Decision of the Complaints Committee -- 07966-19 Water UK
v The Times
Summary of Complaint
1. Water UK complained to the Independent Press Standards
Organisation that The Times breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code
of Practice in:
2. The three articles under complaint appeared as part of a
series of articles, including news reports and opinion pieces, on pollution in
Britain’s waterways.
3. The first article appeared on the front page in print
under the sub-headline “Watchdog ‘leaves water companies free to pollute’” and
reported that dangerous pollutants had reached their highest levels in English
rivers since modern testing began, with no river “now certified as safe for
swimmers”. The article also reported that the number of rivers that fell short
of EU standards had risen from 75% a decade ago to 86% now and that “half of
all stretches of river monitored by the Environment Agency exceeded permitted
limits of at least one hazardous pollutant last year, including toxic heavy
metals and pesticides.” It also said that prosecution of companies which run
Britain’s sewage systems had fallen “to three last year from thirty in 2014”
and that in some cases the Environment Agency was allowing water companies to
“suggest their own penalties”. The article contained a quote from an official
spokesperson of the Angling Trust who stated: “We’re going backwards — our
rivers are getting worse”. Additionally, it published claims that toxic metals
and insecticides are regularly exceeding EU limits and that those who swim in
infected waters face danger from bacteria, including E. coli, salmonella and
listeria, leptospirosis, septicaemia and hepatitis A, and that almost 10% of
tests for hazardous pollutants returned a result above its “maximum allowable
limit”, the highest since testing began. The article reported that “Under EU
rules, the government is committed to ensuring that all rivers are of a good
ecological standard by 2027” and that a named water company had been fined
“£127 million”. The article also said that the number of significant pollution
incidents had risen to 493, missing a target of 400, and that a former director
of the Environment Agency had said: “Cutting budgets absolutely has an effect:
fewer policemen means less testing and less enforcement — and as we’ve seen
with some of the water companies, people will take advantage of lax
enforcement”. In addition the article reported that sewage was being dumped in
rivers via emergency outflows and that parents in West Yorkshire had no idea
that sewage outflows were likely to have poured raw waste into the river their
children were playing in. It reported scientists’ views that the agency’s
testing regime is not fit to deal with the pollutants flushed away by
households, industry and agriculture.
4. The article also appeared online in substantially the
same form under the headline “Pollution: no river in England is safe for
swimming”. It was published on 2 August 2019.
5. The second article was an opinion piece. It repeated
several statements from the first article, including that no English river can
be certified as safe for swimming; that prosecutions had dropped from thirty in
2014 to three in 2018 ; and that almost 10% per cent of the tests carried out
by the Environment Agency for hazardous pollutants returned a result above its
“maximum allowable limit, the highest proportion recorded since testing began
20 years ago.” It also reported that England’s rivers were among the most
polluted in Europe and that there is no equivalent “blue-flag system” to inform
swimmers of water quality in rivers as there is on beaches. It said that “Much
of the blame for this miserable record lies with the water companies”. It
reported that “The companies claim they have improved 3,000 miles of waterways
and have plans to cut pollution by 90 per cent by 2027” but that “capital
expenditure has fallen over the past decade, bills have risen and shareholders
have helped themselves to big dividends”.
6. The article also appeared online in substantially the
same form under the headline “The Times view on pollution in Britain’s rivers:
Filthy Business”. It was published on 3 August 2019.
7. The third article appeared as part of a two-page spread
on the same topic and reported on the effects of water pollution, as well as
its various sources. It reported that “More than 500,000 kilograms a year of
metals are released through waste water” and that the previous year lead levels
at points on the River Teign in Devon were found to be 100 times the safe
limit. The article also said that the European Environment Agency had raised
concerns that waste water was being treated by sewage plants unable to deal
with metal contaminated water and it discussed the pollutant cypermethrion and
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.
8. The third article also appeared online in substantially
the same form under the headline “What are the effects of river pollution?”. It
was published on 3 August 2019. It also reported that lead levels in the “River
Teign in Cornwall were found to be 100 times the safe limit” and characterised
the 500,000 kilograms of metals released through waste water as “heavy metals”.
9. The complainant, the trade association which represents
the major water companies in the UK, said that all of these articles gave a
misleading impression of the degree to which water companies were responsible
for pollution in the UK’s rivers. It said that 72% of pollution comes from
other sources, and this was not made clear in any of the articles.
10. The complainant said that the first article was
inaccurate in breach of Clause 1. It said that the claim in the subheading that
“Watchdog ‘leaves water companies free to pollute’” was inaccurate and was
contradicted in the text of the article which later stated that Ofwat had
imposed a fine of £127 million. It also said it was inaccurate not to provide
the source of the quote.
11. The complainant also said that it was misleading to
claim that “Dangerous pollutants in England’s waterways have reached their
highest levels since modern testing began” because the Environment Agency had
found that several pollutants had been cut since the 1990s. It also noted that
the tests were not for “dangerous” pollutants and the tests cannot be used as
an average as they deliberately tested at “hot-spots” and at-risk areas.
12. The coverage stated that “no river in the country [is]
now certified as safe for swimming”. The complainant said that this was
misleading because there was no certification that states whether a body of
water was “safe for swimming”. It said that the Government could give a
“designated bathing water status”, however this was not the same thing as a
“safe to swim” certification. There were many other requirements under this
designation that had nothing to do with pollutants (such as lifeguards, public
toilets etcetera). It also said that the fact no rivers have designated bathing
status was due to concern over currents and changing water levels rather than
water quality. It further said this was misleading because water company
performance was excellent, which was not mentioned in the article, because
health risks derived from open water swimming come from many sources, not just
sewage. The complainant also said that the word “now” insinuated that rivers
had been certified as safe in the past, but had lost the certification.
13. The complainant also said that reporting that
“Eighty-six per cent [of rivers] fall short of the EU’s ecological standard –
the minimum threshold for a healthy waterway – up from 75 per cent a decade
ago” was misleading as the basis for measurement had changed over the decade;.
the measurement system changed in 2014, and if the previous method of
measurement was still used, the proportion of rivers which would achieve good
or better ecological status would have risen from 22% in 2009 to 23% in 2016.
14. The first article reported that “half of all stretches
of river monitored by the Environment Agency exceeded permitted limits of at
least one hazardous pollutant last year, including toxic heavy metals and
pesticides.” The complainant said it was misleading to not properly attribute
the sources of this pollution – such as mining and industrial wastes, vehicle
emissions, and fertilisers – as it gave the misleading impression that water companies
were solely responsible. It also said that the definition of “hazardous” went
beyond what was recognised.
15. The first article reported that “Despite serious
pollution incidents frequently exceeding the limits, prosecutions by the agency
against the regional monopolies that run Britain’s sewage systems have declined
— to three last year from thirty in 2014.” The complainant said that this was
inaccurate as in 2018 there were five prosecutions against water companies. It
also said that it was misleading because there were reasons why the number of
prosecutions had fallen including a fall in the most serious prosecutions and
because a mechanism called Enforcement Undertakings had replaced prosecutions
in less serious cases, of which there had been 15 in 2018.
16. The complainant also said that the claim that water
companies could “suggest their own penalties” was inaccurate as an assessment
was made against specified criteria to establish the penalty.
17. The complainant said that the quote from an official
spokesperson of the Angling Trust which stated “We’re going backwards — our
rivers are getting worse” was also inaccurate because certain data showed that
rivers were improving and, since 2015, 3100 miles of surface water had achieved
“good” status.
18. The complainant also said that reporting that “In rivers
across the country, toxic metals such as lead and mercury, as well as
insecticides, are regularly exceeding limits that should never be breached
under EU rules that were championed by Britain” was misleading as these
substances mostly do not originate from sewers.
19. The first and second articles said that swimming in
polluted water can expose people to bacteria, including E. coli, salmonella and
listeria, and put them at risk of diseases such as leptospirosis, septicaemia
and hepatitis A. The complainant said that this was misleading as even if all
sewage was removed from rivers, these microbes would still be present. It also
said that leptospirosis comes from rats, rather than sewage.
20. The first and second article said that “Almost 10 per
cent of the tests carried out by the Environment Agency for hazardous
pollutants returned a result above its “maximum allowable limit” — the highest
proportion recorded since testing began 20 years ago.” The complainant said
this was misleading as many tests completed by the Environment Agency were not
for “hazardous pollutants” and the article did not name further sources of
pollution other than sewage.
21. It was reported that “Under EU rules, the government is
committed to ensuring that all rivers are of a good ecological standard by
2027.” The complainant said that this was inaccurate as the Government had
stated that it was not aiming for 100% compliance and that the Secretary of
State had said in May 2018 that around a quarter of water bodies in the UK
would fail to meet “good” status. He also said that the EU Member States would
find this difficult to meet.
22. The complainant said that it was inaccurate to report
that a fine of “£127 million” had been imposed on a water company as, rather
than a fine, they had to invest £126 million in updating systems. It also said
that the article was unbalanced for failing to mention that a third of the
water company’s management had moved on.
23. The complainant also said that the report that “The
agency missed its target for reducing the number of serious and significant
pollution incidents to 400. The figure rose to 493” was misleading as only 14%
of these incidents were due to waste companies. It also said that the claim
that “more than a third of rivers are failing to meet ecological standards
because of sewage associated with excess phosphorus” combined with the assertion
that there were “16,000 sites across the country where water companies are
legally permitted to spill untreated waste into rivers” was misleading. It said
that water companies were responsible for 28% of river pollution, and only a
small number of overflows had an impact on ecological status, and conflating
the two things was misleading.
24. The complainant said that it was misleading to report
that “Parents of young children who were playing in the River Wharfe in the spa
town of Ilkley, West Yorkshire, during hot weather last month were unaware of
how sewage outflows upstream were likely to have poured raw waste into the
water after thunderstorms” as no sources were published in the article.
25. The complainant also said that the statements: “a former
director of the agency, said: “Cutting budgets absolutely has an effect: fewer
policemen means less testing and less enforcement — and as we’ve seen with some
of the water companies, people will take advantage of lax enforcement”; and
“The Times has also found evidence of raw sewage being dumped in rivers,
including close to spots used by swimmers and anglers, via emergency outflows
that should be used only in exceptional storm conditions” were unbalanced as
they were not objective.
26. The complainant also said that the statements: “Experts
say this leaves water companies feeling free to pollute rivers” and “Scientists
say that the agency’s testing regime is not fit to deal with the pollutants
flushed away by households, industry and agriculture” were inaccurate as the sources
had not been disclosed.
27. The complainant said the second article contained
several further inaccuracies. It said that reporting that England’s rivers were
among the most polluted in Europe was misleading as the UK had an average
number of rivers which achieved “good” status, and it did not include the
context that makes it more difficult to achieve ecological status in the UK
than in other European countries (such as high population density) and that
data on this topic uses other measurements outside of just pollution.
28. The complainant said that it was misleading to report
that there was no equivalent “blue-flag system” for water quality for swimmers
in rivers as there was for beaches as only designated bathing waters have this.
29. The complainant said that reporting “Much of the blame
for this miserable record lies with the water companies” was inaccurate as many
of the criticisms in the article were not the responsibility of water
companies. It gave the example of the Environment Agency reporting that
agriculture was the main cause of rivers failing to achieve “good” status.
30. The complainant said that the report that “The companies
claim they have improved 3,000 miles of waterways and have plans to cut
pollution by 90 per cent by 2027” was inaccurate as the plan was to cut
pollution by 90% by 2025, and 9,000 miles of waterways have been improved, not
3,000. It also said to label these as “claims” was disingenuous.
31. The complainant said that reporting “Yet capital
expenditure has fallen over the past decade, bills have risen and shareholders
have helped themselves to big dividends” was misleading and unbalanced. It
noted that water sector investment was highly cyclical on a five-year basis and
the UK had the highest level of water sector investment in Europe. It said that
capital expenditure from 2007 to 2017 was £43.6 billion, whereas it was £38.9
billion the decade before, which showed it had increased. In addition, it said
that while bills had risen after privatisation, this gave the misleading
impression that bills had risen in the last decade when they had actually fallen
in real terms.
32. The complainant also expressed concern that the third
article contained several inaccuracies. It said that the claim that 500,000kg
of metals were released through wastewater was inaccurate as it did not include
a source. It also said that the online version was inaccurate as there was no
definition of “heavy metal” and metals were found naturally in water so this
was misleading. It also said reporting that lead appearing in rivers from
industrial wastewater, abandoned mines and eroded lead piping was misleading as
sewage was not a significant source of lead contamination. It said that
reporting that lead had been found at 100 times the safety limit in the River
Teign was misleading as it did not attribute this to the mines and could be
attributed to wastewater. It also said it was inaccurate for the online article
to describe the River Teign as being in Cornwall, when it in Devon.
33. The complainant also said that it was misleading to
report, after discussing cadmium pollution, that a briefing had stated that
industrial wastewater was being treated by sewage plants not designed for metal
contaminated water, as sewage was not a significant source of cadmium
pollution. It also said that this misreported the briefing, which stated that
waste water treatment plants were responsible for less than half of heavy metal
pollutants.
34. The complainant also said that the third article was
misleading as it discussed the pollutant cypermethrion and polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons but did not identify the sources of these pollutants, which gave
the misleading impression that it was caused by water companies.
35. The publication said it did not accept that the articles
had breached the Editors’ Code. Before IPSO’s investigation, it had published
the following correction as a footnote to the online articles and in print:
"There were five prosecutions against water companies over
pollution incidents by the Environment Agency in 2018, not three. The fine
imposed by Ofwat on Southern Water last month was £126m, not £127m. The River
Teign is in Devon, not Cornwall. We said that "almost a third of the
rivers are failing to meet ecological standards because of sewage";
Environment Agency analysis suggests that the water industries are responsible
for 28 per cent failure. Water companies plan to cut pollution by 90 per cent
by 2025, not 2027."
It also offered to publish a letter from the complainant
putting their position on record as a letter to the Editor.
36. The publication said that the coverage had not
misleadingly represented the extent to which water companies were responsible
for pollution in UK rivers. It said it had carefully set out the different
sources of river pollution, and that any reference to pollution by water
companies was accurate.
37. The publication said that the subheading of the first
article: “Watchdog ‘leaves water companies free to pollute’” included a
paraphrase of remarks that were reported in the article and it was, therefore,
supported by the text. There was no need to provide the source of the remarks
within the headline.
38. The publication said that reporting that “Dangerous
pollutants in England’s waterways have reached their highest levels since
modern testing began” in the first article was not misleading as the
Environment Agency had described the pollutants for which tests were undertaken
as “hazardous”. It had used the word “dangerous” instead of “hazardous” and
said that this alternative description did not represent a breach of Clause 1.
It also said that pollutants had reached their highest level as the proportion
of tests that had resulted in a breach was at its highest in 2018. The
newspaper said that it had also approached the Environment Agency with its methodology
and had given them an opportunity to reply, and they had not disputed this
claim.
39. The publication said that it was not inaccurate to
report that no river in Britain was “certified safe for swimmers”. It said that
it had found that levels of pollution in the UK were so high, no river was safe
to swim in. It said it had put this to the Department for Environment, Food
& Rural Affairs (Defra) and they had not disputed it. It also said that
“certification” referred to bathing water designation that no river in the UK
currently holds, however Defra had confirmed that local authorities could apply
for this status.
40. The publication said that reporting that 86% of
waterways had fallen short of the EU’s ecological standard, and that this had
risen from 75% a decade ago, was not misleading as it was based on available
data and had been reported by the Rivers Trust. It said it had given the
Environment Agency an opportunity to comment on this and they had not disputed
it. It was not therefore misleading in the way suggested by the complainant.
41. The publication said that it had given the Environment
Agency opportunity to comment on its report that “half of all stretches of
river monitored by the Environment Agency exceeded permitted limits of at least
one hazardous pollutant last year”. The definition of “hazardous pollutant” was
the same as that used by the Agency, and it was therefore not inaccurate in the
way suggested by the complainant.
42. The publication said that the report that there were
three prosecutions against water companies in 2018 came from Environment Agency
data and their report into the performance of water companies. Before IPSO’s
investigation, it offered to amend this to five, and to clarify this in a print
correction. It did not accept it was inaccurate to report that the number of
prosecutions had fallen, even taking into account the “Enforcement
Undertakings” mechanism.
43. The publication said that it was not inaccurate to
report that water companies could “suggest their own penalties”. This was based
on a briefing by the Environment Agency which said: “Businesses/offenders
identify actions, they can offer to put right what went wrong and ensure future
compliance as well as identify an appropriate environmental project to support.
We check if the individual projects are suitable and relate to the regulations
that were breached.”
44. The publication stated that a quote from an official
spokesperson of the Angling Trust that “We’re going backwards — our rivers are
getting worse” was not inaccurate as the claim was clearly sourced and the
article distinguished comment and conjecture from fact.
45. The publication said that reporting that “In rivers
across the country, toxic metals such as lead and mercury, as well as
insecticides, are regularly exceeding limits that should never be breached
under EU rules that were championed by Britain” was not misleading as the
following paragraph specifically referred to cadmium leaching from landfill
sites.
46. The publication said there was no inaccuracy in the
claim that “Those who swim in infected waters face danger from bacteria, including
E. coli, salmonella and listeria. Diseases such as leptospirosis, septicaemia
and hepatitis A are also linked to sewage pollution and can be fatal.” It said
that leptospirosis comes from rats, which live in sewers. It quoted Government
advice on the dangers of leptospirosis which specifically referred to sewers:
“The risk of Weil’s disease [leptospirosis] is linked to areas where rats are
or have been present. Work is considered higher risk where there is evidence of
rat infestation. This is most likely to be during refurbishment or demolition
work. Other potential situations include work linked to canals, rivers or
sewers.”
47. With regards to the statement that “Almost 10 per cent
of the tests carried out by the Environment Agency for hazardous pollutants
returned a result above its ‘maximum allowable limit’ — the highest proportion
recorded since testing began 20 years ago”, the publication said it had
filtered the tests to only include those for hazardous pollutants and river
water. It had also sent the testing methodology to the Environment Agency for
comment. It was therefore not misleading, and it had taken care with the
accuracy.
48. The publication said that reporting “Under EU rules, the
government is committed to ensuring that all rivers are of a good ecological
standard by 2027” was not inaccurate and noted that a European Commission
document made clear that the objective of the Water Framework Directive was to
“achieve good status for all water bodies”, and had a final deadline of 2027.
49. The publication acknowledged the complainant’s position
that a fine of “£127 million” had not been imposed on a water company and
offered to correct the figure to £126 million.
50. The publication said that “The agency missed its target
for reducing the number of serious and significant pollution incidents to 400.
The figure rose to 493” was not misleading and, in any event, was a reflection
on the Environment Agency rather than water companies.
51. The publication recognised the complainant’s concern
that the article had reported that “the agency says that more than a third of
rivers are failing to meet ecological standards because of sewage”, when water
companies were actually responsible for 28% of river pollution. It offered to
correct this to “almost a third”.
52. The publication also said that a quote from a named
source: “Cutting budgets absolutely has an effect: fewer policemen means less
testing and less enforcement — and as we’ve seen with some of the water
companies, people will take advantage of lax enforcement” was not inaccurate as
the claims were clearly sourced and the article distinguished comment and
conjecture from fact. It said that the source was a former head of the Environment
Agency, was for seven years chief inspector for HM Inspectorate of Pollution,
and a science policy advisor to the Welsh Assembly and that therefore the
relevance of his experience and expertise was a matter of opinion.
53. The newspaper also said that it was not unbalanced to
report that parents of young children who were playing in the River Wharfe had
been “unaware of how sewage outflows upstream were likely to have poured raw
waste into the water after thunderstorms”, or that it had “found evidence of
raw sewage being dumped in rivers, including close to spots used by swimmers
and anglers, via emergency outflows that should be used only in exceptional
storm conditions”. These statements were based on interviews with more than a
dozen members of the public in Ilkley whose children were swimming or paddling
in the river, none of whom were aware that there was a sewage outlet close by.
Furthermore, Yorkshire Water had admitted in an interview that there was a problem
with emergency outflows.
54. The publication also said that the statements “Experts
say this leaves water companies feeling free to pollute rivers” and “Scientists
say that the agency’s testing regime is not fit to deal with the pollutants
flushed away by households, industry and agriculture” were not inaccurate. It
had distinguished between comment, conjecture and fact, and there was no need
to disclose exactly which scientists had expressed these views.
55. The publication said that the second article was an
opinion piece and there was no inaccuracy in these statements: that England’s
rivers were among the most polluted in Europe; that that there was no
equivalent “blue-flag system” for water quality for swimmers in rivers; and
that “Much of the blame for this miserable record lies with the water
companies”.
56. The publication noted that the complainant said that
water companies plan to cut pollution by 90% by 2025, not by 2027 as stated in
the second article, and it offered to correct this. It also noted that 9,000
miles of waterways have been improved, not 3,000. It said that in the report a
spokesperson for Water UK was accurately reported as saying “water companies
had invested in improving about 10,000 miles of rivers.” It offered to correct
the figure from 3,000 to 9,000.
57. The publication said that reporting “Yet capital
expenditure has fallen over the past decade, bills have risen and shareholders
have helped themselves to big dividends” was not inaccurate and came from water
company accounts, which were public record. It produced many sources that
stated that bills had risen over the past decade, even if they had begun to
fall in the last five years. It also provided the findings of a study by
University of Greenwich that said that capital expenditure had fallen over the
last decade. It said that the complainant was simply using a different approach
to measurement and it invited the complainant to write a letter setting out the
industry’s commitment to investment, which would be published as a letter to
the Editor.
58. The publication said it was not inaccurate to report in
the third article that 500,000kg of metals are released through wastewater,
including “heavy metals” as published in the online article. The source was the
publicly available European Pollution Transfers and Releases database and a
European Environment Agency (EEA) briefing.
59. The publication said that it was not misleading to
report that lead “gets into rivers from industrial waste water as well as
run-off from eroded lead piping and abandoned mines” as it had not attributed
lead breaches to sewage pollution, and the article had not attempted to profile
pollutants coming specifically from sewage. Instead it had looked at the most
common pollutants, of which lead was the most common hazardous one. The
publication said that the first line of the third article had made clear that
sewage was not the biggest pollutant as it said: “Sewage may be the best known
pollutant in Britain’s rivers but it is not the only threat to the freshwater
ecosystem or the people that use it.”
60. The publication accepted that. in the third online
article, the River Teign was described as being in Cornwall when it was in
Devon; this had been correctly reported in the print version, and corrected
online once noticed. It said that the statistic regarding how much lead was in
the river was accurate and relevant as the samples were marked as flowing river
water, not mine water. It said it had recognised in the article the role of
abandoned lead mines in causing lead pollution in rivers and had not claimed
that lead breaches in the River Teign were due to sewage pollution.
61. The publication said that it was not misleading to
report that a briefing had stated that industrial waste water was being treated
by sewage plants not designed for metal contaminated water after discussing
cadmium pollution. It said that the article had not attributed cadmium breaches
to sewage pollution. It said that the EEA briefing stated that “Many industries
now rely on urban waste water treatment plants to purify water effluent.
However, remediating heavy metals in urban waste water was not the main focus
of such plants. As a result, waste water treatment plants appear to have been
responsible for almost half of the environmental pressure in 2016. However,
these plants merely concentrate the pollution originating from facilities in
the surrounding area.” The article accurately reflected this quote.
62. The publication said that the article had not attributed
either cypermethrion or polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons breaches to sewage
pollution and therefore there was no inaccuracy. It had stated, however, that
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons do concentrate in sewage sludge owing to their
low biodegradability.
Relevant Code 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
63. The Committee noted the complainant’s general concern
that the articles had given the misleading impression that water companies were
responsible for the majority of pollution in British rivers. However, under the
terms of the Code, the newspaper was entitled to focus its coverage on the
pollution caused by water companies, as long as the reports did not contain any
significantly misleading information.
64. The Committee acknowledged that the first article had
focused on the responsibility of water companies and the Environment Agency;
however, it also referred to pollution caused by “toxic heavy metals and
pesticides” and stated that the “sources of pollution in England’s rivers
include industry, agricultural run-off and legacy contamination from mines”. In
the second piece, a leader article, the newspaper expressed its opinion that
“much of the blame” for the pollution lay with water companies and it set out
the basis for this opinion: the routine use of sewage overflows; insufficient
spending on improving waterways; and ineffective regulation. The publication
was entitled to express this opinion which it had clearly distinguished as
comment; the article had not reported, as fact, that water companies were
responsible for most of the pollution in England’s rivers. Similarly, the third
article did not state that water companies were responsible for most water
pollution. It said that “sewage may be a well-known pollutant in Britain’s
rivers, but it is not the only threat...measurements by the EA show a raft of
pollutants – including metals, pesticides and industrial waste”. There was no
breach of the Code on this point.
65. The Committee noted that there was a process by which a
landowner or local authority could apply for a river to be given “designated
bathing water status”, and that no river in England had that status. However,
the newspaper had asserted, in the first article, that “Dangerous
pollutants…have reached their highest levels…with no river in the country now
certified as safe for swimmers” and, in the second article, that “Not one river
in England can be certified as safe for swimmers” which suggested that the
certification was given to rivers if the quality of the water made the river
safe for swimming and that no rivers were certified because of being unsafe due
to pollution. The certification took into account factors other than pollution,
such as the provision of life guards and toilets and not having “designated
bathing water status” did not necessarily indicate that the water was unsafe
for swimming because of pollution, as suggested by the first and second
articles. The newspaper had failed to take care not to publish misleading
information in breach of Clause 1(i). The misleading information was
significant and required correction under the terms of Clause 1(ii). The
publication had not offered to correct it and there was therefore a breach of
Clause 1(ii).
66. The Committee found that the sub headline to the first
article, “Watchdog ‘leaves water companies free to pollute’”, was a
paraphrasing of remarks which were reported in the article, as indicated by the
use of inverted commas. The remarks included the reported comment of the named
MP who had said “treating fines as the cost of doing business, rather than
seeing them as a serious deterrent…The Environment Agency needs to step up”.
The sub headline was, therefore, supported by the text and there was no a
breach of Clause 1 on this point.
67. It was not misleading to use the term “dangerous” in the
first article instead of “hazardous” to refer to pollutants which have been
tested for in England’s waterways. In addition, as the proportion of tests for
hazardous pollutants that had resulted in a breach was at its highest in 2018
compared to other periods of testing, it was not inaccurate for the newspaper
to have reported that they had “reached their highest levels since modern
testing began”. The fact that some pollutants had reduced over the period did
not make the report inaccurate. The newspaper had also put this point to the
Environment Agency and it had not disputed it. There was no breach of Clause 1
on this point.
68. The Committee noted that the complainant disputed that
it was accurate for the first and second articles to report that 86% of
waterways fell short of the EU’s ecological standard, which was “up from 75% a
decade ago”, because the standards had changed in 2014. However, it was
accepted by the complainant that 86% of waterways now fell short of this
standard and, in the context of an article which was focussed on the current
situation, the Committee did not consider that the percentage which had fallen
short of the standard a decade ago was significant. There was no breach of
Clause 1 on this point.
69. The Committee did not consider that by reporting that
“half of all stretches of river…exceeded permitted limits of at least one
hazardous pollutant last year, including toxic heavy metals and pesticides” the
article had attributed responsibility for the situation to the water companies.
Whilst the article focused on pollution by water companies, it also referred to
pollution of varying types and identified the sources of these other types of
pollution, such as “industry, agricultural run-off and legacy contamination
from mines”. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
70. The publication had accepted that in the first and
second articles it had inaccurately reported that there had been three
prosecutions against water companies in 2018, when in fact there had been five.
However, given that the number of prosecutions had fallen significantly from
thirty in 2014, whether it had dropped to three or five was not significant.
The Committee nevertheless welcomed the newspaper’s offer to publish a clarification
on this point. The Committee did not consider that it was misleading to omit
that enforcement undertakings had replaced some prosecutions, given that it was
accepted that the number of prosecutions had nevertheless fallen since 2014.
There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
71. The complainant had accepted that water companies could
propose actions they would take in response to issues or failings identified by
the Environment Agency. It was not inaccurate to characterise this as water companies
being able to “suggest their own penalties” in the first article. There was no
breach of Clause 1 on this point.
72. The Committee noted the complainant’s concern that it
was inaccurate for the first article to have included a quote from a representative
of the Angling Trust who had said “We’re going backwards — our rivers are
getting worse” in circumstances where there were areas where rivers had
improved. However, this was clearly presented as the opinion of the individual
quoted, which the newspaper was entitled to report. The newspaper had
distinguished comment from fact in accordance with Clause 1(iv) and therefore
reporting this quote was not misleading.
73. The Committee did not consider that the first article
was inaccurate by suggesting that sewers were the source of metal pollution or
insecticides. The article had not stated the source of this pollution; the
omission was not misleading. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
74. The Committee found that stating in the first article
that leptospirosis was linked to sewage pollution was not inaccurate as it was
associated with rats, and government advice had stated that sewers were an
environment in which the risk of leptospirosis was higher. There was no breach
of Clause 1 on this point.
75. The publication explained that it had analysed data on
tests for hazardous pollutants which had been carried out by the Environment
Agency and had found that almost 10 per cent of the tests had returned a result
above its “maximum allowable limit”. It had put its findings to the Environment
Agency which had not disputed them. The newspaper had not failed to take care
over the accuracy of the report of its analysis of the test results in the
first and second articles. While the assertion that almost 10 per cent of tests
had found hazardous pollutants above the “maximum allowable limit” had followed
a reference to pollution from sewage in the first article, the analysis of the
tests was provided in a separate paragraph and did not suggest that sewage was
solely responsible for these test results. There was no breach of Clause 1 on
this point.
76. It was not inaccurate to report in the first article
that “Under EU rules, the government is committed to ensuring that all rivers
are of a good ecological standard by 2027”. The publication had provided a
document from the European Commission which demonstrated that the government
was committed to achieving this standard; the article had not reported that the
government was aiming for 100% compliance. There was no breach of Clause 1 on
this point.
77. The Committee noted that the first article had said that
a fine of “£127 million” had been imposed on a named water company, when the
correct figure was £126 million; however, in the context of this article, the
inaccuracy was not significant. Furthermore, whether the £126 million had to be
invested by the water company or paid to the Environment Agency was not
significant, given that the company had been ordered by the Environment Agency
to spend the money. The Committee nevertheless welcomed the clarification
offered by the publication to address this point. There was no breach of Clause
1 on this point.
78. The Committee did not find that it was inaccurate to
report in the first article that the Environment Agency had missed its target
to reduce the number of significant pollution incidents, without specifically
stating how many of those incidents were attributable to water companies. The
article had not inaccurately reported that this was the fault of water
companies. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
79. The first article had reported that “over a third” of
river pollution was due to sewage, when the actual figure was 28%; however, the
difference between the two figures did not represent a significant inaccuracy.
The Committee nevertheless welcomed the correction as published by the
newspaper. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
80. The newspaper had been entitled to publish the opinion
of a former director of the Environment Agency, in the first article, that
“Cutting budgets absolutely has an effect: fewer policemen means less testing
and less enforcement — and as we’ve seen with some of the water companies,
people will take advantage of lax enforcement”. This was clearly distinguished
as the comment of the former director; it was not an assertion of fact. There was
no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
81. The Committee also found that it was not misleading to
report in the first and second articles that parents of young children had been
unaware that their children were swimming in water polluted by sewage outflows
upstream. This had been based on interviews with members of the public, and the
complainant had no basis upon which to question this. Moreover, it was not in
dispute that sewage was entering the water via overflows upstream, as reported.
The newspaper had not reported that the water company’s use of overflows was
illegal. Similarly, the report in the second article that the newspaper had
“found evidence of raw sewage being dumped in rivers” had not suggested that a
water company had acted illegally or that sewage was being discharged in
concentrated quantities. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
82. The newspaper had reported in the first article that
“Experts say this leaves water companies feeling free to pollute rivers” and
that “Scientists say that the agency’s testing regime is not fit to deal with
the pollutants flushed away by households, industry and agriculture”. While
these opinions were not attributed to named individuals, they were clearly
presented as comments and not statements of fact. The Committee also noted that
the article had included quotations attributed to a former director of the
Environment Agency who had said that “people will take advantage of lax
enforcement”, and to a representative of the Environmental Change Research
Centre that there “should be much stricter controls on the companies”. As such,
there was a basis for the newspaper’s reporting that “experts” and “scientists”
had expressed these opinions. There was no breach of Clause 1 on these points.
83. The Committee noted the complainant’s concern that the
second article had stated that England’s rivers were among the most polluted in
Europe. However, it was clear from the article that this was based on the
newspaper’s own analysis of water quality tests undertaken by the Environment
Agency from 2000 to 2019, and the fact that 86% of England’s rivers fell below
the European Union’s ecological standard. While the complainant had referred to
data to support its position that the UK was “about average” in terms of river
pollution, this did not mean that the article was misleading for reporting
alternative data. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
84. The newspaper had reported in the second article that
there was no “blue-flag system” to indicate the water quality of rivers, and
this was accepted by the complainant. There was no suggestion in the article
that water companies were responsible for this. There was no breach of Clause 1
on this point.
85. The Committee noted that the second article reported
that water companies planned to cut pollution by 90% by 2027, rather than by
2025. It also noted that the original article had stated that 3,000 miles of
waterways had been improved, when the true figure was 9,000. In the overall
context of the article, however, the Committee did not find that these points
represented significant inaccuracies; however it welcomed the correction the
newspaper had published in response to the complaint. There was no breach of
Clause 1 on these points.
86. The Committee noted the dispute between the publication
and the complainant as to whether capital expenditure had fallen and bills had
risen over the past decade, as stated in the second article. The newspaper had
based its report that bills had risen on water company accounts, and it had
provided information from Full Fact and from Water UK’s own promotional
material to support this assertion. While the complainant had noted that bills
had in fact decreased in the last five years, it was not misleading for the
newspaper to have reported that they had increased over the last decade. In
addition, the newspaper had provided a report from the University of Greenwich which
indicated that expenditure had fallen over the last decade. There was no breach
of the Code on these points.
87. It was not inaccurate to report that 500,000kg of metals
are released through wastewater in the third article in print, and also by referring
to “heavy metals” in the online version. The publication had relied on the
European Pollution Transfers and Releases database, as well as an EEA briefing.
The fact that metals are also found naturally in water did not render the
article inaccurate on this point. The article had also clearly stated that the
sources of lead pollution in rivers were industrial wastewater, abandoned mines
and eroded lead piping; it had not given the significantly misleading
impression that sewage was to blame for the majority of lead in rivers. There
was no breach of Clause 1 on these points.
88. The Committee welcomed the publication’s offer to
clarify that the River Teign was in Devon, and not Cornwall as originally
stated in the online version of the third article. It did not, however, find
this to be a significant inaccuracy. Furthermore, it did not consider that the
article had misleadingly suggested that lead in the river Teign was due to
wastewater. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
89. The Committee found that it was not misleading to report
in the third article that an EEA briefing had stated that industrial wastewater
was being treated by sewage plants not designed for metal contaminated water.
The article had not claimed that sewage was a source of cadmium, instead the
statement concerned treatment plants being unable to treat water which was
already polluted with cadmium. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
90. Finally, the Committee noted the complainant’s concerns
in relation to the third article that neither cypermethrion nor polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) breaches were caused by sewage pollution. However,
the article had not claimed that sewage was a key source of these chemicals
Instead, it made clear that a source of cypermethrin was agriculture by stating
it was “a toxic pesticide used to protect crops and livestock” and “PAHs enter
rivers though wastewater from manufacturing and power plants, as well as
run-off of car emission particles from roads”. There was no breach of Clause 1
on this point.
Conclusions
91. The complaint was partly upheld under Clause 1(i) and
Clause 1(ii).
Remedial Action Required
92. 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 adjudication, the nature, extent and placement of which is
determined by IPSO.
93. The publication had misleadingly reported that as a
result of water pollution, no river in England had been certified as safe for
swimming, when this was a designated status that had to be applied for. The
misleading information had appeared on the front page, and in a leader article,
published on page 23. While the misleading information was significant, it was
not a central point of the coverage which discussed more generally pollution
levels in rivers and whether the Environment Agency was effective in tackling
the problem. In light of this, the Committee considered that the appropriate
remedy was the publication of a correction.
94. The correction should appear in the newspaper’s corrections
and clarifications column and as a footnote to the relevant online articles,
and should state that it has been published following an upheld ruling by the
Independent Press Standards Organisation. The full wording should be agreed
with IPSO in advance.
Date complaint received: 11/10/2019
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 21/04/2020