01710-24 Full Fact v Daily Express

Summary of Complaint

1. Full Fact complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the Daily Express breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “COMMENT”, published on 27 December 2023.

2. The article was a comment piece written by the then-Conservative Party Chairman, which accompanied a separate article headlined “Labour plans won't deter the small boats...it'll just open Britain's front door for more immigration”. The article included his name, position in the Conservative Party and photograph under a banner which read “comment”. The article centred on the Labour Party’s then-plans for immigration should it win an upcoming general election, and stated: “So far, Labour’s so-called ‘plans’ to stop the boats include accepting a share of illegal migrants from safe EU countries through the backdoor, which would see Britain take in 100,000 extra illegal migrants, already in Europe, every year.”

3. The article was also published online on 26 December under the headline: “The British public aren’t daft, says Richard Holden”. The online version of the article was substantially the same as the print version, though it did not include the Chairman’s photograph or the “comment” banner.

4. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1. It initially contacted the newspaper in early January, and when it did not receive a substantive response, complained to IPSO in April. It stated that the claim that Britain would see “100,000 extra illegal migrants” was inaccurate and was presented as fact, even though it appeared in a comment piece. The complainant said that, on 20 September and again on 1 December, prior to the article’s publication, it had published “fact checks” on its website, which set out that the “100,000 extra illegal migrants” figure quoted in the article was inaccurate. The complainant said that the 100,000 figure originated from the Conservative Party and which assumed – incorrectly, according to the complainant – that Labour's plan would require the UK to take a share of the EU's migrant quota, proportionate to its population and economic size, in the same way as was required of EU member states.

5. The complainant said the figure relied on several assumptions that were unclear: that the UK would participate in a relocation scheme currently being drawn up between EU member states, despite no longer being a member of the EU and Sir Keir Starmer having said that, under Labour, the UK would not take part; that the UK would accept any relocations when there was an option to decline and pay a fee instead; and that the EU solidarity mechanism would see all asylum seekers arriving in the EU relocated across the bloc. The complainant also said the director of the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford had said that "the 100,000 claim includes a mathematical error, because its authors have forgotten to include the asylum seekers the UK already receives."

6. The complainant said the correct position was that the details of Labour’s policy in relation to immigration were not known at the time of publication. There was, therefore, no reliable way of knowing the number of migrants which would enter the UK as a result of any such policy.

7. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It noted, firstly, that the article was a comment piece from the then-Conservative Party Chairman, and that it was clearly labelled as such. It said that it would not be appropriate to amend the article, in the same way it would not appropriate to amend a direct quote. The publication stated that the complainant’s position was that the number was both a Conservative party estimate and based on a number of assumptions. However, it said that both of these factors were clear from how the figure was presented in the article: as part of a comment piece written by the Conservative Party. It also noted that the figure had been used previously by the Conservative Party, and provided several X (formerly known as twitter) posts from the Conservative party and a BBC article which reported that: “Government ministers claim the [Labour] policy would lead to 100,000 illegal migrants a year being shipped to the UK.” The publication also noted that a report by the Henry Jackson Society, published in February 2024, stated that assessment and analysis had found “plausible estimates of increases of more than 250,000 per year” under a Labour government.

8. After receiving the complaint, the publication raised the matter with the Conservative Campaign Headquarters. It provided IPSO with these emails, which stated that the Conservative Campaign Headquarters “stood by” the 100,000 figure. However, given the dispute around the 100,000 figure, the publication offered to publish the following wording as a footnote to the online version of the article, in its first response during IPSO’s investigation in June, several months after the complainant initially contacted the publication:

“We understand that the figure of 100,000 has been disputed by third parties, however, Conservative Campaign Headquarters have confirmed that they stand by this figure. We are happy to clarify this.”

9. The complainant stated that the Henry Jackson Society report shared by the publication relied on the assumption it considered inaccurate, as it stated that the UK “would have to take 124,614 illegal migrants via the EU’s quota scheme as a quid-pro-quo”. The complainant also considered several other assumptions made in this report to be inaccurate; therefore, they did not consider that the publication could rely on it to demonstrate the accuracy of its own reporting. It also said that the publication’s correction was not accurate as it wanted any published correction to refer to Full Fact’s fact check, and report that as the details of Labour’s future policy were not yet known, so there was no reliable way of knowing the number of migrants that it would involve.

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 noted that, whilst the article was a comment piece and was clearly labelled as such, there was still an obligation to take care not to publish inaccurate information and to ensure that comment and conjecture were distinguished from fact.

11. The Committee considered the statement under complaint, which explicitly stated that the Labour Party’s “so-called ‘plans’ to stop the boats include[d] accepting a share of illegal migrants from safe EU countries through the backdoor, which would see Britain take in 100,000 extra illegal migrants, already in Europe, every year”. The publication said that this was clearly distinguished as comment, as it appeared in a comment piece written by a Conservative politician, and it was therefore clear that this was a Conservative Party estimate. However, the Committee did not accept that this was the case: This was an unambiguous claim about a political party’s policy, without qualification or a reference to the fact that this was a Conservative Party estimate premised on the assumption that a future Labour government would participate in an EU relocation scheme. The Committee therefore considered that the figure was not distinguished as conjecture on the part of the Conservative Party. There was, therefore, a breach of Clause 1 (iv).

12. The article was reporting on a matter of significant public debate – illegal immigration and plans to stop boats arriving in the UK. To report as fact, and without explaining the basis, that the Labour Party’s plans for migration would see Britain take in an extra 100,000 illegal migrants a year was significantly inaccurate, taking into account the importance of readers being able to understand the context of public policy decisions. Therefore, a correction was required under Clause 1(ii).

13. The correction offered by the publication stated that the figure was disputed by third parties. However, it did not specify the inaccurate information – namely, the presentation of conjecture on the part of the Conservative Party as fact – or put on record the correct position. In addition, where the publication was made aware that the figure was disputed in January, and the correction was only offered in June, this did not represent due promptness. Finally, no correction had been offered in print – which did not represent due prominence in relation to the print version of the article, given corrections should generally appear in the same medium as the original inaccurate information. There was, therefore, a breach of Clause 1(ii).

Conclusions

14. The complaint was upheld under Clause 1(iv) and Clause 1 (ii).

Remedial action required

15. 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.

16. The Committee considered that the article was misleading, as it presented an estimated figure as fact. The publication had accurately reported what the Conservative party had predicted – it had just not made clear the basis for this estimate or that it was their estimate. Therefore, on balance, the Committee considered that a correction was the appropriate remedy. The correction should acknowledge that the “100,000” figure had been reported as fact and put the correct position on record, namely that this was an estimate from the Conservative Party based on the assumption that a future Labour government would participate in an EU relocation scheme.

17. The Committee then considered the placement of this correction. The print correction should be published in the publication’s Corrections and Clarifications column. With regards to the online correction, if the publication intends to continue to publish the online article without amendment, the correction on the article should be published beneath the headline. If the article is amended, the correction should be published as a footnote.

18. 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: 25/04/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 13/08/2024