Summary of complaint
We received complaints from people who feel the 91Èȱ¬ investigation into Rachel Reeves’ employment history, and our subsequent reporting of its findings, was biased against Ms Reeves.
Our response
Rachel Reeves has often cited her past employment when explaining why she has the credentials to be Chancellor of the Exchequer, one of the most senior roles in government. There have been questions raised previously over Ms Reeves’ career history, which prompted 91Èȱ¬ News to investigate this matter further. Given Ms Reeves is in charge of the nation’s finances, this is an issue of public interest, which we reported proportionately, along with several other stories, including the war in Ukraine, President Trump’s plans for trade tariffs, and a car attack in Munich.
When reporting on the inaccuracies in Ms Reeves’ CV on her LinkedIn profile, and her alleged breaches of expenses policy while working at Halifax Bank of Scotland (HBOS), we were transparent about the information we had established and the details we didn’t know. We made clear that we had found no evidence that the HBOS investigation into Ms Reeves’ use of expenses was completed, and that there was no suggestion that her departure from the bank was because of this investigation.
We have reflected Ms Reeves’ position throughout our coverage, and heard from other senior Labour figures expressing support for her, including the prime minister. As our audience would expect, we have also included the response from Ms Reeves’ political opponents.Â
We believe our approach to this story has been appropriate, duly impartial and fair, reflecting the nuances, and examining the implications for public trust and perceptions of Rachel Reeves’ judgment.Â