Heather Brooke to challenge proposed redaction of MPs' expenses evidence

This article was migrated from an old version of our website in 2025. As a result, it might have some low-quality images or non-functioning links - if there's any issues you'd like to see fixed, get in touch with us at info@journalism.co.uk.

There used to be something here that couldn't be migrated - please contact us at info@journalism.co.uk if you'd like to see this updated!

A submission by the investigative journalist Heather Brooke is among 67 statements being questioned by lawyers for the Committee on Standards in Public Life inquiry into the MPs' expenses scandal.

Hearings were held in public for the investigation into MPs' allowances but the standing committee, chaired by Sir Christopher Kelly, is currently refusing to publish evidence from Brooke, on the grounds it could be 'libellous'.

According to the website of the independent inquiry:

There used to be something here that couldn't be migrated - please contact us at info@journalism.co.uk if you'd like to see this updated!

A spokesperson for the committee told Journalism.co.uk that the 700 written submissions had to be checked by lawyers as the body is not protected from UK libel law.

"They're [the committee] not subject to Parliamentary privilege so they have to be aware of the risk of defamation if they publish something that comments on an individual or casts them in a negative light. They have to rely on legal advice.

"If the lawyers raise a query the committee will go back to them [the witness] and say that the lawyers have raised a query about this particular aspect [and ask] 'are you happy for that to be redacted'? They're informed," the spokesperson said, adding that the committee sees the entire submission even if the evidence is not published.

Heather Brooke, who was at the forefront of the legal and journalistic campaign for the publication of MPs' expenses, was surprised to discover that her evidence given on June 30 2009 had been removed from the site after initial publication.

Lawyers advising the committee had suggested that parts of Brooke's submission about 'named individuals' were 'potentially defamatory,' Brooke was informed by email.

Brooke was shocked to learn that her evidence was not afforded the protection given to the House of Commons and House of Lords, she said.

"It is completely undemocratic to have a double standard whereby MPs and those helping MPs in their inquiries are granted full immunity from this country's draconian libel law; whereas those who give evidence to an inquiry investigating MPs must fear a libel prosecution for daring to speak frankly," she told Journalism.co.uk.

Brooke later received suggested redactions for the submission, which she has ignored and published in full on her blog , from the committee's secretary. The committee asked her to remove references to specific names: MPs Keith Vaz, Ann Widdecombe, Harriet Harman and Derek Conway; former MP Michael Trend; MSP David McLetchie and former MSP Brian Monteith, and the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown.

"I'm afraid I can’t agree to this censorship," Brooke replied to the committee.

"Everything I have said is in the public domain already. There is nothing defamatory in my statements.

"The only reason I can see for the requested omissions is the fact they identify people. Identification alone is not a libellous act. Am I right in thinking the Committee has not, in fact, had any complaints made from the subjects identified in this statement but that the committee is proactively self-censoring witness statements?

"I would recommend you ask Sir Christopher Kelly if he agrees with such proactive censorship. It will not lead to any good publicity, I should think, for the committee's reputation."

Brooke received an email reply today from the committee's secretary, which stated: "[T]he committee does not wish to censor submissions, it is our desire to publish all submissions received.

"Legal advisers have advised of a risk of defamation and we are in the process of exploring that with them. I am expecting a final conclusion from them on this next week and will write to let you know the outcome."

"'Redaction' is exactly the same as censorship but sounds nicer," commented Brooke.

"The committee's approach is to be as open as possible," the committee's spokesperson told Journalism.co.uk. Brooke's was one of the many submissions at 'various stages' of review, she confirmed.