03076-25 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 “Rachel Reeves urged to seize Brexit benefit for £3.7 billion boost to economy”, published on 22 July 2025.

2. The article – which appeared online only - reported on the possible reintroduction of VAT-free shopping for international visitors to the UK. The article said: “Ministers are being urged to seize a major Brexit benefit worth £3.7 billion a year by reintroducing tax-free shopping for international visitors. Business leaders say the move would make Britain the ‘the global shopping capital’ [sic] and create tens of thousands of jobs.” It explained that the “VAT retail export scheme allowed international shoppers to recover 20% VAT on high street purchases. But it was scrapped in 2021 after Britain left the EU” and that “Rishi Sunak ended the tax break when he was Chancellor four years ago.”

3. The article reported that the chair of the Association of International Retail (AIR), said: “With Britain no longer in the EU, we have the opportunity to become the best place in the world for shopping.” It further said that a “[p]rominent Conservative Party supporter” and chairman of Rocco Forte Hotels had said: “’It is clear that retail and other trades have suffered hugely thanks to the end of tax-free shopping under the last government. Restoring tax-free shopping also represents a significant Brexit opportunity as the UK would be able to offer savings to a new market of 450 million EU consumers, thanks to our place outside the EU.’”

4. The complainant said that the headline breached Clause 1 as he considered it inaccurately referred to a “Brexit benefit”. He said that the VAT retail export scheme, reported on in the article, allowed international shoppers to recover VAT – a scheme which had existed when the UK was a member of the EU. He said this had ended following the UK’s departure from the EU.

5. The complainant said both the quote from the Conservative Party supporter and the following quote were inaccurate: “With Britain no longer in the EU, we have the opportunity to become the best place in the world for shopping.” The complainant said the reintroduction of the tax break would put the UK on par with the EU; it would not give it an advantage over countries in the EU. He also said the proposed tax break was not enabled by Brexit; rather, the abolition of the tax break had been enabled by Brexit. The complainant said that 450 million EU consumers referenced in the article were not a “new market” but the same market the UK had before Brexit. He said the introduction of VAT rebates on purchases made in the UK would put the UK in the exact same position it was in before Brexit.

6. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It said that, although tax-free shopping for international visitors was scrapped post-Brexit, the UK now had the freedom to impose any levies, or not, on visitors to Britain, therefore "Brexit benefit" was a fair characterisation. It said this freedom was a perk of leaving the EU and this position was supported by the following quote from the chairman of Rocco Forte Hotels: “Restoring tax-free shopping also represents a significant Brexit opportunity as the UK would be able to offer savings to a new market of 450 million EU consumers, thanks to our place outside the EU.”

7. To show it had taken care over the accuracy of the article, the publication supplied the full quote from the hotel chairman:

“It is clear that retail and other trades have suffered hugely thanks to the end of tax-free shopping under the last government. We see it with customers at our hotels who used to come laden with parcels. Now they spend less time with us and go on to shop in Paris or Milan. This is a huge own goal which could be quickly rectified and boost the economy and the jobs market. Restoring tax-free shopping also represents a significant Brexit opportunity as the UK would be able to offer savings to a new market of 450 million EU consumers, thanks to our place outside the EU. The UK needs to pull every lever to promote economic growth and this should be top of the list.”

8. The publication also supplied a link to another article in a different publication about VAT-free shopping, which it said expressed similar views and highlighted the following quotes: "With Britain no longer in the EU, we have the opportunity to become the best place in the world for shopping" and "Britain is now in the unique position".

9. The complainant disagreed that the potential reintroduction of the VAT retail export scheme could be described as a “Brexit benefit” and that quoting an individual who referred to a “significant Brexit opportunity” supported the headline. He said the headline was presented as a “declarative statement”, not a quotation.

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 appreciated that VAT-free shopping for international shoppers was a scheme in place before the UK left the EU, and initially ended following Britain leaving the EU. However, the Committee noted that the term “Brexit benefit” did not have one specific meaning, and the article had set out its basis for describing the scheme in this way by quoting an individual who considered the reintroduction of the scheme to be a “Brexit opportunity”: “With Britain no longer in the EU, we have the opportunity to become the best place in the world for shopping”; and “[r]estoring tax-free shopping also represents a significant Brexit opportunity as the UK would be able to offer savings to a new market of 450 million EU consumers, thanks to our place outside the EU.” Further, the Committee noted that the article made clear that this scheme was “scrapped in 2021 after Britain left the EU” and that “Rishi Sunak ended the tax break when he was Chancellor four years ago”, which would make readers aware that the scheme did exist when the UK was in the EU.

11. The Committee recognised that the complainant disagreed with this characterisation, and with the individuals quoted in the article. However, it was of the view that it was not inaccurate to characterise the potential scheme in this way, where the article had set out the basis for this characterisation and the article supported and clarified the headline. There was no breach of Clause 1.

Conclusions

12. The complaint was not upheld under Clause 1.

Remedial action required

13. N/A

Date complaint received: 23/07/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 24/10/2025