06193-24 Bliss v The Sunday Times

Summary of Complaint

1. Steven Bliss complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the Sunday Times breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Labour ‘will build fewer houses than the Tories’”, published on 17 November 2024.

2. The article -which was published on page 1 of the newspaper’s “Business and Money” section - reported that “[f]ewer homes will be built under the new Labour government than were under the Conservatives, according to forecasts by the UK’s official spending watchdog. The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) projects that 1.3 million homes will be built over the course of the Parliament. This is lower than the 1.6 million constructed since 2010 under the Tories.” It also reported that the “OBR says its forecasts do not take account of an overhaul of the planning system promised by Labour”.

3. The article also appeared online, but the complaint was only in relation to the print version of the article. The complainant said this was because he had not seen the online version of the article.

4. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 as the headline was not supported by the text. The complainant said the headline was not supported by the figures cited in the article, which reported that the Conservatives had constructed 1.6 million homes since 2010. The complainant said that - according to the figures in the article - during the current Labour government’s 5-year term in Parliament (2024 – 2029), an average of 260,000 homes will be built per year. This, according to the figures in the article, compared to an average of 120,000 homes built per year under Conservative governments between 2010 and 2024. 

5. The publication did not accept that the headline was inaccurate or misleading. However, it acknowledged that - separate to the points under complaint - the text of the article inaccurately referred to 1.6 million homes being constructed “since 2010 under the Tories”. It said the correct position was that 1.6 million homes had been built under Conservative governments between 2018-2024, rather than from 2010-2024.

6. The publication published a correction on December 8, prior to receiving the complaint from IPSO. This correction appeared on page 24 of the print edition, in the newspaper’s Corrections and Clarifications column. The correction stated:

“We reported that 1.6 million houses were built since 2010 under the Conservatives (“‘Labour will ‘build fewer houses than the Tories’”, Business, Nov 17). In fact, the figure represents net additions to the UK housing stock in the last 6 years of Conservative rule.”

7. The complainant did not consider that the correction resolved his complaint. While he said did not wish to complain about the article’s erroneous reference to “the 1.6 million [houses] constructed since 2010 under the Tories”, he said that - in spite of the correction - the article remained inaccurate. He said this was the case as the article gave the misleading impression that the OBR had produced a report specifically on housebuilding, when it was in fact part of a larger economic report, and that this report had compared its projections for the number houses forecast to be built under the current parliament with those built under previous Conservative governments. He said the use of single quotation marks in the headline added to this misleading impression, as he believed it indicated the headline was a quote from the OBR.

8. The complainant noted the article reported that “[t]he OBR says its forecasts do not take account of an overhaul of the planning system promised by Labour”. However, he said this did not make sufficiently clear that the OBR was not able to be certain of its forecast, due to the proposed changes. He supplied a quote from the report which stated:

“The Government has proposed significant changes to the National Planning Policy Framework as part of wider reforms to the planning system. These changes are yet to be finalised, as responses to a recent public consultation are being processed by the Government. As such, there is insufficient certainty to adjust our current forecast for these measures and we will continue to monitor developments, especially around their implementation given past reform attempts, to judge if and when to incorporate them. These reforms may enable greater delivery of new housing and infrastructure projects, which would boost the associated investment flows, as well as increasing productivity over the longer term.”

9. The publication did not accept that the headline was inaccurate in the manner the complainant suggested. It said that the single quotation marks were a clear indication to the reader that the headline’s statement summarised the OBR’s position. It said this distinguished it as the OBR’s comment, rather than fact. It also noted that an OBR report had forecast that 1.3 million homes would be built during the current Parliament.

10. The publication did not accept that the article did not make the OBR’s position sufficiently clear. It noted that, according to OBR, the forecast of 1.3 million homes being added to the housing stock under the current Parliament was its best estimate. It therefore considered the article made the OBR’s position sufficiently clear on this point, in particular where the article made clear the OBR’s forecasts did not “take account of an overhaul of the planning system promised by Labour”.

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

11. The Committee noted the importance of headlines, given their prominence and visibility, and potential to mislead readers. At the same time, the Committee also noted that a headline can only ever be a summary of the information reported, and the obligation under Clause 1 of the Code is to ensure that a headline is not distorted, misleading, or inaccurate, and is supported by the text of the accompanying article.

12. The headline read “’Labour will build fewer houses than the Tories’”, which the complainant contended misleadingly attributed the claim, presented in single quotation marks, to the OBR. However, the OBR’s Economic and Fiscal Outlook 2024 report projected that 1.3 million homes will be added to the housing stock over the course of the current Labour-majority parliament – compared with 1.6 million under the previous Conservative-majority parliament. Therefore, it was not inaccurate to summarise this as Labour “build[ing] fewer houses than the Tories” – the Labour Party was forecast to build less housing during its term in Parliament.

13. While the Committee understood the complainant’s position was that the headline was presented as a direct quote from the OBR, and therefore gave the impression the OBR had produced a report which compared housebuilding figures under Conservative rule versus housebuilding projections under the current Labour government, it noted that single quotation marks can be used to denote many things, including a summary of someone’s position. Given this, the Committee did not consider that the headline gave the misleading impression that it included a direct quote from the OBR, or that the OBR had produced a report directly comparing housebuilding figures under the Conservatives with housebuilding projections under the current Labour government – but rather that this was what the OBR’s figures suggested. Therefore, the Committee did not consider the headline to be inaccurate or misleading, or unsupported by the article’s text. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

14. The Committee also noted the complainant’s concern that the article had not made sufficiently clear that the OBR’s forecast was subject to the government’s proposed changes to the National Planning Policy Framework. Newspapers have the right to choose which pieces of information they publish, as long as this does not lead to a breach of the Code. Therefore, the Committee carefully considered whether omitting this information rendered the article inaccurate, distorted, or misleading.

15. The article made clear the OBR’s position, which was that “its forecasts do not take account of an overhaul of the planning system, promised by Labour”. It did not find that the omission of the full quote rendered the article misleading, as the article made clear the basis of the forecast, and that it was subject to the government’s proposed changes to the planning system. There was no breach on this point.

16. While the complainant had said that he did not wish to complain about the article’s incorrect reference to the Conservative government having constructed 1.6 million homes “since 2010” rather than since 2018, the Committee welcomed the correction on this point.  

Conclusions

17.   The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

18.  N/A

Date complaint received: 18/11/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 11/03/2025