtain the data as reported in the article.

57. The Committee acknowledged that the complainants had provided a different data set. However, given that the publication have provided data from a reputable source, and had demonstrated how it had calculated the reported figures, relying on this data in its reporting of the admissions statistics did not represent a lack of care taken, or a significant inaccuracy in need of correction. There was no breach of Clause 1.

58. The Committee then considered whether the publication’s interpretation, and reporting, of the data rendered the article inaccurate or misleading. The complainants had stated that the 2008/09 was not “a decade before the pandemic”, and that the article did not account for, or explain, the fact the data did not show a consistent rise in admissions, and that it had in fact dipped during certain years.

59. The Committee did not accept, firstly, that not stating that the rise in admissions had not been consistent rendered the article inaccurate or misleading – newspapers are entitled to report which information they choose, and in this situation, the article was clearly reporting on an overall trend which showed a rise in admissions of foreign students, and a decline in admissions of domestic students.

60. The Committee appreciated the complainant’s view that “a decade before the pandemic” could be taken to mean 2010/11, rather than 2008/09. However, it recognised that regardless of whether the dataset began in 2008/09 or 2010/11, the overall trend remained the same as reported by the article: The number of UK students admitted had fallen, while the number of foreign students had risen.

61. For these reasons, the Committee was satisfied that the publication had taken due care, and the article was not significantly inaccurate or misleading, where it reported on the admission statistics. There was no breach of Clause 1.

62. The complainants had also stated that the article inaccurately reported an increase in foreign students “had contributed to the biggest rejection rate of domestic applicants yet recorded in 2022, with four out of ten UK candidates turned away”. The Committee recognised, however, that this was a passing reference in an article which primarily focused on the International pathways. In addition, it noted that this point of complaint had not been raised until six months into IPSO’s process, and that the complainants had not said that it was inaccurate - rather, they had simply said that the article had not provided a basis for this. In such circumstances, the Committee did not consider that the article was significantly inaccurate, distorted, or misleading on this point, and there was no breach of Clause 1.

63. The complainants had also said that the article misleadingly and inaccurately presented the foundation courses as “secret”. However, the Committee noted that the complainants had not disputed the publication’s contention that data regarding the number of international foundation course students subsequently accepted onto full degrees was not publicly available. The complainants had also accepted that the courses are not advertised for UK students. In light of the above factors, and the context of the article, the Committee did not consider the article inaccurate or misleading to refer to the courses as “secret” pathways, or “back-door” routes – the complainants had not disputed that information about the courses is not widely available, nor publicised, to UK students, and the thrust of the article reported on what the publication had been told during its investigation - that the routes allow foreign students to access degrees at a lower academic standard, in a manner not available for the majority of domestic students. In light of this, the Committee did not consider the article inaccurate or misleading on this point. There was no breach of Clause 1.

64. The complainants had said that the article inaccurately reported that Durham University “declined to comment”. It was not in dispute that the publication had asked the University a number of questions, and the University had responded: “The following response is not for publication”. In light of this, the article was not inaccurate or misleading to report that Durham University had declined to comment, given they had told the publication that their response should not be published and had therefore declined to offer a comment for publication. There was no breach of Clause 1.

65. The complainants had also said that they had not been given an adequate opportunity to respond to the publication’s questions prior to the article’s publication, as the publication had not revealed that they had conducted undercover reporting. They had stated that this allowed a series of allegations to go “unchallenged”. The Committee recognised that this was not an inaccuracy in and of itself in the article – although not providing an interested party with the adequate opportunity to respond to allegations can constitute a lack of care taken under Clause 1 (i), should this result in the publication of inaccurate, misleading, or distorted information.

66. In this case, however, the Committee had regard for the correspondence sent to the universities prior to publication. In its view, the publication’s email made clear the nature of the allegations – its email to multiple of the universities opened: “It will say that these pathways allow students to enter the universities with much lower exam qualifications than those required from UK students who apply through the UCAS system and have no access to these alternative routes”.

67. The Committee did not consider, in light of this, that the complainants were not given an adequate opportunity to respond to the allegations prior to publication. In addition, the Committee did not consider that the allegations were left “unchallenged” – Russell Group had responded to the publication’s queries to the respective universities, and parts of their response had been included in the article. Where the Committee did not consider that the article reported any inaccurate or misleading information, neither of these points constituted a lack of care taken over the article’s accuracy. There was no breach of Clause 1.

68. The Committee then turned to the complainant’s concerns under Clause 10. The publication had used undercover reporters to interview, film, picture and quote employees of a number of recruitment agencies. During the course of IPSO’s investigation, it had acknowledged that it had engaged in subterfuge. However, the complainants had said that they were not acting on behalf of any of the individuals who had been recorded or filmed, and that these individuals did not work for the complainants or any of the universities they represented – they were, rather, employed by agencies.

69. The Committee therefore had regard for IPSO’s regulations, which set out who can make complaints to IPSO. Regulation 8 makes clear that IPSO may consider complaints from any person who has been personally and directly affected by the alleged breach of the Editors' Code. In this case, the individuals personally and directly affected by the alleged subterfuge were the individuals who had been recorded, who were not – according to the complainants – acting on their behalf, or as their employees, at the time they were filmed: It was not in dispute that they were employees of the respective recruitment agencies, and the complainants were not acting on behalf of these individuals, nor their employers, with their knowledge and consent in making their complaint.

70. For these reasons, the Committee considered that the complainants did not have appropriate standing to raise a complaint under Clause 10. It was for the individuals pictured and quoted in the article, or their employers, to raise a complaint on these grounds, given that they were the parties personally and directly affected by the alleged breach – they had been filmed without their knowledge and the footage quoted in the article.

71. In light of this, the Committee made no decision as to whether the complainants’ concerns represented a breach of Clause 10. It did consider, however, that there was a substantial public interest in the publication’s investigation. Suggestions of preferential treatment for foreign students over domestic students was a serious allegation, and the Committee noted that the publication had clearly taken care to consider the public interest in the preparation of its investigation, including its decision to use undercover reporters.

Conclusions

72. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

73. N/A

Date complaint received: 02/02/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 18/10/2024