The Daily Telegraph, the most assiduous monitor of MPs' expenses, ran a piece yesterday about culture secretary Maria Miller being reported to the parliamentary standards watchdog because she claimed £90,000 for a second home where her parents lived.

It now transpires, according to a front page story in today's Telegraph, that the paper was warned by Miller's advisers, prior to publishing its story, "to consider the minister's role in implementing the Leveson report."

The Telegraph reports that Miller's special adviser said she wanted to "flag up" the minister's connection to press regulation after the paper had established that Miller's parents lived in her taxpayer-funded second home.

Miller has stated that this arrangement is perfectly reasonable and that her expenses - having been audited twice before - are "absolutely in order".

But the Telegraph, amazed at the response by Miller's office to its revelations, has taken the unusual step of deciding "to disclose details of the private conversations" between its reporters and the minister's advisers.

It states that it has done this "amid widespread concern about the potential dangers of politicians being given a role in overseeing the regulation of the press."

Here is the full account detailed in today's Telegraph:

"This organisation first approached the culture secretary's office on Thursday afternoon last week, a day before David Cameron announced that the government would be backing gay marriage and allowing ceremonies to take place in some churches. When a reporter approached Mrs Miller's office last Thursday, her special adviser, Joanna Hindley, pointed out that the editor of the Telegraph was involved in meetings with the prime minister and the culture secretary over implementing the recommendations made by Lord Justice Leveson. 'Maria has obviously been having quite a lot of editors' meetings around Leveson at the moment. So I am just going to kind of flag up that connection for you to think about,' said Miss Hindley. Miss Hindley also said the reporter should discuss the issue with 'people a little higher up your organisation'. Miss Hindley immediately contacted the Telegraph's head of public affairs to raise concerns about the story. The news group decided to delay publication in order to ensure the facts were correct. Having carried out further checks, the newspaper concluded that the story was accurate and decided to publish the article at the first opportunity, meaning it appeared on the day same-sex marriage was debated in the Commons. Miss Hindley also accused the Telegraph of harassing Mrs Miller's father, John Lewis. In fact, reporters had a brief conversation with Mr Lewis in order to establish how long he had lived with Mrs Miller. Over the course of the conversation, Mr Lewis said he enjoyed reading the Telegraph. Mrs Miller also contacted the Telegraph to complain about her parents being approached. 'Irrespective of whatever you are investigating, I cannot see a justification for this family intrusion. I should be grateful if you could confirm that you now understand the basis of my concern and that on reflection this could have been handled differently," wrote Mrs Miller. She also claimed that the journalist had not identified herself at the start of the conversation, which was inaccurate."

It transpired that Miller was reported to the parliamentary commissioner for standards on Monday by Labour MP John Mann.

He pointed out that her arrangement was "identical" to that of the former Labour minister Tony McNulty, who in 2009 was required to pay back more than £13,000 in expenses claimed on a second home occupied by his parents.

Miller claimed more than £90,000 on a house in Wimbledon, south-west London, between 2005 and 2009, where her parents lived with her family.

A spokesman for Miller said the parents lived with the family "as dependents." The parliamentary commissioner John Lyon stated in his report on McNulty that this was unacceptable.

Miller's aides insisted that her arrangements were approved by the parliamentary fees office and audited twice. But McNulty's expenses were also approved by the fees office.

Comment: I think Miller's aides - and Miller - have questions to answer, not just about the expenses, but about the way the Telegraph was treated. The mention of Leveson, and the call to the Telegraph's "head of public affairs", were sinister moves that, on the face of it, amounted pressure to prevent publication.

It would be extraordinary for any minister to respond to a paper in such a way. For a culture secretary who is involved in the sensitive business of deciding on the implementation of the Leveson report, it was a disgraceful act.

The Telegraph Media Group's executive director, Lord Black, is a key mover in the industry's manoeuvres to create a new press regulator in order to appease the government.

Surely, in the light of the Telegraph's story, Miller will now have to recuse herself from the process. This modern Miller's Tale reflects badly on her office, if not herself.