05889-25 Stewart v dailyrecord.co.uk

Summary of Complaint

1. Norna Stewart complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that dailyrecord.co.uk breached Clause 1 of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Asylum seekers to be offered £100 a week to leave taxpayer-funded hotels”, published on 10 November 2025.

2. The article - which appeared online only - included a sub-headline which read: “The plan is believed to have been tabled by Home Office officials as part of push to close asylum hotels”.

3. The article opened by reporting: “Asylum seekers could be offered £100 a week to leave hotels under plans reportedly considered by the Labour Government”.

4. The article also reported: “According to the Daily Telegraph, a £100 a week payment is amongst a range of options being considered as a way of phasing out asylum hotels, first introduced by the previous Tory Government.”

5. A link to the article was also published on the publication’s Facebook account on 10 November 2025 under the same headline as the article.

6. The complainant said that the headline was not supported by the text of the article, in breach of Clause 1, as she said it gave a clear indication that the decision to give £100 a week to asylum seekers had already been made – which was not the case. She said that the correct position – that asylum seekers could be offered these payments under plans which were being considered– appeared later in the article and contradicted the headline.

7. The publication did not accept that the article’s headline represented a significant inaccuracy or was unsupported by the text of the article. It said that the phrase “to be” in the headline referred to the future, which it said was not definite – therefore making clear that these were proposed plans. The publication also said that the correct position – that this was one of several plans being considered by the Government - was made clear in the sub-headline and opening paragraph and, as such, readers did not need to read to the end of the article to understand recent developments. It said that there had been speculation as to the government’s plans, which it said was in the public interest to report on.

8. The complainant disagreed with the publication’s characterisation of the phrase “to be”. She said that the phrase implied a definite intention to introduce the plan.

9. The complainant also said that the sub-headline did not clarify that the proposed payments were one of several plans being considered. She also noted that Facebook users could only see the headline and may not have clicked on the article, which included the further context about the proposed plans.

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 noted that, an accurate article cannot be relied upon to support an inaccurate or misleading headline. The Committee therefore first considered whether the headline, in and of itself, was inaccurate, distorted, or misleading.

11. The Committee acknowledged the publication’s position that the headline was reporting on the plans being considered by the Government to address the phasing out of asylum hotels following speculation – rather than reporting that these plans had been adopted. However, the Committee considered that reporting that asylum seekers were “to be offered £100” in the headline suggested, in a misleading manner, that specific plans to provide weekly payments of £100 to asylum seekers had been adopted. The true position, which was that this plan was only one of several ”being considered” and no decision had been reached as to whether it would be put in place, was made clear only in the text of the article. The article therefore contradicted the headline.

12. In light of this, the article did not support the headline, which was actively misleading. Therefore, the newspaper had not taken care not to publish misleading information and to ensure its headline was supported by the text of the article, and there was a breach of Clause 1 (i)

13. Further, the Committee noted that the Facebook post had the same misleading headline as the article. Therefore, as above, the newspaper had not taken care not to publish misleading information, and there was a breach of Clause 1 (i) on this point.

14. The misleading information appeared in the headline, and in a Facebook post, which gave it greater weight and significance. In addition, it related to a matter of public debate: the use of hotels to house asylum seekers. For these reasons, the headline was significantly misleading and required correction under Clause 1 (ii). Given the publication had not published a correction, nor proposed to publish one, there was a breach of Clause 1 (ii)

Conclusions

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

Remedial action required

16. 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.

17. The Committee considered that the headline of the article – and accompanying Facebook post – was significantly misleading and unsupported by the text of the article, in breach of Clause 1. However, it recognised that the article reported the correct position. Therefore, on balance, the Committee considered that a correction was the appropriate remedy. The correction should acknowledge the original misleading information – that the Government had adopted a plan to provide asylum seekers with £100 a week – and the correct position, which was that this plan was one of several under consideration by the Government and that it had not been adopted as a government policy.

18. The Committee then considered the placement of this correction. As the misleading information appeared in the headline, the correction should appear as a standalone correction, in the publication’s online Corrections and Clarifications column, and a link should be published on the homepage for 24 hours before being archived in the usual way.

19. In addition, if the publication intends to continue to publish the online article without amendment, a correction should be added to the article and published beneath the headline. If the article is amended, this correction may be published as a footnote.

20. As the misleading information appeared on the publication’s Facebook page, a correction should also appear as a post on the publication’s Facebook page and be archived in the usual way.

21. 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: 10/11/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 24/03/2026