The Independent Press Standards Organisation has rejected a complaint from Tony Blair seeking a retraction of a Daily Mail article that accused him of trying to “wriggle out” of an investigation by a committee of MPs.
The article, which ran with the headline “Blair tried to wriggle out of MPs’ probe into IRA ‘comfort letters’”, was published in January.
The article reported that Blair contacted the speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow, after being summoned to appear before the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee inquiry into so-called “comfort letters”.
The Mail asserted that Blair did so to try and “wriggle out” of giving evidence to the committee and claimed that Bercow “ripped into” the former prime minister in response.
Blair lodged a complaint with Ipso claiming that he explained to Bercow that he had already given evidence on the issue to the Hallett Review and didn’t see the benefit in repeating it, but that he would nevertheless attend.
Blair asked if there was any scope to change the date he was required to attend “in light of restrictions on his diary”.
Ipso said that Bercow confirmed that he was not asked to overturn the summons “order” and that the conversation with Blair was cordial.
The Daily Mail countered that Bercow had made a “limited denial” that did not affect the article’s central claim that Blair had attempted to avoid appearing.
The Daily Mail said that Blair had declined to give oral evidence to the committee after being asked to do so in March last year.
The newspaper provided a copy of a letter from the chair of the committee notifying Blair of the unusual step of issuing a summons to appear because of his “continuing lack of response to the committee’s invitation” adding that it was “disrespectful to the house [of commons]”.
Blair also said the article was misleading in claiming that he limited his appearance before the committee to one hour, when in fact this was at the suggestion of the committee’s chair.
The Daily Mail offered to publish a clarification but Blair pursued a complaint with Ipso to try to get the article retracted in full.
Ipso backed the Mail, pointing to Blair’s “previous, documented, reluctance to give oral evidence to the committee”.
“The article … made clear that [Blair] disputed the account the newspaper had been given,” said Ipso. “The account was appropriately presented as a claim, or the newspaper’s understanding of what had passed between the parties.”
Ipso’s committee was satisfied that “care had been taken to avoid misleading readers”.
“The newspaper had characterised his alleged conduct as having the appearance of [Blair] trying to ‘wriggle out’ of the summons,” said Ipso. “In the full circumstances, and given the manner in which the newspaper presented these claims, this was not significantly misleading. The complaint was not upheld”.
