Ruling

01552-24 Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit v The Daily Telegraph

  • Complaint Summary

    Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit 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 “Fall in weather delays erodes rail chief alert”, published on 4 April 2024.

    • Published date

      17th October 2024

    • Outcome

      Breach - sanction: publication of correction

    • Code provisions

      1 Accuracy

Summary of Complaint

1. Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit 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 “Fall in weather delays erodes rail chief alert”, published on 4 April 2024.

2. The article – which appeared on page nine - reported on weather-related train delays. It said that “[w]eather-related train disruption has decreased over the past few years despite Network Rail’s boss claiming ‘climate change is the biggest issue faced by the railways’, The Telegraph can reveal.” The article reported that “data analysis by The Telegraph reveals that for the last three years, the share of delays attributed to ‘weather, autumn and structure’ has been falling. ‘Weather, autumn and structure’ covers delays caused by natural phenomena such as high wind or heavy rain, as well as leaves falling from trees.” The article went on to report that in “2020-21 train delays caused by ‘severe weather, autumn and structures’ made up 10.3 per cent of all delay minutes counted by regulators, according to figures from the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) analysed by The Telegraph. By last year that share had fallen to 7.7 per cent – just over a million minutes – out of a total 13.7 million minutes in train delays.”

3. The article also quoted the chief executive of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, who reportedly said: “Network Rail is expected to deliver reliable, safe, and high quality railway infrastructure, yet it’s diverting billions of pounds towards solutions to a problem that is having less and less of an impact on the network.”

4. The article also appeared online under the headline “Falling weather delays undermine rail chief’s climate warning” on 3 April 2024 in substantially the same form. This version included the sub-headline “Network Rail says it will be spending £2.8bn to help it cope better with extreme weather and climate change”. The article said that “data analysis by The Telegraph reveals that, for the last three years, the proportion of delays attributed to “weather, autumn and structure” has been decreasing.” The article included a bar graph which depicted “Minutes of delay attributed to ‘weather, autumn and structure’ as a share of the total across all operators in Great Britain” from 2019 to 2023. It also included a line graph which depicted the total minutes of delay per train run across all operators in Britain from 2021 to 2024. 

5. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 as it was misleading to refer to “a fall” and “falling weather delays” in the headline of the articles, and “weather-related train disruption” in the first sentence, and only to make clear this was a reference to “the proportion” or percentage of delays in the fifth paragraph. It said the total number of overall weather-related delay minutes showed no sign of decreasing, 

6. The complainant also believed the headlines referred to a fall in weather delays which undermined the Chief Network Rail’s boss’ claim that “climate change is the biggest issue faced by the railways”. The complainant said that there had not been a fall in delays caused by weather. It said the article had used data from the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) and said that train delays caused by "severe weather, autumn and structures" made up 10.3% of all delay minutes in 2020-21 and by last year [2023] and "that share had declined to 7.7%". The complainant said the actual number of delay minutes caused by extreme weather which could be seen in the sub-categories of “Severe weather” and 'Other weather' showed no signs of a decrease. It said this was the case even without including the quarter four data for 2023-24 which tended to have the highest number of delay minutes caused by weather within the year as it covered winter months. 

7. The complainant provided its calculations for the total delayed minutes using the alternative categories of “severe weather” and “other weather”. It said this calculation compiled the ‘Quarterly Minutes’ of delay, representing a quarter within each year from 2016-17 to 2023-24. However, it had not included quarter four in 2023-24 as this data has not been published.

Year

Severe weather

Other weather

Total

2016 - 2017

388,150.23

133,487.15

521,637.38

2017 - 2018

467,476.58

115,532.33

583,008.91

2018 - 2019

287,407.74

235,658.82

523,066.56

2019 - 2020

510,813.32

228,482.01

739,295.33

2020 - 2021

226,338.95       

115,701.23

342,040.18

2021 - 2022

336,520.27

298,446.67

634,966.94

2022 - 2023

213,464.18

345,301.19

558,765.37

2023 - 2024

317,272.79

280,988.70

598,261.49

8. The complainant also believed the article was misleading as it appeared to draw a conclusive trend from only four years of data. The complainant said the ORR data went back as far as 2016-17 and up to the third quarter of 2023. The complainant said the first graph in the article analysing the data omitted the earlier years and the first three quarters of 2023-24, which it said contradicted the trend that the graph implied – that delay minutes were falling. The complainant said the use of incomplete data was inaccurate. 

9. The complainant also said the quote from the Chief Executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance, who said the problem of extreme weather is "having less and less of an impact on the network" was inaccurate. The complainant said its own calculated data disapproved this claim.

10. The publication did not accept a breach of Clause 1. It said the data was analysed by a data journalist using ORR data which it provided. It said to establish trends in delays attributed to “severe weather, autumn and structures”, total minutes of delay per financial year and total minutes of delay attributable to “severe weather, autumn and structures” were calculated for all train operators in Great Britain. The share of delays attributable to “severe weather, autumn and structures” per financial year were then calculated. It said, for 2022-23 for example, the total minutes of delay came to 13,734,945 minutes, of which 1,062,992 minutes were attributed to "severe, weather, autumn & structures". Dividing the two yielded a ratio of 7.74%. A similar calculation for 2020-21 produced 10.27%, hence the article’s claim that a "proportion of delays attributed to ‘weather, autumn and structure’ has been decreasing." The publication provided a spreadsheet to show its calculations.

Financial year

Financial year total

Financial year weather total

Ratio/ percent

2019-20

16952755

1158,321.3

6.83

2020-21

6745965.5

692,822.4

10.27

2021-22

10486810.5

982,730.8

9.37

2022-23

13734944.5

1062,992.2

7.74

11. The publication said the results of the calculation formed the basis of the online version of the article’s first graph and showed: 6.8 per cent in 2019-20, 10.3 per cent in 2020-21, 9.4 per cent in 2021-22 and 7.7 per cent in 2022-23. It said from this, it determined that there was a decreasing trend in the share of delays caused by “severe weather, autumn and structures” since 2020-21 or “over the past few years”. It said the statistics to support the article’s assertion featured in the article and made clear it was referring to a falling “proportion of delays attributed to ‘weather, autumn and structure’”, not falling delays due to weather overall. The publication said that although figures per quarter permitted a similar calculation, and one that would have ultimately been more current, the result was too volatile to analyse or present in a chart. For that reason, it said the full financial years were preferred, with the latest full financial year publicly available being 2022-23 at the time of publication. It said the claims of the article were also put to the relevant first party, Network Rail prior to publication who the publication said did not contest the central thrust of the article, but post-publication did provide a statement about delays across its whole operation, including freight trains, and emphasised the effect of recent strikes.

12. The publication also said that the CEO of the Taxpayers' Alliance’s quote was accurately reported and represented as their opinion, which they were entitled to express - and which the publication was entitled to publish. 

13. In response, the complainant said the article’s dataset included more than just severe weather – it said that problems with engineering structures, earthworks and autumn leaf fall were unrelated to extreme weather. Therefore, “severe weather, autumn and structures” was a misleading dataset to analyse and extrapolate as related to extreme weather. It said the only appropriate dataset to analyse would be one which relates solely to extreme weather. It said the publication admitted that analysing data by “period” or quarter “would ultimately have been more current” but that those results were “too volatile to analyse or present in a chart”. The complainant said this admission suggested the data analysis was not a reliable or credible source of information. 

14. The publication said a difference in data analysis methodologies did not mean a significant inaccuracy had occurred. It said that the complainant did not agree with the data category used by the publication's data specialist. It said the category used was included in official data issued to the public by the ORR and related to delays in full financial years attributed to the category "severe weather, autumn and structures". It said this was clearly a weather-related category with "severe weather" speaking for itself. It said "autumn" was weather-related and included issues such as leaves on the line causing slippery rails in a way similar to black ice, according to Network Rail and as referenced in the article. It said that “structures” were clearly vulnerable to weather-related conditions for example subsidence; earthworks failures; bridges suffering greater scour from high water; and problems with drains and culverts. The publication said the complainant’s preferred data from the ORR referred to impact on infrastructure in the following sub-categories: Severe Weather (Beyond Design Capability Of Infrastructure) and Other Weather (Impact On infrastructure Of Network Operations). The publication said that "severe weather, autumn and structures" were judged by the ORR to belong in one category, and therefore it was reasonable to infer that they were related. It said that it was therefore reasonable to use that data category for analysis. It said the article made clear that the "fall in weather delays", "falling weather delays" and decrease in weather-related train disruption referred to by the article was a fall in the share or proportion of overall train delays attributed to the category "severe weather, autumn and structures". 

15. The complainant said that “autumn” and “structures” did not relate fully to weather, and by implication climate change. It said the examples listed under “autumn” such as “leaves on the line” can be caused by non-weather-related reasons, such as gravity. It said the examples listed under “structures” such as “problems with drains and culverts” can also be caused by non-weather-related reasons, such as the design capability of that infrastructure. The complainant argued that huge sections of the article’s dataset could be caused by reasons not related to weather, rendering it an inaccurate or misleading representation of weather delays.

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

16. The Committee considered the headlines “Fall in weather delays erodes rail chief alert” and “Falling weather delays undermine rail chief’s climate warning”. The Committee acknowledged the complainant’s concern that the headlines and article were misleading to refer to “falling” or a “fall” in weather delays. Similarly, the first sentence of the articles said “[w]eather-related train disruption has decreased over the past few years”. The Committee noted that the article’s set of data actually showed that while the percentage of weather-related delays was falling amongst total delay minutes, from 2020 to 2023, there had been an increase in the total delay minutes related to weather. The article did go on to make clear “data analysis by The Telegraph reveals that for the last three years”, “the share” and “proportion”, “of delays attributed to ‘weather, autumn and structure’ has been falling”, however it was the Committee’s view that the headline and first sentence were misleading, and the headline was not supported by the article, but rather was corrected by it. For this reason, there was a breach of Clause 1(i).

17. The next question for the Committee was whether the inaccuracy was significantly inaccurate in requirement of a correction in accordance with the terms of Clause 1 (ii). The Committee considered the inaccuracy was significant where it appeared in the headline giving it greater prominence and where it suggested weather-related delay minutes were falling when in fact they had increased. As the publication had not offered a correction, this meant there was a breach of Clause 1 (ii).

18. The Committee also noted that the complainant had concerns about a range of ways in which the publication had interpreted the ORR data such as the selection of years, the category of delay minutes and the conclusions from the data. The Committee noted that the publication had provided the raw data set and explained how it had calculated the minutes and percentages in the article and depicted in the graphs. 

19. The Committee first considered whether the analysis of delayed minutes resulting from the category “severe weather, autumn and structures” was inaccurate. The complainant had provided alternative categories from the same dataset, which it suggested better reflected severe weather-related delayed minutes. The Committee noted the complainant’s position that some of the delayed minutes in the category “severe weather, autumn and structures” may not have resulted from weather - such as leaves falling on the tracks. In this instance, however, the Committee noted that the article had made clear the criteria it was analysing, for example: “data analysis by The Telegraph reveals that for the last three years, the share of delays attributed to ‘weather, autumn and structure’ has been falling. ‘Weather, autumn and structure’ covers delays caused by natural phenomena such as high wind or heavy rain, as well as leaves falling from trees.” The Committee was also satisfied that the category broadly covered weather-related delays and therefore it was not inaccurate to use this data to draw conclusions about weather-related delays. For this reason, there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

20. The complainant also believed that the article’s selection of years which it had analysed in relation to the falling weather delays had led to misleading information as it had only selected four years from 2020 to 2023 and had not included the most recent data from 2023 to 2024. The complainant had provided its own calculations starting from 2016 using a different category of delay minutes which it said did not show a decrease in weather-related delay minutes. The Committee noted that the article had again made clear the period in which it was analysing: “data analysis by The Telegraph reveals that for the last three years, the share of delays attributed to ‘weather, autumn and structure’ has been falling”. The online article also included a graph which depicted the individual year’s percentage of weather-related delayed minutes. The Committee appreciated the complainant considered this selection misleading; however, it noted that the data was not inaccurate in and of itself and the four years the article had selected did show a decrease in the share of delay minutes attributed to “severe weather, autumn and structures”. The Committee also took into account that the data from 2023 to 2024 was incomplete as the data from the final quarter, which would have included winter months, had not been published and therefore it was not significantly inaccurate to omit this period from analysis. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

21. The Committee also considered the headline in relation to the rail chief’s claim, “climate change is the biggest issue faced by the railways” as set out in the text of the article. As above, given that the Committee accepted there had been a falling proportion of delays in the category “severe weather, autumn and structure” between 2020 and 2023, where severe weather is commonly accepted to be associated with the impact of climate change, it was not inaccurate for the newspaper to publish its opinion that the data had “undermined” the chief’s claim, as the article had specifically set out the data the article had analysed and therefore the newspaper’s basis for its position. This aspect of the headline was sufficiently supported by the article and there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

22. Turning to the quote from the Chief Executive of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, which the complainant said was inaccurate. Newspapers are entitled to publish the views of individuals provided they are distinguished as such. The Committee noted that this was clearly attributed to the Chief Executive by the use of quotation marks. The Committee also had regard for the analysis of the data which supported the Chief Executive’s claim. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

Conclusions

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

Remedial action required

24. 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.

25. The Committee considered the headline was misleading and not supported by the article as well as the first sentence which was inaccurate. While the headline and beginning of the article was misleading, the article had later set out the basis for the publication’s analysis and explained that the proportion of delay minutes was decreasing. Therefore, on balance, the Committee considered that a correction was the appropriate remedy. The correction should acknowledge that the publication’s analysis did not show that overall weather-related delay minutes were decreasing, but rather their share in the total of delay minutes was decreasing.

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

27. The correction should be published in the publication’s Corrections and Clarifications column, or in lieu of this column, as the inaccuracy had appeared on page 9, the correction should appear on page 9 or further forward. 

28. As the misleading information appeared in the headline to the article, the correction should appear as a standalone correction on the homepage, or 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, if the publication intends to continue to publish the online article without amendment, a correction should be added to the article and published beneath the headline. If the article is amended, this correction should be published as a footnote.

29. 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: 10/04/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 28/08/2024


Independent Complaints Reviewer

The publication 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.