As I said above, the report you link to has been superseded by one published earlier this month, which I linked to. If you read the first paragraph of it, rather than looking for things which appear to confirm your predudices, you will have seen this mentioned, alongside the reasons why and how it differs from the earlier report.

The paragraph I quoted takes into account the earlier paragraph you quoted, once again talking material out of context in order to make some kind of "point". Rather like the Telegraph piece, which uses out of date data in a similar way.