Press regulator accused of ‘double standards' by former attorney general

Telegraph

02-05-2025

A press regulator has been accused of 'double standards' after it reprimanded The Telegraph over a report about comments made in the Commons about the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB).
Sir Michael Ellis, a former attorney general in the last Tory government, said the recent ruling by the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso) was an 'appalling breach of parliamentary privilege' which risked having a 'chilling effect' on the press.
In a comment piece for The Telegraph, Sir Michael said it was 'well established' that the media could report proceedings in Parliament 'without hindrance.'
He said it was 'critically important' that double standards were not applied to the press by treating them more or less fairly than MPs, or in different ways according to their political complexion.
The Telegraph was reprimanded for quoting comments made in March last year by Michael Gove, who was an MP at the time, in the Commons. It came despite his remarks being covered by parliamentary privilege, which protects politicians against legal action over anything they say in Parliament and extends to the reporting of such proceedings.
However, Ipso upheld a complaint by the MAB against The Telegraph over allegations made by Mr Gove, the then communities secretary, that it was 'affiliated' to the Muslim Brotherhood, an organisation banned as a terrorist group in some countries.
The regulator ruled that The Telegraph's account of Mr Gove's comments in a subsequent story in January 2025 was misleading because it failed to include a response from the MAB, which denies any affiliation with the Muslim Brotherhood.
Ipso judged that it was not sufficient for The Telegraph to publish a statement online from last March in which the MAB rejected Mr Gove's allegations of extremism, maintaining that it was 'law-abiding' and 'contributed to the common good'.
The ruling came despite there being no obligation for a publisher to seek such a response provided that care was taken not to publish 'inaccurate, misleading or distorted information'.
'Mission creep risk'
In his comment piece, Sir Michael said that the 'unfettered' right of MPs to speak out would be 'of little value' if journalists did not have the same protection 'as no one would be able to hear what has been said other than those in the chamber at the time.'
He added: 'As recently as 1996 the Defamation Act ensured that fair and accurate reports of proceedings of the legislature are protected by Part I of Schedule 1 'without explanation or contradiction'.
'The ruling from Ipso is an appalling breach of parliamentary privilege. It is well established that the press can report proceedings in parliament without hindrance...
'The Ipso ruling risks mission creep for regulators who are all too keen to build their empires of power over what people say and how they act. It is the thin end of the wedge and risks creating a chilling effect for the press on how they report proceedings in Parliament.'
urged the parliamentary authorities to investigate Ipso over the decision.
Speaking in the Commons on a point of order, Sir David said that the regulator should be reminded that the British press 'has an absolute right to report on what is said here in this chamber without any hindrance or conditionality'.
In response, Caroline Nokes, the Deputy Speaker, said she supported the principle that 'being able to report on what is said here is extremely important.'
Asked by MP James Wild about the 'disturbing step for the freedom of the press', Lucy Powell, the Commons leader, said the Government was 'absolutely committed' to protecting press freedoms and promised a 'ministerial response.'
Press watchdog must apply same rights to Left and Right
By Sir Michael Ellis, former attorney general
Parliamentary privilege is an ancient and important pillar of the British constitution.
Call me old fashioned but I don't think a self-regulator like Ipso, to which The Guardian and The Independent for example decline to submit themselves, should interfere with that ancient privilege.
Ipso has ruled against The Telegraph following a complaint from the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB) that the paper reported the words of a then MP, Michael Gove, when he spoke frankly and highly critically about them from the despatch box.
Protecting the unfettered right of parliamentarians to their freedom of speech has existed for hundreds of years, since at least the occasion when King Charles I burst into the House of Commons with his soldiers in 1642 to arrest the five MPs who had spoken against him.
More recently, the European Court of Human Rights rejected an attempt to challenge parliamentary privilege in Britain, when Lord Hain was alleged to have circumvented court orders around an injunction by using parliamentary privilege to speak in the Lords.
But if the right of members of parliament to speak is unfettered, then the right of journalists to report what those MPs or peers have said is equally important – otherwise, the privilege would be of little value, as no one would be able to hear what has been said other than those in the chamber at the time.
The legislation around this goes back a way too. The Parliamentary Papers Act 1840 was passed to ensure documents wider than just those circulated for MPs had the protection of privilege so that Hansard could do its job.
As recently as 1996, the Defamation Act ensured that fair and accurate reports of proceedings of the legislature are protected by Part I of Schedule 1 'without explanation or contradiction'.
The Telegraph has said that its reporting of Michael Gove's speech was a fair and accurate reflection of the Hansard record of the proceedings and that the protection of 'qualified privilege' therefore applied. It said the article also included the MAB statement, issued at the time and in response to Mr Gove's speech.
Notwithstanding this, on receipt of the complaint, The Telegraph had updated the article to include the MAB's additional statement. And yet Ipso still ruled against them.
The ruling from Ipso is an appalling breach of parliamentary privilege. It is well established that the press can report proceedings in parliament without hindrance.
It is critically important that double standards are not applied to the press in the same way as they are being applied to so much else in public life, such as policing. The same rights must apply to the Left and the Right; politicians and journalists, the poachers and the gamekeepers, must both be treated fairly.
The Ipso ruling risks mission creep for regulators who are all too keen to build their empires of power over what people say and how they act. It is the thin end of the wedge and risks creating a chilling effect for the press on how they report proceedings in parliament.