00668-25 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 “Half of farmers consider quitting industry after Rachel Reeves' inheritance raid”, published on 17 February 2025.

2. The article – which appeared online only - reported that “[h]alf of UK farmers have reconsidered their future in the sector due to a rise in financial pressures in the last year, new research has found. It comes as Rachel Reeves is set to increase the tax burden on growers, despite inflation and already narrowing margins.” The article referred to the research commissioned by McCain, which found that “rising energy (35%) and fertiliser costs (32%), as well as environmental threats (36%), are having the biggest pressure on farmers’ finances”, and reported that the “firm added that financial pressures are not only affecting farm operations but are also the primary factor (55%) straining farmers’ mental health.” In addition to this, the article reported: “[f]rom April 2026, taxes would apply to agricultural assets over £1million - or up to £3mn in ‘certain circumstances’"; and “[f]rom April 2026, inheritance tax relief for business and agricultural assets will be capped at £1million, with a new reduced rate of 20% being charged above that.” The article also quoted the director of the Countryside Alliance, who said “farmers are already having ‘difficult conversations’ about the future of their land after the Chancellor presented her Budget in October.”

3. The complainant said the headline was not supported by the text of the article, in breach of Clause 1. He said the McCain research referenced in the article set out the reasons why farmers were reconsidering their future within the industry: rising energy costs; fertiliser costs; and environmental threats. The survey results did not reference concerns about inheritance tax. He said that the results of the survey therefore did not support the headline claim that “half of farmers” were considering leaving the sector “after Rachel Reeves' inheritance raid”.

4. The publication did not accept the headline of the article was significantly inaccurate, as – chronologically – it was correct to report that the news that “half of farmers” were considering quitting the industry had been revealed “after Rachel Reeves’ inheritance raid”. However, it amended the headline to instead report: “Half of UK farmers mull quitting over financial pressures as Budget changes to hit”. It said this change was made as a gesture of goodwill.

5. The complainant said the amended headline was not satisfactory, as the text of the article did not suggest that inheritance tax was one of the reasons why farmers were considering “quitting” the farming industry.

6. During IPSO’s investigation, the publication reiterated its position that the headline was chronologically correct, which did not state that the farmers were considering quitting the industry due to the news about inheritance tax. It said the article – which was based on a press release, setting out the findings of the McCain survey - explained in the first and second paragraphs that half of farmers had considered “quitting” due to financial pressures in the last year, and the research came as the news about the tax increase hit.

7. It noted that the newspaper set out the details of the “inheritance tax raid”, and the quote from the director at the Countryside Alliance set out “that farmers are already having ‘difficult conversations’ about the future of their land after the Chancellor presented her Budget in October.” It said the article made clear that the tax decision, announced in October 2025 and coming into force in April 2026, would “push farms over the edge” in the context of an already difficult situation faced by farmers, as presented by the survey results.

8. Notwithstanding the above, on 22^nd April – eight weeks after being made aware of the complainant’s concerns - the publication said it would be open to publishing a clarification in relation to the headline claim. It said this clarification would state that, while the tax announcement itself was not one of the factors referenced in the survey, it had been claimed that the planned changes would “push [already struggling] farms over the edge.”

9. During IPSO’s investigation, the publication said it relied on the below McCain press release, prior to publication of the article, which it said supported the headline claim:

Half (50%) of UK farmers have reconsidered their future in the sector due to a rise in financial pressures in the last year.

[…]

A survey of arable farming decision makers commissioned by McCain revealed that rising energy (35%) and fertiliser costs (32%), as well as environmental threats (36%), are having the biggest pressure on farmers' finances. Financial pressures are not

only affecting farm operations but are also the primary factor (55%) straining farmers' mental health.

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

10. The Committee first considered whether the original headline was supported by the text of the article. Clause 1 (i) does not require a headline to give the full context of the story in question, but the article must support the headline – and an accurate headline cannot be relied upon to correct an actively misleading article. The Clause also requires publications to take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading, or distorted headlines.

11. The original headline created a link between the “half of farmers” who were considering “quitting [the] industry” with the “inheritance raid”. The Committee noted that the survey did not say that inheritance tax concerns were one of the reasons why farmers were considering leaving the sector. Rather, 50% were considering leaving the industry due to “financial pressures”, with rising energy, fertiliser costs, and environmental threats being referenced as factors which were “having the biggest pressure on farmers' finances”.

12. The Committee noted the publication’s position that the quote from the director at the Countryside Alliance supported its position that farmers were considering quitting the farming industry. However, this did not support the headline’s link between 50% of farmers who were considering leaving the industry, and the “inheritance raid”. Rather, the comment set out that “farmers are already having ‘difficult conversations’ about the future of their land after the Chancellor presented her Budget in October”.

13. While the publication had said that the headline was chronologically accurate, the Committee considered that it was still misleading - it had linked the ”inheritance tax raid” with the high rate of farmers leaving the industry, in a manner that implied that figures had shown that the “inheritance tax raid” was responsible. This represented a failure to take care to ensure the headline was not misleading, and was a breach of Clause 1 (i).

14. The misleading headline was significant, where it related to concerns within the farming industry surrounding inheritance tax – which had culminated in protests from members within the industry. In addition, headlines are inherently prominent: they open articles, which are read in light of them, and will often appear on an online publication’s homepage. Given the greater prominence and weight afforded to headlines, misleading information within headlines will generally be significant. As such, a correction was required under the terms of Clause 1 (ii).

15. The Committee next considered whether the clarification offered by the newspaper was sufficient to address the terms of Clause 1 (ii) - which requires that significantly inaccurate information is corrected promptly and with due prominence.

16. The Committee first considered the placement of the proposed clarification – which the publication said it would publish on its Clarifications & corrections page and on the website homepage for 24 hours, as well as the top of the article. The Committee considered this to be duly prominent as the inaccuracy had appeared within the headline of the article and therefore had greater prominence and weight.

17. The Committee turned next to the wording of the proposed clarification. It noted that the publication had not suggested a specific wording to correct the record, but it had said that it would be open to publishing wording which would state that the tax announcement itself was not one of the factors referenced in the survey. The Committee considered, in principle, that this would be sufficient to correct the record.

18. However, the Committee noted that the publication did not offer to correct the record until eight weeks after it was first made aware of the complaint. The Committee did not consider that this delay represented due promptness in circumstances where the correct position was available to the publication at the time the complaint was first received – it was in the results of the survey used as the basis of the article. The Committee therefore did not consider the clarification offered by the publication was prompt enough to satisfy the terms of Clause 1 (ii). Therefore, there was a breach of Clause 1 (ii) on this point.

19. The Committee turned next to the amended headline, which reported: “Half of UK farmers mull quitting over financial pressures as Budget changes to hit.” The Committee did not consider the amended headline was misleading, where it made clear that 50% of farmers were considering quitting the industry “over financial pressures”, and that the changes made by the budget were also due to come into force – rather than implying that farmers were leaving the industry due to inheritance tax changes. There was no breach of Clause 1 in relation to the amended headline.

Conclusions

20. The complaint was upheld under Clause 1 (i) and (ii).

Remedial action required

21. Having upheld the complaint, the Committee considered what remedial action should be required. In circumstances where the Committee establishes a breach of the Editors’ Code, it can require the publication of a correction and/or an adjudication; the nature, extent and placement of which is determined by IPSO.

22. The Committee considered the headline of the article was misleading, as it had linked inheritance tax changes with 50% of farmers “quitting” the industry, and the article did not support this link. While the Committee considered this was significantly misleading, as it related to a matter of national debate and the misleading information appeared in the headline, it noted that the article set out the results of the survey, and made clear the actual reasons why farmers were considering leaving the industry. Therefore, on balance, the Committee considered that a correction was the appropriate remedy to the breach.

23. The correction should acknowledge that it was misleading for the headline to link the “inheritance tax raid” with the survey results that “half of farmers were considering quitting the industry”. It should also put the correct position on record, namely that tax inheritance concerns was not given as a reason why farmers were considering quitting the industry in the McCain research.

24. The Committee then considered the placement of this correction.

25. As the misleading information appeared in the headline to the article – therefore giving it greater prominence and weight - the correction should appear as a standalone correction in the publication’s online Corrections and Clarifications column and a link should be published on the homepage for 24 hours before being archived in the usual way. In addition, it should appear directly below the headline on the article itself.

26. The wording should be agreed with IPSO in advance and should make clear that it has been published following an upheld ruling by the Independent Press Standards Organisation.

Date complaint received: 18/02/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 11/07/2025