Newspapers flout ruling on asylum seekers
Sarah Hall, political correspondent
The Guardian
The Press Complaints Commission is to crack down on the use of the term "illegal asylum seeker" by newspapers after research revealed its continued usage.
Sir Christopher Meyer, the press watchdog's chairman, has commissioned its cuttings agency to scan all British newspapers for use of the term after a study by the Liberal Democrats showed that the press has ignored the PCC's guidance issued more than a year ago.
Despite being told the term was inaccurate and risked generating an "atmosphere of fear and hostility", newspapers used it on only five fewer occasions than the previous year - 33 times compared with 38.
Sir Christopher's move came after Don Foster, the Lib Dems' culture spokesman, said the watchdog needed to "raise its game" on discovering that newspapers were flouting guidance issued on 23 October last year.
Then, the PCC told all newspapers that the phrase "illegal asylum seeker" was legally inaccurate and should no longer be used.
The worst offenders were the Daily Express which used it five times last year, compared with four the year before; the Daily Mail and the Mirror, both three instances instead of four; and the Telegraph, three instead of one. The Times and the Independent slipped up once in the past year, while the Guardian managed to eradicate it altogether.
The incidents occurred after the PCC received some complaints about the use of the phrase and issued guidance that its use breached its code of practice on the grounds of accuracy.
The guidance said: "As an asylum seeker is someone currently seeking refugee status or humanitarian protection, there can be no such thing in law as an illegal asylum seeker.
"An asylum seeker can only become an illegal immigrant if he or she remains in the UK after having failed to respond to a removal notice."
The ruling also said that the emotive nature of the phrase meant there was a "danger" of generating "an atmosphere of fear and hostility that is not borne out by the facts".
Following his findings, Mr Foster wrote to Sir Christopher calling for harsher punishments for defiant newspapers.
The PCC has no power to fine papers. Its most stringent punishment is a ruling that a paper has breached the code of practice. The ruling must be published by the paper in question. But about 95% of complaints are resolved before this point.
"These figures clearly show the PCC needs to raise its game significantly," said Mr Foster.
"After such a breach of effective self-regulation, the PCC must adopt a zero-tolerance policy towards damaging phrases and reconsider its inability to fine offenders.
"Such inflammatory language reinforces prejudices and denies the UK an informed discussion on asylum policy. To ensure accuracy in the media and best serve the British public, the PCC must stand up to newspaper editors by enforcing its own decisions."
A PCC spokesman said that as a result of Mr Foster's complaint, Sir Christopher commissioned the PCC's cuttings agency to scan all British newspapers, local, regional and national, for the use of the term and would then bring transgressions to the attention of individual editors. But he insisted there was no case for imposing fines.
Mr Foster disagreed. "The PCC's fast and effective decision will be welcomed by all those who want cooler heads to prevail in the asylum and immigration debate," he said.
"However, there is still a strong case for considering the imposition of fines on erring newspapers."
