05338-24 Portes v The Times

Summary of Complaint

1. Jonathan Portes complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Times breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Mental health industry is cheating the public”, published on 19 August 2024.

2. The article – which appeared within the ‘Comment’ section of the newspaper – reported the writer’s opinions about what he described as the “mental health industry” and questioned whether psychiatry and psychology could be described as a “scientific discipline”. The article reported that “there are many good reasons why people may [be economically inactive] but the fastest growing group within this inactive cohort are those including mental health disorders in their claim for a personal independence payment (PIP: the substantially enhanced welfare benefit for people medically unfit for work). Such maladies, having no visible physical symptoms almost impossible to disprove. You can learn online how best to pitch your claim to your GP gatekeeper”.

3. The article also appeared online in substantially the same format, under the same headline.

4. The complainant said the article inaccurately reported, in breach of Clause 1, that “the fastest growing group within this [economically] inactive cohort are those including mental health disorders in their claim for a personal independence payment (PIP: the substantially enhanced welfare benefit for people medically unfit for work) […] You can learn online how best to pitch your claim to your GP gatekeeper”. The complainant considered that there were three inaccuracies within these two sentences.

5. First, he said the claim was inaccurate as individuals were able to claim PIP whether or not they were in work – rather than it being a “welfare benefit for people medically unfit for work” – and noted that the columnist had acknowledged that “you can also get PIP whilst actually working”, in comments he had posted beneath the online article.

6. Secondly, the complainant said people “including mental health disorders in their claim for” PIP were not “the fastest growing group within this [economically] inactive cohort” as PIP status was irrelevant to whether a person was economically inactive or not.

7. Thirdly, the complainant said that it was not GPs who were the “gatekeepers” for the PIP process. Rather, the process was managed by the Department for Work and Pensions, and it was responsible for deciding which claimants were eligible for the payment – rather than GPs.

8. The publication accepted that the article inaccurately reported that PIP was a ”welfare benefit for people medically unfit for work” and that GPs were the “gatekeepers” of the benefit. Prior to the complaint being made to IPSO, it had amended the online article so that it instead read as follows: “There are many good reasons why people may do so, but the fastest-growing group within this inactive cohort are those including mental health disorders in their claim for a personal independence payment (PIP, a substantially enhanced welfare benefit). Such maladies, having no visible physical symptoms are almost impossible to disprove. You can learn online how best to pitch your claim”.

9. It also published the following correction in print and online in its respective Corrections and Clarifications columns: “We wrongly said that personal independence payment is for people who are medically unfit for work, and that GPs acted as gatekeepers for the benefit (Comment, Aug 19). The benefit is also available to those in work and GPs do not decide on eligibility”. The online correction was published on the same day as the original article, while the print correction was published two days later.

10. The publication then turned to the remainder of the complainant’s concerns. While it understood that the complainant disputed that people “including mental health disorders in their claim for” PIP were “the fastest growing group within this [economically] inactive cohort”, it said that the overwhelming majority of PIP claimants (84% in 2023) were not in work. It further noted that the maximum PIP award (£184.30 per week) was double the jobseeker’s allowance for those over the age of 25. It said that this claim appeared in the context of the writer’s clearly distinguished opinion, within a comment piece, and it was legitimate to take the view that the relatively large size of the PIP payment lessened the incentive to actively seek work and therefore qualify for the smaller benefit. It further added that it considered it legitimate to believe that the size of the PIP payment provided a broader incentive to all to seek a diagnosis for a mental disorder.

11. The publication provided several articles and reports which it considered supported its position. The first article it provided, which it had published on 7 January 2024, reported that “mental health problems and learning disabilities now account for £6.7 billion of annual spending on [PIP] for adults. Anxiety and depression are the most expensive single class of condition, at £1.6 billion a year, more than ten times the figure when the benefit was introduced a decade ago”. In addition to this, it reported that “less attention has been paid to separate disability benefits, which are paid regardless of whether someone can work to compensate them for the costs of chronic conditions”. The second article it provided had been published by another publication on 23 March 2024. This article reported that “the rise in claims for personal independence payment ([PIP]), the non-means tested benefit for those with health issues, were ‘most striking’, with claims rising 68% from 2020 to 2024”. The third article, published by another publication on 23 August 2023, reported that “the main disability benefit for working-age adults is personal independence payment. Eligibility is unrelated to whether someone is able to work so many younger claimants may still be in employment”.

12. The publication also provided an evidence pack, published during the 2022-2024 Conservative government, titled, “Modernising Support for Independent Living: The Health and Disability Green Paper”. This reported that “fewer than one in six claimants of PIP are in employment”, and included a graph that showed that 16 per cent of PIP claimants were in employment in 2023. Another graph in the pack showed that those who claimed PIP with the primary health condition of anxiety and depression had risen from 0.6% in February 2012 to 1.3% in August 2023. The same graph listed other conditions such as arthritis, back pain, learning disabilities and autism spectrum disorders, which had not increased as much in the same time period.

13. The publication said given that the overwhelming majority of PIP recipients were not in work, PIP claims had risen by 68% from 2020 to 2024, and anxiety and depression were the biggest contributor to the growth in PIP claims, there was a basis for the article’s position.

14. The complainant did not consider the evidence supplied by the publication supported the article’s claims. Rather, he considered it showed an upward trend in PIP claimants who were employed, and therefore not economically inactive. The complainant also said that none of the evidence supplied by the publication directly showed that the fastest-growing group of economically inactive people were those claiming PIP for mental health issues.

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

15. The Committee first considered whether it was inaccurate to report that PIP was a “substantially enhanced welfare benefit for people medically unfit for work”. Both parties accepted that this was inaccurate, as those who are working are still able to claim PIP – and the Committee agreed with both parties on this point. Given the article was inaccurate on this point, the Committee next turned to the question of whether the inaccuracy had arisen due to a lack of care taken on the part of the publication.

16. When considering whether the publication had taken care not to publish inaccurate information in relation to this claim, the Committee noted that PIP is a government benefit, and a person’s eligibility to claim could be easily verified via official government sources which are readily accessible – such as government websites. In these circumstances the Committee did not consider the publication had taken care not to publish inaccurate information. As such, there was a breach of Clause 1 (i) on this point.

17. The Committee next considered the claim that “the fastest growing group within this [economically] inactive cohort [we]re those including mental health disorders in their claim for personal independence payment”. The publication had said this was the writer’s opinion within a comment piece and had provided evidence it considered supported this opinion.

18. However, while the claim appeared in a comment piece, the Committee did not agree that it was distinguished as the writer’s comment. Rather, the article said, without qualification or an indication that this was the writer’s interpretation, that “the fastest growing group within this [economically] inactive cohort [we]re those including mental health disorders in their claim for personal independence payment”. As the Committee considered that this claim had been presented as fact, rather than as the writer’s view, it turned to consider whether the fact had been reported in accordance with the publication’s Clause 1 obligations.

19. The evidence provided by the publication showed that 86% of PIP recipients were not in work, that PIP claims had risen by 68% in the four years prior to the article’s publication, and that anxiety and depression were the biggest contributor to the growth in PIP claims. However, the publication was not able to provide information which directly supported the claim that people who claim PIP due to mental health disorders were the fastest growing group of all economically inactive people – rather, the information provided by the publication demonstrated only that PIP claims had risen, and that more people were receiving PIP due to anxiety and depression. The information provided did not demonstrate that the increasing number of claimants for PIP on the grounds of anxiety and depression were not in work. The Committee therefore considered that the publication had not taken care not to publish inaccurate information on this point, and there was a breach of Clause 1 (i).

20. The Committee turned next to the claim that GPs were the “gatekeeper[s]” of PIP. The Committee noted that those applying for PIP needed a medical diagnosis from a GP in order to receive the benefit, however, it was the DWP who had the ultimate say – which was not included within the article. The Committee considered this was, therefore, inaccurate. When considering whether the publication had taken care not to publish inaccurate information in relation to the above claim, which was again easily verifiable on government websites, the Committee noted the publication had not verified this information. As such, there was a further breach of Clause 1 (i).

21. The Committee considered that both of the above inaccuracies had the clear potential to mislead on a matter of public importance – the eligibility of disabled people for payments made by the public purse. Therefore, the Committee considered the article to be significantly inaccurate on these points, and a correction was therefore required under 1 (ii).

22. The Committee next considered whether the corrections already published by the newspaper were sufficient to address the terms of Clause 1 (ii) - which requires that significantly inaccurate information is corrected promptly and with due prominence.

23. The Committee first considered the wording of the published corrections. The Committee considered the wording sufficiently addressed the inaccuracies in relation to PIP being awarded to those who were “medically unfit to work” and that GPs were the “gatekeepers” of PIP – given that it set out the original inaccuracies and also the correct position in relation to both of these points. However, the correction did not address the fact that it was inaccurate to report that “the fastest growing group within this inactive cohort [we]re those including mental health disorders in their claim for a personal independence payment”. As such, the Committee did not consider the wording of the correction adequately dealt with each significant inaccuracy within the article. Therefore, there was a breach of Clause 1 (ii) in relation to this claim.

24. Notwithstanding that the correction did not put the correct position on record with regard to all of the alleged inaccuracies, the Committee wished to be clear that it was satisfied that the corrections had been published promptly - the online correction had been published on the same day the online article was published, and the print correction was published two days after the print article was published. The Committee considered this demonstrated due promptness given the short time period between the original information being published and the corrections’ publication. The Committee also considered that both corrections were duly prominent given the claims only appeared within the text of the article and the online version of the article had been amended to remove them. In such circumstances, the publication’s established Corrections and Clarifications columns online and in print were suitably prominent locations for the corrections. There was, therefore, no breach of Clause 1 (ii) in relation to the claims that PIP was awarded to those who were “medically unfit to work” and that GPs were the “gatekeepers” of PIP.

Conclusions

25. The complaint was upheld under Clause 1.

Remedial action required

26. Having upheld the complaint, the Committee considered what remedial action should be required. In circumstances where the Committee establishes a breach of the Editors’ Code, it can require the publication of a correction and/or an adjudication; the nature, extent and placement of which is determined by IPSO.

27. The article included several inaccuracies on a topic of public interest and significance: welfare payments made to those with disabilities. The Committee considered the corrections were sufficiently prompt and prominent. However, they did not address all of the significant inaccuracies within the article and one remained uncorrected – therefore, there had been a breach of 1 (ii). The Committee considered the publication of a further correction, dealing with the remaining point which was not addressed by the original correction would be sufficient to address the breach of the Code. It considered this to be the case given the fact that the inaccurate information formed a brief reference in the article, and where the publication had taken clear steps to address the complainant’s concerns and put the correct position on record – albeit its corrections did not address all inaccuracies.

28. The Committee then considered the placement of this correction. The correction should be published in the publication’s Corrections and Clarifications column both online and in print.

29. If the publication intends to continue to publish the online article without amendment, the correction on the article should be published beneath the headline. If the article is amended, the correction should be published as a footnote.

30. The correction should acknowledge that the article inaccurately reported that the fastest growing group within the economically inactive cohort were those including mental health disorders in their PIP claim. It should also put the correct position on record: while personal independence claims have risen, and more people are receiving PIP due to mental health disorders such as anxiety and depression, it does not follow that these PIP claimants are economically inactive or that they are the fastest growing group within the economically inactive cohort.

31. The 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: 20/08/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 06/12/2024