Resolution Statement – 02973-25 Baroness Maclean of Redditch v mirror.co.uk

Summary of Complaint 

1. Baroness Maclean of Redditch complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that mirror.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Ex-Tory minister tried to claim £3,000 for help writing a CV when election was called”, published on 22 March 2025.

2. The article – which appeared online only - reported on an expense claim made by the complainant’s office. It said: “Ex-Tory minister Rachael MacLean tried to claim nearly £3,000 on expenses for help writing a CV on the day Rishi Sunak called the general election Expenses watchdog IPSA turned down the claim, saying it was ‘not claimable’”. It also said that, on “30 May, the day Mr Sunak strode into the pouring rain and told the nation he was going to the polls, Ms Maclean put in a claim for £2,983 worth of ‘CV support’. It’s not clear whether the support was for herself or a staff member.” The article also included a photograph of the complainant, accompanied by the following caption: “Former minister Rachel Maclean put the claim in the day the election was called”.

3. On 8 April the complainant complained to the newspaper, under Clause 1 of the Editors’ Code. She said the article was inaccurate as the expense claim it referenced was not made on the day of the election, but two days prior – and when she was unaware of the general election. She added that the expense claim had been made on behalf of another staff member, and had nothing to do with the general election. She also said she had not been contacted for comment ahead of the article’s publication. She requested a public apology, a prominent correction and the removal of the article on all platforms.

4. The newspaper responded to the complainant the following day. It said the disputed information was sourced from an expense claim submitted to IPSA for “CV support”. It said the reporter contacted the complainant via the email address listed on her website on the afternoon of 22 March but did not receive a response. It did not accept, therefore, that it had not approached the complainant for comment ahead of publication.

5. However, the publication accepted that the article inaccurately reported when the expense claim had been submitted. It said it had amended the article accordingly and published the following correction at the top of the article:

“A previous version of this article incorrectly reported that the claim was made on the day that the election was called. In fact, it was made two days before. We are happy to clarify this and the article had been amended accordingly.”

6. On 11 July, the complainant complained to IPSO. She added that the expense claim was not for “CV support”, but for a course titled: CIPD Level 5 Associate Diploma in People Management Professional. The complainant provided a screenshot of the IPSA website. This showed that the claim was titled “CV support” on IPSA’s website. However, she said it was clear from the IPSA website that the claim had been made on behalf of a staff member and not for herself.

7. The complainant said the newspaper contacted her three hours before the article was published via her MP email address, and that a ‘bounce back’ email would have directed the publication to an alternate email address.

8. The publication said the inaccurate date was due to human error. It said it had contacted the complainant prior to publication, and put the date to her, to provide her with an opportunity to provide further detail about the expense claim. It also said the article clarified: "It’s not clear whether the support was for herself or a staff member."

9. However, on 8 September, in light of the new information provided by the complainant, the publication added the following wording to the correction:

“Furthermore, although Rachel McClean did not respond to our opportunity to reply before the article was published, we have since been asked to make clear that the £2,983 expense claimed for ‘CV support’ was not directly incurred by Lady McClean, yet was for a CIPD course for the Office Manager for Lady Maclean when she sat as an MP. We are happy to clarify this and the article has been amended accordingly.”

10. The complainant said the article still contained an inaccurate image caption: “Former minister Rachel Maclean put the claim in the day the election was called”. She also said that the following claim within the article was inaccurate: “Ex-Tory minister Rachael MacLean tried to claim nearly £3,000 on expenses for help writing a CV two days before Rishi Sunak called the general election”.

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.

Mediated Outcome

11. The complaint was not resolved through direct correspondence between the parties. IPSO therefore began an investigation into the matter.

12. During IPSO’s investigation the publication offered to remove the article.

13. The complainant said that this would resolve the matter to her satisfaction.

14. As the complaint was successfully mediated, the Complaints Committee did not make a determination as to whether there had been any breach of the Code.

Date complaint received: 11/07/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 06/10/2025