Except it's not. If you find someone else's nonsense surprising, maybe you should consider whether it's really nonsense. (I also checked with a few colleagues i

Except it's not. If you find someone else's nonsense surprising, maybe you should consider whether it's really nonsense. (I also checked with a few colleagues in the UK) The last case this really came to bear was around rupert murdoch, and the conclusion was "they could not actually compel him". I do not believe you read the publications or articles you are citing, so here's a shorter one for you: https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/contempt-witnesses-select-committees https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/contempt-witn... "If he does disregard the summons, the committee will have the option of making a report to the House arguing that he has committed ‘a contempt’" Note that unlike what you say (the committee cannot enforce it itself), the committee's power is actually limited to making a report and asking the broader body to find them in contempt. "What is more, if any committee were to report to the House that it believed a contempt had been committed, and the House agreed, it remains unclear what sanctions it would have at its disposal. Historically, those found guilty of contempts could be fined or imprisoned, but those sanctions have not been used by the Commons since 1666 and 1880 respectively. For all sorts of practical, legal and constitutional reasons, it is highly doubtful that the modern House would seriously consider this." Also note: It's almost certain they didn't release the documents to the public because they didn't feel their legal position was very good. They would definitely be immune from any repercussions from the publication itself due to privilege, so the only reason not to publish is to avoid legal embarrassment over how they acquired them in the first place.