02224-25 The Speaker’s Office v dailymail.co.uk

Summary of Complaint

1. The Speaker’s Office complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that dailymail.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Tories bid to get answers about Keir Starmer's Attorney General amid 'conflict of interest' row suffers a setback - after Labour law chief successfully lobbies Commons Speaker to block a debate”, published online on 20 January 2025.

2. A version of the article also appeared in print, published on 21 January. IPSO’s regulations only allow it to consider complaints within 4 months of a print article’s publication. As the complaint was submitted to IPSO more than four months after publication, the print article fell outside of IPSO’s remit.

3. The article – which was initially published online at 10:30pm - opened by reporting:

“The ‘conflict of interest’ row engulfing the Attorney General escalated yesterday after he successfully lobbied the Commons Speaker to block a debate.

Robert Jenrick, the Tories’ justice spokesman, asked Sir Lindsay Hoyle for a Commons debate in a bid to get answers about Lord Hermer’s potential role in a string of controversial government decisions.

[…]

In a bid to get answers, Mr Jenrick tabled an ‘Urgent Question’ (UQ) in the Commons – a key transparency tool used by the Opposition frontbench to grill government ministers.”

4. The article then reported: “But it was rejected by Sir Lindsay after Lord Hermer’s department urged him not to grant it. Sir Lindsay refused to say why he sided with Lord Hermer”.

5. On 20 January, nine hours prior to the article’s publication, a reporter from the publication contacted the complainant via email. It stated that the Conservative party has tabled an urgent question but, “apparently”, the Speaker had not granted it. He then asked: “What was the reason for not granting it please and did the [Attorney General]’s department write to you saying it shouldn’t go ahead?”. In response, less than an hour later, the complainant stated that it never provides reasons as to why an urgent question is not granted.

6. The publication then asked: “Are you able to say whether Lord Hermer’s department asked for the UQ not to be granted?”. The complainant again said that it never reveals why an urgent question is not granted. As part of its response, it referred to a section of Erskine May – a description of parliamentary procedures – which states: “Neither the submission of an urgent question nor its subsequent rejection by the Speaker should therefore be publicly referred to”.

7. Two days after the article’s publication, the complainant complained directly to the publication’s reporter. The complainant said that it had explained that it never comments on urgent questions – it could not confirm or deny whether one had been submitted, or why it was rejected. It said that, in the absence of real information, the publication had invented its story. It also said that the article suggested the Attorney General’s office lobbied the Speaker to block the debate, which was untrue.

8. The complainant did not receive a response, and on 2 June, it complained to IPSO that the article breached Clause 1 on the above points.

9. The complainant added that the article implied that the Speaker had acted in a manner which was partial, and that he had failed to be transparent – this was inaccurate. It also said the correct position had been made clear to the publication at the time: the Speaker had made his decision “without reference” to the Attorney General’s department.

10. One day after IPSO made it aware that the complaint raised a possible breach of the Code, the publication contacted the complainant, and said it was happy to put the Speaker’s Office’s position on record. It suggested removing references to “successful lobbying” from the article, and publishing a form of the following correction in its Corrections and Clarifications column – in print and online – and as a footnote to the online article:

“A previous version of this article said that the Commons Speaker declined to grant the urgent question after lobbying from the Attorney General’s office. Since publication, the Speaker’s office has contacted us to confirm that in fact, it did not receive any contact from the Attorney General’s office prior to deciding not to grant the question. We are happy to make its position clear.”

11. The complainant declined the proposed correction. It reiterated that it could not comment on what contact was or was not received.

12. In response, the publication stated that it would only publish a correction which was correcting a point of fact – it said it could not see how it was possible for the complainant to dispute the accuracy of the article whilst refusing to accept a correction putting the correct position on record.

13. The complainant, in reply, said that it was not in a position to comment on the granting or otherwise of urgent questions. It was, however, highly misleading to say the Speaker was lobbied or to imply that he acted in a way that was anything but strictly impartial – it denied any assertion that he took a decision due to lobbying.

14. During IPSO’s investigation, the publication said that the claim that the Attorney General’s office had made representations to the Speaker’s Office came from an extremely well-placed source. It was its position, as per the information from its source, that a meeting had taken place between the two. The publication said that it was undeniable the Speaker had reached a decision which was favourable to the Attorney General, and that the Speaker’s Office had refused to explain the reason for the decision when it had been questioned about it - it was free to report this, and to characterise this meeting as “lobbying”.

15. The publication – as per its obligations under Clause 14 of the Editors Code to protect confidential sources – did not provide IPSO with the source’s name or identity. It said, however, that the source was involved in the parliamentary process and had first-hand knowledge that the meeting had taken place. The source had also previously provided information which had proven to be accurate.

16. The publication said it had checked its information with the Attorney General’s office prior to publication, which had not disputed that it had made representations to the Speaker’s Office. It supplied IPSO with this correspondence. In this correspondence, the Attorney General’s office had stated that it was for the Speaker’s Office to provide comment, but that it would note that making representations about urgent questions was not irregular.

17. The publication also noted that the complainant had not disputed this claim during pre-publication correspondence, and said that the complainant’s position that it was unable to comment appeared contradictory to it now pursuing a formal correction to the article. It also said the complainant had denied it had been contacted by the Attorney General’s office in its initial complaint, and had later changed its position when it realised that this would mean denying the meeting took place.

18. The publication said that in the circumstances, it appeared impossible for IPSO to decide whether the article included a significant inaccuracy, given the complainant would not confirm whether or not the meeting had taken place.

19. It also said that any suggestions that the Speaker had been ‘lobbied’ were inherently subjective, and entirely dependent on the existence of the meeting – which it maintained had taken place.

20. In response, the complainant said that, at no point in its complaint, had it denied the meeting took place – its initial complaint had stated that the Speaker made his decision “without reference” to the Attorney General’s Office. This was not the same as denying the meeting occurred.

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 14 (Confidential sources)

Journalists have a moral obligation to protect confidential sources of information.

Relevant IPSO Regulations

Regulation 11

11. Complaints shall only be accepted if they have been submitted, either to the Regulator or the Regulated Entity, within four months from the date of the conduct or first publication of the article complained of, save that if a complaint is received outside such four month period but within 12 months of the date of first publication of the article complained of, and relates to an article which remains accessible to the public on a Regulated Entity's website or on other electronic services operated by the Regulated Entity, the Regulator shall consider the complaint only if the Regulator considers that it is still possible for it to investigate and adjudicate fairly, having regard to the period of time since first publication.

Findings of the Committee

21. The publication had said that a confidential source had informed it that a meeting had taken place between the Speaker’s Office and the Attorney General’s department. It had said that, on this basis, it was not inaccurate or misleading to report that the Speaker had been “lobbied”. The complainant, while not in a position either to dispute or to acknowledge that the meeting had taken place, had complained that the article was inaccurate to report that the Speaker had been successfully lobbied and, therefore, in its view to suggest that he had not acted partially.

22. The Committee considered that the question of whether or not the complainant had been “lobbied” was, to a degree, subjective – and to what extent a meeting on a specific topic can be described as lobbying was a matter upon which the complainant and publication disagreed. However, the Committee considered that - should the meeting have taken place where the topic was raised - there was a sufficient basis to report that the Speaker had been “lobbied”.

23. The Committee also noted that the publication had contacted the complainant prior to the article’s publication, and asked why the urgent question had not been granted – it had also asked whether there had been contact from the Attorney General’s office. It had, similarly, contacted the Attorney General’s office. Neither party had said that the Attorney General’s office had not contacted the Speaker in the manner described by the article – albeit the Committee acknowledged that the complainant was not in a position to dispute it.

24. In light of the above and on the basis of the information before it – while the Committee acknowledged that the complainant could not publicly comment on the existence or otherwise of the meeting in question – it did not consider there were grounds to find that the article inaccurately reported that the Speaker had been “lobbied”. As set out above, the publication had a basis for reporting that the Attorney General’s department had “urged” the Speaker not to grant the question – which the Committee considered to be a fair basis for a claim that the complainant had been lobbied. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

25. The Committee then considered whether the article had been inaccurate to suggest that the Speaker had been “successfully” lobbied and the complaint that this implied that the Speaker had not reached his decision impartially.

26. The Committee considered that the publication was entitled to hold and express the view the complainant had been successfully lobbied, provided the factual basis for that view was accurately reported.

27. Given that the publication had provided a basis for reporting that the Attorney General’s department had “urged” the Speaker not to allow the question to be asked in parliament - namely, that a meeting had taken place between the two - and it was not in dispute that the request had later been denied, the Committee was satisfied that the publication had adequately set out a factual basis for its view that the complainant had been “successfully” lobbied. The publication had reached its view based on the facts set out to it – that the Attorney General’s department had contacted the Speaker’s Office, and the ultimate decision made by the Speaker was favourable to the Attorney General. The Committee did not consider that this amounted to a claim that the Speaker had acted without sufficient impartiality. There was, therefore, no breach of Clause 1.

28. Finally, the Committee considered the complaint that the article suggested that the Speaker was not being transparent. The article accurately reported that the complainant, when asked, had refused to provide a reason for the decision not to allow the question. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

Conclusions

29. The complaint was not upheld

Remedial action required

N/A

Date complaint received: 03/06/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 13/02/2026