Recommendation 3

HM Government Deferred

IPSO was glad to be able to offer evidence to the committee during its inquiry and inform the course of its work. I am writing to respond to paragraph 49 of the report, a recommendation pertaining to IPSO specifically: “The Editor’s Code of Practice must balance the rights of individuals to protection from discrimination with freedom of expression in the press. The complete omission of age from clause 12 on discrimination gets this balance wrong, leaving older people unprotected and contributing to a widely held perception that ageism is taken less seriously than other forms of discrimination. There is no reason why age should not be included in the Editor’s Code of Practice with the same caveat on genuine relevance to the story as other categories currently covered by clause 12. “The justification of the omission of age from clause 12, set out in the Editors’ Codebook, that journalists must be free to comment on public figures who are “past their prime” is itself overtly ageist. We recommend the Editors’ Code of Practice Committee include age in clause 12 of the Editors’ Code of Practice and update the Editors’ Codebook accordingly.” The case for the inclusion of age under Clause 12 of the Editors’ Code is one IPSO has been familiar with for some time through dialogue with interested parties, such as the Centre for Ageing Better, which has also provided evidence to this inquiry – as well as our own advisory panels of journalists and readers who bring editorial and lay perspectives respectively. When giving evidence to the previous committee membership, our head of complaints and pre-publication services, Alice Gould, set out the distinction between IPSO and the Editors’ Code Committee. It is the latter which, through feedback and public consultation, regularly reviews and updates the Editors’ Code to reflect changing social attitudes. The Code is an evolving document that has, in response to public engagement, added a dedicated clause on suicide and other alterations, such as tightened wording around consent for providing information on children. The chair of IPSO Lord Faulks and I attend the Editors’ Code Committee. We have shared the recommendation of this report with the committee, which will discuss the issue at its next meeting in May. With regards to the select committee’s concerns about specific wording used in the Codebook, the Code Committee has removed the phrase in question from the 2025 version of the document. I understand the Committee will write to you separately with the updated wording.