04929-24 Ward v Daily Mail

Summary of Complaint

1. Bob Ward complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Daily Mail breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “’10 reasons to fear a Starmer super majority”, published on 27 June 2024.

2. The article – which appeared on pages 19 and 20 - was part of a regular column, and set out the writer’s view of the potential impact of a Labour government on the UK. It said that “Labour plans to achieve Net Zero in Britain at least five years before the rest of Europe” and “Labour is committed to achieving net zero by 2030, at least five years before the rest of Europe”. It then went on to state that “the burdens placed on industry will be painful — and expensive for consumers. Under the Tories, new cars with combustion engines were due to be banned by 2030, but this has been pushed back until 2035. Labour is set on 2030.”

3. The article also appeared online underneath the headline, “STEPHEN GLOVER: From tax hikes to unwinding Brexit and workers' rights, 10 reasons to fear a Starmer supermajority”.

4. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 as Labour did not plan to achieve net zero by 2030. He said that the commitment made by the Labour Party in its manifesto was to decarbonise the power sector by 2030, rather than the entire economy.

5. The publication accepted that the article was inaccurate on the point raised by the complainant, and that the Labour Party’s manifesto commitment was to decarbonise the energy grid by 2030, rather than to achieve net zero by this date. It said that the column was written by one of its most experienced and professional columnists, and the error had not been picked up by the editorial team during the article’s preparation. However, it said that it did not consider that the article was significantly inaccurate on this point. It said the columnist’s argument – namely that he believed that Labour’s Green policies would be expensive and harmful to both consumers and industry – was unaffected by the inaccuracy, despite the plan being to decarbonise the grid by 2030.

6. While the publication did not accept that the article was significantly inaccurate in the way suggested by the complainant, it published the following correction on page 2 of its print edition, on 30 July 2024 and four days after the complainant contacted it directly with his concerns:

“An article on June 27 said that the Labour government is committed to achieving net zero by 2030. In fact, Labour has committed to decarbonise the electricity grid by 2030. We apologise for the error.”

7. The following correction was published online on the same date, as a footnote:

“An earlier version of this article reported that the Labour government is committed to achieving net zero by 2030. In fact, Labour has committed to decarbonise the electricity grid by 2030. We apologise for the error.”

The online article was also amended to remove the reference under complaint.

8. The complainant said that the correction published by the publication did not sufficiently correct the inaccuracy, as the basis for the net zero section of the article was based on “an entirely false assumption”; namely, that a transition to net zero across the entire economy by 2030 would be expensive and harmful. He said, therefore, that the section referring to Labour’s environmental plans should be entirely removed from the article.

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

9. Both the publication and the complainant agreed that the article was inaccurate, as there was no Labour Party target to achieve net zero by 2030. The questions for the Committee were whether the publication had taken care not to publish inaccurate information on this point, and whether this point was significantly inaccurate and therefore in need of correction.

10. There had been a failure in the editorial process, with an error not being picked up, resulting in the subsequent publication of inaccurate information. The Committee did not consider that this represented due care taken over the accuracy of the inaccurate information, as required by Clause 1 (i). Therefore, there was a breach of Clause 1 (i).

11. The Committee noted that the inaccurate information pertained to a matter of public debate: the rate at which the UK was seeking to achieve net zero. The Committee considered that publishing inaccurate information on such a matter represented a significant inaccuracy, and the publication was therefore required to correct it – promptly and with due prominence - to avoid a breach of Clause 1 (ii).

12. The publication had, four days after the complainant had made it aware of the inaccuracy, published corrections both online and in print. Both corrections acknowledged the original inaccurate information, set out the correct position – that Labour had committed to decarbonise the electricity grid by 2030 – and included an apology.

13. While the complainant considered that the corrections did not fully address his complaint, as they undermined the writer’s original argument about the Labour Party’s environment goals, Clause 1 does not address the strength of arguments made by writers and columnists – provided significantly inaccurate information is corrected, promptly and with due prominence, newspapers are entitled to express their views and publish the views of others, regardless of the strength or otherwise of their arguments.

14. The Committee therefore considered that the wording of the corrections were sufficient to correct the record, and they had been published promptly. In addition, the Committee considered that the corrections had been published in a duly prominent position, given the print correction appeared on page 2 – seventeen pages ahead of the original inaccuracy – and the online correction appeared as a footnote to the article itself, which had been amended to remove the inaccurate information. The corrections therefore addressed the terms of Clause 1 (ii), and there was no breach of the Clause.

Conclusions

15. The complaint was upheld under Clause 1 (i).

Remedial action required

16. The published correction put the correct position on record and was offered promptly and with due prominence. No further action was required.

Date complaint received: 26/07/24

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 17/01/2025