06628-24 Moore v Daily Mail

Summary of Complaint

1. David Moore complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Daily Mail breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “LABOUR’S £400 TAX HIT TO YOUR FAMILY HOLIDAY”, published on 28 December 2024.

2. The article appeared on the front page of the newspaper, and featured the following sub-headline: “That’s what typical family will pay in air passenger duty to fly long-haul as analysis reveals full impact of Reeves’s huge hike”. It then opened by reporting:

“FAMILIES will be hit with the highest ever tax rates on flights in Labour’s multi-billion-pound raid on holidaymakers.

Analysis shows air fare levies for a family of four to popular destinations such as Walt Disney World in Florida will surge above £400 for the first time after the hike.”

3. The article continued on to page 2. It reported: “In the October budget, the Chancellor hiked Air Passenger Duty (APD) – a stealth levy on fares also known as the ‘holiday tax’ – by 15 per cent on most flights, which is more than five times the current 2.6 per cent rate of inflation”. Further, it reported: “The study shows that, under Ms Reeves’s hikes, a family of four in economy class will be taxed £408 (or £102 per person) to fly to Disneyland Florida – a 16 per cent hike on the current rate”.

4. The article also included a graphic. Under “USA” on the graphic, it said the “[c]current APD rate” was £88, and the “[r]ate from April 2026” would be £102.

5. The article also appeared online, in substantially the same format, under the headline: “Labour's £400 tax hit on family holidays: Passengers to be hit with highest ever levies on flights in multi-billion-pound raid”.

6. IPSO received a number of complaints about this article. In line with IPSO’s usual procedures, the complainant was selected as IPSO’s lead complainant for the purpose of investigating the complaint.

7. The complainant said that the headline of the article was misleading, and breached Clause 1, because it reported that Labour were responsible for an increase in £400 in tax for a “family holiday”; specifically, a holiday to the USA for a family of four. In fact, the portion of the tax that Labour were responsible for was only £56 - given the changes they were implementing, as the article itself set out - and the previous Conservative governments were responsible for the remaining £352 of the tax.

8. The publication did not accept a breach of Clause 1. It said that the headline only referred to a tax “hit” - the complainant had interpreted the term “hit” to mean “increase”, however, it could also be interpreted as “total amount”. The publication said it was satisfied the term was accurate, given that under Labour, a family would now pay more than £400 in Air Passenger Duty for flights, and Labour’s budget had caused the “tax” to rise above £400.

9. In any event, it also said that the text of the article – including the sub-headline and opening paragraphs – set out the current rate of APD, the higher rate being introduced under Labour’s plans, and how this would affect a family of four travelling to the US.

10. In response, the complainant noted that the headline referred to “Labour’s £400 tax hit” – he said the apostrophe denoted sole responsibility for the £400. He maintained that this was misleading, irrespective of whether the article then clarified the matter.

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. Articles should be read as a whole – neither the headline, nor the text, should be considered in isolation from the other. It was not in dispute that the text of the article explained that under new plans introduced by Labour, Air Passenger Duty on a family flight for four to the USA would be increasing from £88 to £102 per person and that, following the increase, the sum payable would exceed £400 for a family of four. The graphic also made clear the amount by which Air Passenger Duty would be increasing under the plans.

12. However, an accurate article cannot be relied upon to support a headline which, in and of itself, is inaccurate, distorted, or misleading.

13. Both the print and online headlines had referred to “Labour’s £400 tax hit”. The Committee acknowledged the publication’s position that the headline was referencing the total amount of the tax following the increase to be introduced by Labour’s plans. However, in the Committee’s view, in circumstances where the headline made no mention of the tax rising or being increased under the plans, the use of an apostrophe in the headlines in conjunction with the words “tax hit” suggested that Labour were responsible for imposing the entire sum. In contrast, the text of the article reported the correct position, namely that the existing rate of £352 tax was rising and that the increase would take the sum payable above £400 for a family of four.

14. The text of the article, therefore, did not support the headline, but rather served to correct the misleading headline. There had been a failure to take care not to publish misleading information in the headlines which was not supported by the text of the article in breach of Clause 1 (i).

15. The misleading information suggested that the government’s plans were responsible for the imposition of Air Passenger Duty tax of £400 on flights for families. The Committee had regard for the importance of accurately reporting measures which are being introduced by the elected government, as well as any financial impact that such measures may have on the lives of the public. The misleading information had been reported in the headline, thus increasing its visibility to readers. In light of this, the misleading information contained in the headline was significant and required correction under Clause 1 (ii). A correction had not been offered, and there was a breach of Clause 1 (ii).

Conclusions

16. The complaint was upheld under Clause 1.

Remedial action required

17. 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.

18. The Committee considered that the headline had misleadingly reported that Labour was responsible for the “£400 tax” which would be payable on a family holiday following the introduction of the plans. It did note, however, that the true position was set out in the text of the article– Labour’s plans would increase the tax payable by a family of four flying to the USA to £408, from the previous figure of £352.

19. Taking this into account, the Committee considered that a correction was the appropriate remedy. The correction should acknowledge that it had been misleading to report the increase to the Air Passenger Duty as “Labour’s £400 tax hit” and it should set out the correct position.

20. The Committee then considered the placement of this correction. The misleading information had appeared on the front page of the print newspaper. The Committee had regard, however, that front page corrections or front-page flags to corrections are generally reserved for the most serious of breaches. In light of this, the Committee considered that the correction should be published in the publication’s Corrections and Clarifications column, which appears on page two of the newspaper.

21. In regard to the online article, as the misleading information had also appeared in the headline to the article, 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. 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 should be published as a footnote.

22. 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: 30/12/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 15/05/2025