05179-24 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 “One day Starmer will wonder aloud why he ever gave this one-man wrecking ball the job”, published on 20 July 2024.

2. The article – which appeared as a double page spread across pages 16 and 17 – featured the sub-headline: “The policies green zealot Ed Miliband is already pursuing will hinder growth, choke off investment, kill jobs and increase fuel bills – while despoiling the countryside he claims to care about”. It appeared alongside the title “Saturday Essay”, and the name and photograph of its author.

3. The article reported that “The policies [Ed Miliband] is pursuing will hinder growth, discourage investment, destroy jobs and increase fuel bills”.

4. Subsequently, the article reported on “failed politicians [that] are able to reinvent themselves as Green crusaders.” It said, “Lord Deben, eco-crusader […] took Big Green's shilling, and became chairman of the influential but hopelessly biased official Climate Change Committee”.

5. The article also reported:

“Miliband is enthusiastically implementing Labour’s pledge to ban any new oil and gas licences in the North Sea. He might even have banned some licences that were already in the pipeline but whose approval process was not quite complete when Labour came to power. But that’s not clear, such is the confusion in his department.

No matter. Just refusing any new licences effectively kills off North Sea oil and gas anyway. Miliband claims his policy ‘will ensure the UK no longer remains at the mercy of petrostates and dictators who control fossil fuel markets’. […]

By running down the North Sea more quickly than natural depletion dictates, we won’t use any less oil or gas. We’ll just import more from the petrostate dictators Miliband affects to shun. […]

True, North Sea production has been in decline since it peaked in 1999. […] But it is still important to the economy, providing 50 per cent of our domestic oil and gas needs, supporting around 200,000 jobs, helping our balance of payments and attracting international investment for new fields.”

6. Following this, the article reported: “The Aberdeen Chamber of Commerce, whose members operate in what is still (just) the oil capital of Europe, says 100,000 jobs are now at risk and £30 billion in new investment. So are billions in tax revenues for the rest of this decade”.

7. The article also reported: “It goes from baffling to bizarre when it’s realised that none of this will make a blind bit of difference to hitting any Net Zero targets for CO2 emissions. More than 75 per cent of our energy needs come from oil and gas. It will remain over 50 per cent for many years to come. Even the Climate Change Committee admits fossil fuels will still supply 25 per cent of our energy by 2050, when we’re legally meant to hit Net Zero. We’ll still be using the stuff, just importing it, which will generate more emissions than domestic production.”

8. Subsequently, the article reported:

“Huge swathes of land will be given over to solar panels. […]

Not only do they lay waste to the countryside, they undermine our food security. We already import too much food. By covering good farmland in solar panels, we will soon be importing more. Food prices will be even more vulnerable to volatile world markets.

Farming jobs will be at risk or lost. House values will be blighted by nearby development. There will be precious few new jobs to compensate — nearly all the solar panels will come from China and only one in ten turbines will be built in Britain (if we’re lucky)”

9. The article went on to say: “The cost of all this — extra renewable capacity, investment in untried technology, a massive expansion and upgrade of the National Grid — will be in the hundreds of billions”. It also reported:

“You will soon be paying for it.

It is one of the Big Lies of the Green Blob that renewable power is cheaper and will cut our fuel bills. Don’t believe it. Half of Denmark’s electricity is generated by wind and is the most costly in Europe.”

If it were true that renewables were cheaper, wind power companies would not be demanding ever bigger subsidies – in the form of long-term price guarantees linked forever to inflation – to build more renewable capacity. But they are.”

10. Toward its close, the article went on to report:

“Growth undermined. Jobs destroyed. Investment curtailed. Living standards hit. What’s left of our heavy industry, already dealt a body blow by previous green policies, shuttered or fleeing abroad.

Miliband’s path to Net Zero is the road to nowhere. In pursuit of an ideological obsession which most of the country does not share and from which the rest of the world is turning away he will impoverish the country.

It is all the more unfathomable because it will make no difference to global emissions, for which we already account for under 1 per cent. A sensible climate policy would simply pledge that our emissions would always remain below 1 per cent — and wait for the big emitters (India, China, America) to do their bit too. But sense is the last thing to expect with Miliband in charge.”

11. The article also appeared online, in substantially the same format, under the headline: “Andrew Neil: The policies green zealot Ed Miliband is already pursuing will hinder growth, kill jobs and increase fuel bills. One day Starmer will wonder aloud why he ever gave this one-man wrecking ball the job”.

12. The complainant said that the article included numerous inaccuracies in breach of Clause 1. Firstly, he objected to the statement that Mr Miliband’s policies will “hinder growth, discourage investment, destroy jobs and increase fuel bills”. He said this was inaccurate, and that evidence was not provided within the article to support the claim. The complainant said that numerous studies had shown that the implementation of net zero policies will have multiple economic benefits.

13. Further, the complainant disputed the claim that Mr Miliband “might even have banned some [oil and gas] licences that were already in the pipeline”. He said this was a promotion of a false claim first made by a different publication, and subsequently debunked. He said that the Chair of the North Sea Transition Authority, responsible for the licensing process, had written a letter describing the other publication’s article as a “complete fabrication”. The letter said: “Contrary to the article, the Secretary of State has not told us not to approve a round of new drilling. Indeed, no such proposal has been made”.

14. The complainant also disputed the following: “Just refusing any new licences effectively kills off North Sea oil and gas anyway. Miliband claims his policy 'will ensure the UK no longer remains at the mercy of petrostates and dictators who control fossil fuel markets'.” The complainant said this was false – the Labour Government’s policy, he said, was to end the UK’s dependence on energy granted from fossil fuel imports by replacing it with electricity generated via domestic renewables and nuclear power.

15. Further, the complainant said the article breached Clause 1 as it reported: “[N]one of this will make a blind bit of difference to hitting any Net Zero targets for CO2 emissions. More than 75 per cent of our energy needs come from oil and gas. It will remain over 50 per cent for many years to come.” He said that limits on supplies of oil and gas may not affect the demand for fossil fuels in the UK – however, they will contribute to pressure other fossil fuel producers to limit their supplies, which would accelerate the transition to alternative sources of energy and reduce emissions.

16. The complainant also said that the allegation that Lord Deben and the CCC were “hopelessly biased” was untrue – he also said the CCC is a statutory body, which reports to Parliament and is comprised of independent experts.

17. The complainant also stated that the article misrepresented the work of the CCC, in breach of Clause 1 – he disputed that “the Climate Change Committee admits fossil fuels will still supply 25 per cent of our energy by 2050”. He said the CCC had never claimed this, and that the suggestion that imports of fossil fuels will automatically mean higher emissions overall was inaccurate. He cited a letter sent from the CCC to the then-Secretary of State, which stated:

“We have not been able to establish the net impact on global emissions of new UK oil and gas extraction. […] Whereas the evidence against any new consents for coal exploration or production is overwhelming, the evidence on new UK oil and gas production is therefore not clear-cut”.

18. Furthermore, the complainant said that the article was inaccurate to report that solar farms “undermine our food security”. He said there was no evidence for this, and noted that solar farms are not built on prime agricultural land. Further, the complainant said that, as per the Labour government’s election pledge, solar capacity would be increased to 50 gigawatts by 2030 – this would amount to 200,000 acres, or less than 0.5 per cent of agricultural land in the UK. He said this would not be a threat to the UK’s food security.

19. The complainant also disputed the article’s claim that “[t]here will be precious few new jobs to compensate” for job losses due to oil field closures. He said that the Offshore Wind Industry Council had said that “the UK offshore wind industry supported 32,257 jobs in 2023, with an increase to 104,401 expected by 2030 if capacity grows to 50 gigawatts”.

20. The complainant also disputed that: “It is one of the Big Lies of the Green Blob that renewable power is cheaper and will cut our fuel bills”. He said this “falsehood” was not supported in the article – and stated that a range of official sources, including a 2022 Review by the UK Government, had pointed out that more renewable energy will reduce electricity prices.

21. Additionally, the complainant disputed that Denmark’s electricity was the “most costly in Europe”. He said that electricity in Belgium, Germany and Ireland is more expensive, and supplied data from EuroStat in support of his position – a graph titled: “Electricity prices for household consumers, second half 2024” placed Denmark, once VAT and other taxes were taken into account, as the third most expensive in Europe. He also complained that the article was inaccurate to report that: “If it were true that renewables were cheaper, wind power companies would not be demanding ever bigger subsidies […] to build more renewable capacity.” The complainant said that auctions showed the cost of offshore wind power had decreased significantly – the second round of auctions in 2017 allocated contracts at a price of £57.50 and £74.75 per megawatt-hour (in 2012 prices), while the fourth round of auctions in 2022 allocated contracts at a price of £37.35 per megawatt-hour.

22. The complainant also objected to the following claims in the article: “Growth undermined. Jobs destroyed. Investment curtailed. Living standards hit. What's left of our heavy industry, already dealt a body blow by previous green policies, shuttered or fleeing abroad”. He said the writer gave no evidence to support this assertion.

23. Further, the complainant said the article was inaccurate to refer to Net Zero as an “ideological obsession which most of the country does not share and from which the rest of the world is turning away from”. He said that the target of achieving net zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050 was not “an ideological obsession”, but a statutory commitment. He also stated that, according to a survey, 69 per cent of the public support the target – and that the world was not “turning away”, given that countries accounting for 87 per cent of global Gross Domestic Product had committed to Net Zero.

24. The complainant also complained that the article reported that Ed Miliband’s policies will “make no difference to global emissions, for which we already account for under 1 per cent” – and that a “sensible” policy would be to “simply pledge that our emissions would always remain below 1 per cent”. He said that the UK’s domestic targets were part of its contribution to the Paris Agreement to halt further climate change by reaching net zero global emissions – therefore would not be at sensible for the UK to default on its net zero target.

25. The complainant also complained that the article was inaccurate to report that the UK will remain “at the mercy of petrostates and dictators who control fossil fuel markets”. He said that the UK already imports fossil fuels, and that it is not stopping current production, only proposing to stop new production. He had said that it was “self-evident that cutting the UK demand for fossil fuels will make the UK will not be more at the ‘mercy of petrostates and dictators who control fossil fuel markets’”.

26. On 22 October, IPSO made the newspaper aware that the complainant’s concerns raised a possible breach of the Editors’ Code. The publication said that the article was not inaccurate or misleading to report, overall, that the policies it outlined would hinder growth and investment, destroy jobs or increase fuel bills. It said that the article reported the author’s view that this was the case, and that the premise of article was the basis of his position – it noted that much of the article concerned matters of opinion or speculation, such as the risks of climate change, and the costs or benefits of future courses of action. While it appreciated that the complainant may disagree with the writer’s view, it did not mean the article breached the Code.

27. During the course of IPSO’s investigation, on 4 February, the publication accepted that the article inaccurately reported that Denmark’s electricity was the most expensive in Europe – it accepted that both Ireland and Germany were more expensive. It said it was happy to publish a correction in its standard position both in print and online, and to amend the online article and add the following footnote:

“A feature on July 20 about renewable energy said that Denmark’s electricity was the most expensive in Europe. In fact, it is the third most expensive”.

28. The publication said, however, that it did not consider this a significant inaccuracy. It did not affect the columnist’s argument - that a country which uses a lot of wind power has yet to see a significant reduction in energy costs.

29. The publication disputed that the article was inaccurate to report that the CCC had admitted fossil fuels will still supply 25% of our energy by 2025. It said that its understanding was that this claim had been made in a report from the CCC, which it supplied to IPSO. The report included a table which showed that, in a 2050 scenario entitled “Headwinds”, “Renewable generation and capacity” would be 75% and “Dispatchable generation & capacity” would be 15%.

30. The publication said that this data showed it was possible for oil and gas to still supply 25% of our energy in 2050 – and that the article could not, therefore, be significantly inaccurate or misleading. Further, the publication pointed to a BBC article, which included an interview with then-Prime Minister Rishi Sunak – the article quoted Mr Sunak as saying: “Even when we reach net zero in 2050, a quarter of our energy needs will still come from oil and gas and domestic gas production” It also supplied a Government press release, which included: “With the independent Climate Change Committee predicting around a quarter of the UK’s energy demand will still be met by oil and gas when the UK reaches net zero in 2050”. The publication also said that the claim had been made, and not corrected, in Parliament.

31. The publication did not accept that the article was inaccurate to report that wind power companies were “demanding ever bigger subsidies”. It supplied an article from a separate newspaper in support of its position. The article was headlined: “UK government to increase offshore wind subsidies by 66%”, and reported:

“The British government has increased the subsidies available to offshore wind developers by up to two-thirds in an effort to revive new projects in a sector that is struggling with surging costs.”

32. The publication also did not accept that the article inaccurately reported that Mr Miliband had intervened to stop new oil and gas licences in the North Sea – it noted that the article did not report this had occurred, but rather than it “might have occurred, but the situation is confusing”.

33. The publication did not accept that the article had inaccurately reported that refusing new oil and gas licenses would leave the UK “at the mercy of petrostates and dictators who control fossil fuel markets”. It said that, while it may well be the Labour Government’s policy to replace fossil fuels with domestically generated renewable energy, as the article explained, the UK will need some oil and gas in the future. If this was to be imported, it said, this would create a “symbiotic relationship with oil producing countries”.

34. Furthermore, the publication did not accept that the article had inaccurately reported that “none of this will make a blind bit of difference to hitting any Net Zero targets for CO2 emissions”. It said the complainant’s argument was speculative, and based on an assumption as to how the markets may react to reduced oil and gas supply.

35. Turning to the reference to solar farms “undermin[ing] our food security”, the publication said this was clearly framed as speculation – and that if solar panels are built on farmland, this could impact food production. Similarly, on the statements that there will be “precious few new jobs to compensate”, and that Net Zero policies will make “no difference”, the publication stated that these were matters of opinion.

36. While the complainant had disputed that it was a lie “that renewable power is cheaper and will cut our fuel bills” the publication considered this a “future position” – while the complainant was entitled to his view, so was the publication’s columnist.

37. Furthermore, the publication stated that it was entitled to refer to Net Zero as an “ideological obsession” – it could be both this, and a “statutory commitment”, as the complainant said. It also said that it did not consider a solitary poll, supplied by the complainant, demonstrated majority public support for the practical measures required to achieve Net Zero.

38. The publication said that the complainant’s concerns about the article’s description of Lord Deben and the CCC were not for the complainant – and that it would be for Lord Deben and the CCC to dispute the article’s description of them, if they considered it inaccurate.

39. In response, the complainant maintained that the article was inaccurate to report that the CCC had admitted fossil fuels will still supply 25% of our energy by 2025. He said that both sources supplied by the publication – the then-Prime Minister’s statement and the Government press release - misrepresented the findings of the CCC. Further, the complainant said that the CCC report provided by the publication did not evidence this claim. He said the table dealt with energy generation, not energy supply. Further, he said the headwinds scenario clearly stated that dispatchable electricity would be just 15 per cent of total generation, and in any case, this included not just natural gas, but also non-fossil fuel sources, such as bioenergy.

40. The complainant also supplied an article from a separate newspaper which, he said, showed a journalist which had “bother[ed] to check” the claim. The article included the following: “It is understood the committee does not endorse the 25% figure”.

41. Additionally, the complainant maintained that the article was inaccurate to report that wider power companies were “demanding ever bigger subsidies” – he stated that the article supplied by the publication was, again, inaccurate.

42. In response, the publication commented that the complainant appeared to be admitting that the report stated, in the “headwinds” scenario, that renewables would only be supplying 75% of our electricity in 2050 – logically therefore, this would mean non-renewable sources would be supplying the remaining 25%.

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.

Relevant IPSO Regulations

30. If a complaint is upheld by the Complaints Committee (whether or not after a review), remedial action shall, save as otherwise provided in this Regulation, consist of a requirement for the Regulated Entity to publish a correction and/or an Adjudication, unless the Complaints 8 Committee at its discretion dispenses with such requirement. The nature, extent and placement of such corrections and Adjudications will be determined by the Regulator acting proportionately and taking into account the nature of the Regulated Entity and its Publications

Findings of the Committee

43. The Committee was clear, firstly, that it was important it take into account the context of the article. It was a comment piece in a national newspaper, setting out the author’s strong views on the feasibility of Net Zero policies. It did not purport to be a dispassionate news report, or an impartial examination of the various statistics and policies upon which it was commenting. This did not absolve the publication of its obligation to take care over the accuracy of the article, and to correct significantly inaccurate or misleading information. Nevertheless, the Committee recognised that the publication was entitled to report on the matters at hand in a manner which would be understandable and interesting to its audience, and it took this into account when considering the complainant’s concerns.

44. The Committee began with the disputed reference to Denmark’s electricity being the “most costly in Europe”. The publication had accepted the article was inaccurate on this point, and had proposed to run a correction.

45. The Committee considered that the necessary information would likely have been available in the public domain to verify the article’s claim. Where this information had not been verified ahead of publication, and the article had reported inaccurate information on this point, this represented a failure to take care over the accuracy of this information. There was a breach of Clause 1 (i).

46. The Committee then turned to Clause 1 (ii). The Committee recognised that the inaccurate statement formed a brief element of part of a far longer article. It was also clear from the article that the point being made by the columnist was that, despite largely using renewable energy, Denmark’s electricity is costly, and therefore renewable energy may not necessarily lead to lower electricity prices. The Committee considered that this point still stood, irrespective of whether Denmark’s electricity was the most expensive in Europe, or the third/fourth most expensive. Therefore, the Committee did not consider that this information constituted a significant inaccuracy. There was no breach of Clause 1 (ii).

47. The Committee then considered the complaint that the article had inaccurately reported that renewable power would not “cut our fuel bills”.

48. The Committee considered, firstly, that the complaint on this point was inherently speculative - the disputed extract represented the author’s view on possible future scenarios, as did the complaint. Nevertheless, the Committee considered that there was a basis provided for the author’s view in the text of the article: the article went on to report that Denmark, a country which uses a large degree of renewable energy, has amongst the most expensive energy bills in Europe, albeit it had inaccurately referred to this as “the most” expensive in Europe. In light of this, the Committee was satisfied that there was a sufficient basis for the columnist’s claim. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

49. The Committee considered then turned to the complainant’s concern that the article inaccurately reported that the Climate Change Commission had “admit[ted] fossil fuels will still supply 25 per cent of our energy by 2050”.

50. The Committee recognised that there was clearly some debate as to the correct position on this point. The publication had demonstrated that both the then-Prime Minister had said the disputed claim, and it had been included in an official Government press release.

51. It appeared, to the Committee, that the previous Government had interpreted the CCC’s findings in the manner reported in the article under complaint. The publication was entitled to rely on the Government’s interpretation of the CCC’s findings, and doing so did not represent a failure to take care over the accuracy of the article on this point. There was no breach of Clause 1 (i)

52. Further, the Committee did not consider it a significant inaccuracy for the publication to report the disputed findings. Whether the claim originated from the CCC, or from the Government’s interpretation of the CCC’s findings, was not significant to the article as a whole. It was not in dispute that the reported figure had been widely reported as a finding of the CCC. The Committee did not consider there to be a breach of Clause 1 (ii) on this point.

53. The Committee then turned to the disputed statement that Mr Miliband: “might even have banned some licences that were already in the pipeline but whose approval process was not quite complete when Labour came to power” as well as ”that's not clear, such is the confusion in his department”. The complainant had pointed to a letter from the Chair of the North Sea Transition Authority rebutting this claim when it was reported by another newspaper.

54. The Committee noted, however, that the article under complaint had reported that Mir Miliband “might” have banned the licences, and that it was “not clear”. It was also not in dispute that it had previously been reported that Mr Miliband had banned planned licenses.

55. In light of this, the Committee was of the view that the article was not inaccurate on this point – the article clearly noted the confusion as to whether or not this had occurred, it was not in dispute that there had been news reports to this effect which had later been refuted, and the article under complaint did not report as fact that the licenses had been banned. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

56. Following this, the Committee considered the complainant’s concern that the article had inaccurately reported: “If it were true that renewables were cheaper, wind power companies would not be demanding ever bigger subsidies”.

57. The article had simply reported that wind power companies were demanding bigger subsidies. The Committee considered that this was supported by the article supplied by the publication, which reported that: “The British government has increased the subsidies available to offshore wind developers by up to two-thirds in an effort to revive new projects”. In light of this, the Committee did not consider the article to be inaccurate or misleading on this point, and it did not find a breach of Clause 1.

58. The complainant also complained that the article was inaccurate to report that the UK will remain “at the mercy of petrostates and dictators who control fossil fuel markets”. He said that the UK already imported fossil fuels, and that it is not stopping current production, only proposing to stop new production.

59. The Committee noted, firstly, that the complainant’s position was based on speculation, as was the reported statement in the article. Nevertheless, it noted that the complainant had commented that, by stopping new production, the UK would not become “more” at the “mercy of petrostates and dictators who control fossil fuel markets”. However, the article had not reported this, it had simply reported that the UK would “[remain] at the mercy of petrostates and dictators who control fossil fuel markets”.

60. Where it was not in dispute that the UK already imports fossil fuels - and that it may still need to do so in future, as noted above - the Committee considered there a sufficient basis for the author’s opinion. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

61. The complainant had also complained that the article inaccurately reported that Mr Miliband’s policies would not “make a blind bit of different to hitting any Net Zero targets for CO2 emissions”. He had said that limits on future supplies of oil and gas would contribute to pressure on other fossil fuel providers to limit their own supplies, thus contributing to the implementation of the Paris Agreement.

62. The Committee considered that the complainant’s position was inherently speculative – it was based on the assumption that international producers would react in the manner he predicted to reduced supply. At any rate, this did not mean that the article was inaccurate to set out the writer’s contrary view, and there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

63. The complainant had disputed that solar panel developments “undermine our food security”, and that there will be “precious few new jobs to compensate” increased development of renewables. He had said that there was no evidence for either claim.

64. The Committee recognised, as before, that the complaint, and the statements in the article, were both speculative. It was not in a position to determine to what extent solar panel developments may impact the UK’s food security, or create or diminish new jobs.

65. At any rate, the Committee considered it clear that the disputed lines were the author’s conjecture, which the article provided the basis for. Regarding solar farms, the article went on to make clear the basis for the author’s view that food security would be impacted by solar farms: “By covering good farmland in solar panels, we will soon be importing more”.

66. Turning to the claim about “precious few new jobs”, the Committee noted that the article provided an example of possible risks to future jobs. It reported that North Sea oil production supports around 200,000 jobs, and that the Aberdeen Chamber of Commerce “says 100,000 jobs are now at risk”. While the complainant had pointed to the Offshore Wind Industry Council saying “the UK offshore wind industry supported 32,257 jobs in 2023, with an increase to 104,401 expected by 2030”, it wasn’t in dispute that jobs were at risk, and that the number of jobs forecasted to replace them would still leave an overall shortfall in jobs. This supported the reported statement that there would be “precious few new jobs”. In light of the above factors, there was no breach of Clause 1 on these points.

67. The Committee then turned to the complainant’s concern that the article inaccurately reported that: “it makes no difference to global emissions, for which we already account for under 1 per cent”.

68. The Committee considered that the complainant was not in a position to definitively state to what extent the UK meeting, or failing to meet, its Net Zero target would impact other global producers – this was conjecture. The statement that Net Zero policies would make “no difference” was inherently subjective, and reflective of the writer’s opinion - the Committee considered that, given the article made clear that the UK only contributes under one per cent of global emissions, the article clearly set out the basis for the writer’s view. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

69. Further, the Committee considered the complainant’s concerns regarding the statement that: “The policies [Mr Miliband] is pursuing will hinder growth, discourage investment, destroy jobs and increase fuel bills”.

70. The Committee noted that the basis for the statement was provided in the article – as set out above, the article went on to report the author’s view on numerous possible consequence of Net Zero policies. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

71. Finally, the complainant had disputed the accuracy of the: description of Lord Deben as having taken “Big Green’s shilling”, the description of both Lord Deben and the CCC as “hopelessly biased”, a reference to Net Zero policies being an “ideological obsession”, the writer’s view as to what a “sensible” energy policy would be, and the statement that the world is “turning away” from Net Zero.

72. While the complainant was entitled to disagree with the writer’s views, this did not mean that publishing them represented a breach of the Code. The Code makes clear that newspapers are free to editorialise and campaign, provided opinion is distinguished from fact – and the Committee considered that, in the context of a polemical opinion piece, clearly distinguished as such, the above extracts were clearly distinguished as the writer’s view. There was no breach of Clause 1.

Conclusions

73. The complaint was partly upheld under Clause 1 (i).

Remedial action required

74. IPSO’s regulations state that, where a breach of the Code has been identified, IPSO will require the publication of a correction or an adjudication, unless the Committee, at its discretion, dispenses with this requirement. The Committee also noted that it can only make its decisions based on the terms of the Editors’ Code, and which accord with its regulations.

75. The Committee considered whether to dispense with the requirement for remedial action on this specific occasion. However, the publication had failed to take care in its reporting that Denmark’s electricity is the most expensive in Europe. Although this did not represent a breach of Clause 1 (ii), this was a breach of Clause 1 (i) - and in these circumstances, where the Code had been breached, the Committee considered that the publication was required to remedy the breach of the Code.

76. The Committee had not established that the breach had led to the publication of information that was significantly inaccurate, misleading, or distorted. In such circumstances, the Committee considered that the publication of a correction to be the appropriate remedy to the single breach of Clause 1 (i). The correction should make clear that Denmark’s electricity was not the most expensive in Europe, as reported.

77. Where the article had appeared on pages 16-17 in print, the correction should appear on the same page, or further forward in the newspaper. With regard to the online article, if the text remains unamended, it should be published beneath the headline. If the article is updated to amend the inaccuracy, it should be published as a footnote to the article.

78. The publication had already proposed to correct the record on this point, and the Committee considered that the proposed wording was sufficient to remedy the breach, should the publication still wish to publish it. However, the final 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: 04/09/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 31/10/2025

Independent Complaints Reviewer

The publication complained to the Independent Complaints Reviewer about the process followed by IPSO in handling this complaint.

The Reviewer upheld the review. The Reviewer considered that the Complaints Committee’s initial decision – which required the publication of a correction - did not adequately made clear whether, and how, the Committee had considered Regulation 30 of IPSO’s regulations, and whether or not to exercise its discretionary power to not require remedial action where only a breach of Clause 1 (i) had been upheld.

The Reviewer recommended that the decision be returned to the Complaints Committee for further consideration, who subsequently issued an updated version of its decision.