Opposition MPs call for tycoon’s knighthood to be revoked after Peter Hain uses Lords speech to name him

Sir Philip Green has been named as the businessman at the centre of an injunction linked to allegations known as the “British #MeToo scandal”, after a Labour peer used an ancient parliamentary right to name him in the House of Lords.

The Topshop retail tycoon was named in a dramatic intervention by the former cabinet minister Peter Hain, after days of speculation over a mystery businessman described by the Daily Telegraph as the subject of multiple sexual harassment and bullying allegations.

Green said he “categorically and wholly denies” any suggestion he was guilty of unlawful behaviour.

Court of appeal judges had granted a temporary injunction blocking the Daily Telegraph from publishing allegations of misconduct made by five employees about a figure the newspaper described as a “leading businessman”. The staff had signed non-disclosure agreements.

The court of appeal decision overturned an earlier finding by the high court that to identify the man would be in the public interest. It is thought the legal case cost Green around £500,000. The Telegraph said it would “reignite the #MeToo movement against the mistreatment of women, minorities and others by powerful employers”.

On Thursday, Lord Hain told the Lords he had decided to name Green, saying: “Having been contacted by somebody intimately involved in the case of a powerful businessman using non-disclosure agreements and substantial payments to conceal the truth about serious and repeated sexual harassment, racist abuse and bullying which is compulsively continuing, I feel it’s my duty under parliamentary privilege to name Philip Green as the individual in question, given that the media have been subject to an injunction preventing publication of the full details of a story which is clearly in the public interest.”

Sir Philip Green named in parliament as businessman in 'British #MeToo scandal' - Politics live Read more

Green said he would not comment on any court proceedings or anything that was said in parliament, but issued a robust statement denying any wrongdoing.

“To the extent that it is suggested that I have been guilty of unlawful sexual or racist behaviour, I categorically and wholly deny these allegations,” he said. “[Topshop parent group] Arcadia and I take accusations and grievances from employees very seriously and in the event that one is raised, it is thoroughly investigated.

“Arcadia employs more than 20,000 people and in common with many large businesses sometimes receives formal complaints from employees. In some cases these are settled with the agreement of all parties and their legal advisers. These settlements are confidential so I cannot comment further on them.”

Parliamentary privilege is an ancient right allowing MPs to say what they wish in the parliamentary chambers without being sued for libel. That privilege has traditionally been used by the media to report on what was said. In 2011, the Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming named the footballer Ryan Giggs as the star who had taken out an injunction over an alleged affair with a reality TV star.

Members of the Lords did not react to Hain’s intervention and business proceeded to a routine statement on immigration by the Home Office minister Susan Williams.

Theresa May’s spokeswoman declined to comment on the naming of Green but said it was up to individual MPs or peers how they chose to exercise parliamentary privilege.

Speaking during prime minister’s questions on Wednesday, May said the government was already committed to reforming the use of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs).

“Non-disclosure agreements cannot stop people from whistleblowing, but it is clear that some employers are using them unethically,” May said.

She said the government was going to bring forward its consultation “to seek to improve the regulation around non-disclosure agreements and make it absolutely explicit to employees when a non-disclosure agreement does not apply and when it cannot be enforced”.

A report from the women and equalities committee in July recommended that NDAs “must be better controlled and regulated” and that lawyers must be held to account if they used them unethically. Earlier this year the Solicitors Regulation Authority warned its members against inappropriate use of the agreements.

The shadow women and equalities secretary, Dawn Butler, said Labour would reform the use of NDAs unless the government did so first, saying: “If the current law doesn’t protect the voices of survivors, the next Labour government will legislate to do so.”

It is felt there will be calls for Green’s knighthood to be revoked if the allegations are proved, a decision that rests with the honours forfeiture committee which can consider a case when it is referred by the prime minister.

Frank Field, the chair of the work and pensions select committee who has clashed with Green on multiple occasions over BHS pensions, said: “The charge sheet against the knighthood is growing. Parliament and the country have made our views clear on this matter.”

The Labour MP Jess Phillips, who has been outspoken against the use of NDAs, said Green should have already been stripped of his knighthood. “If he isn’t now, a knighthood becomes meaningless. I’m glad that the rich and powerful do not get to buy impunity and today will be a shot across their bow.”

The Lib Dem leader, Vince Cable, also called for Green’s knighthood to be revoked. “He narrowly and luckily escaped losing his knighthood over the pensions scandal. If these allegations are correct, he should certainly be stripped of his knighthood.”

Field said he hoped to bring forward a mechanism in parliament where voices of bullying in the workplace could be heard via MPs, so they would not face the risk of being sued.

“I have been talking this evening with somebody who witnessed grotesque bullying at work,” he said. “They would like for what they witnessed to be shared, through the House of Commons, with the nation.”

He said a mechanism allowing MPs to speak on behalf of victims would “develop the role of the House of Commons in a way which stands up for people who have little money, against those who have much.”

Hain defended his decision to speak out on Thursday night telling the BBC’s Newsnight programme: “What concerned me about this case was wealth, and power that comes with it, and abuse. And that was what led me to act in the way that I did. It’s for others to judge whether I’ve been right or wrong.

“But there’s no point in being in Westminster - which is the sovereign centre of the British constitution, has sovereignty and with it the parliamentary privilege that is a privilege ... if you never discharge that; if you never deploy the precious rights of parliamentary privilege.”</s>LONDON — The billionaire Topshop owner Sir Philip Green has found himself mired in controversy, once again.

Green, one of Britain’s richest individuals, is the subject of an eight-month investigation by The Daily Telegraph, which has accused him of sexual and racial harassment and bullying.

Green managed to get an injunction against The Telegraph earlier this week, preventing the newspaper from revealing his identity, but Lord Peter Hain, the former Leader of the House of Commons, used his parliamentary privilege to reveal Green’s name.

“Having been contacted by someone intimately involved in the case of a powerful businessman using non-disclosure agreements and substantial payments to conceal the truth about serious and repeated sexual harassment, racist abuse and bullying, which is compulsively continuing, I feel it’s my duty under parliamentary privilege to name Philip Green as the individual in question,” Hain told the House of Lords on Thursday.

According to the Telegraph allegations, there are five cases where Green paid “substantial amounts to his victims” and had them sign confidentiality agreements to prevent them from speaking up.

He is also said to have spent up to 500,000 pounds in legal fees, fighting The Telegraph in the U.K. Court of Appeals.

The allegations have reignited the #MeToo conversation in the U.K. and have also begun a debate on the use of confidentiality agreements or NDAs.

Prime Minister Theresa May saying that she will be reviewing around the use of these agreements, as it is “clear” that some employers have been using them for unethical reasons.

This is the second scandal to hit Green over the past two years. In 2016, he faced five investigations into the collapse of his former retailer BHS, and its pension fund deficit.

In February 2017, Green put an end to months of drama, bad press and damage to his reputation by filling the pension fund hole at BHS with a voluntary contribution of up to 363 million pounds.</s>This week, Philip Green was outed as the man behind what’s being called Britain’s Me Too scandal.

The businessman had succeeded in taking out an interim injuction which prevented him from being named in the press, but was exposed in parliament due to special exemptions.

The man who did the deed was Lord Peter Hain, who told of the harassment and bullying allegations against the Topshop owner in the House of Lords yesterday.

Hain said in his speech: ‘I feel it’s my duty under parliamentary privilege to name Philip Green as the individual in question, given that the media have been subject to an injunction preventing publication of the full details of a story which is clearly in the public interest.’

Find out more about the former MP.

Lord Hain was the Member of Parliament for Neath between 1991 and 2015.

As a representative of the Labour Party, he served in both the Tony Blair and Gordon Brown governments.

During that time he acted as Leader of the House of Commons, Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and and Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.

The now-58-year-old was a prominent gay rights and anti-Apartheid campaigner, and had a letterbomb mailed to him by South African Security Services in the early 1970s.

He was nominated for a life peerage in the 2015 Dissolution Honours, making his title Baron Hain.

Yesterday, he exercised parliamentary privilege to name Philip Green as the businessman accused of bullying and harassment.

Due to an interim injunction by Green, there was a block on publishing him name in the press or on social media of any kind.

Parliamentary privilege, however, is a legal immunity which allows members of the House of Lords and House of Commons to speak freely during parliamentary proceedings without fear of legal action on the grounds of slander, contempt of court or breaching the Official Secrets Act.

MPs and Lords tend to exercise this privilege if they believe there is public interest in doing so. Hain justified his naming of Green on the grounds that those applying for jobs with him in future should be made aware.

MORE: Parents demand answers over concerns about paedo former MP living yards away from school

MORE: Woman stole £280,000 from friends and family in Ponzi scheme to fund lifestyle</s>Sir Philip Green case: What you need to know

Sir Philip Green case: What you need to know What is a non-disclosure agreement? What is parliamentary privilege? And can the billionaire really lose his knighthood?

Topshop owner Sir Philip Green has been named as the businessman behind an injunction against a national newspaper.

Labour peer Lord Hain used parliamentary privilege to identify the billionaire in the House of Lords on Thursday.

The Daily Telegraph reported earlier in the week that an unnamed businessman had been granted an injunction to prevent them revealing alleged sexual harassment and racial abuse of staff.

Sir Philip - who owns the Arcadia Group of high street brands including Topshop, Topman, Burton and Dorothy Perkins - has said he "categorically and wholly denies" allegations of "unlawful sexual or racist behaviour".

Amid calls for the 66-year-old to be stripped of his knighthood if the claims are true, Sky News looks at the details of the case.

Commonly known as NDAs, non-disclosure agreements are legal contracts often used by companies to preserve confidentiality.

If the contract is breached, the party breaking the agreement could be liable for damages in the form of hefty financial compensation.

Last year, an ex-assistant of US movie mogul Harvey Weinstein described how she signed an NDA with a £125,000 ($165,200) financial settlement to keep quiet about allegations of sexual harassment.

Zelda Perkins later told a committee of MPs the NDA was "morally lacking on every level".

Numerous claims against Weinstein helped spark the #MeToo movement. He has denied all allegations of non-consensual sex.

In the House of Commons on Wednesday, Prime Minister Theresa May refused to comment on "a particular case that is currently before the courts".

But she told MPs it is "clear" some employers are using non-disclosure agreements "unethically".

Mrs May said the government will look at ways to improve rules around non-disclosure agreements and make it "explicit" to companies when they cannot be used.

Andrew Secker, employment lawyer and legal commentator and Mills & Reeve, predicted the #MeToo movement would not spell the end for NDAs.

But he said: "Employers wishing to send a message about its values may increasingly need to consider if keeping the allegations confidential is in their best interests.

"Attempts to gag employees risk being seen as evidence of a concern that the allegations are true or, perhaps worse, that it is prepared to protect those who harass staff by hushing up allegations of this type."

Parliamentary privilege grants certain legal immunities for members of both the House of Commons and House of Lords.

It is in place to ensure MPs and peers can go about their work without fear of being sued or prosecuted for contempt of court.

Media lawyer Mark Lewis told Sky News: "The bill of rights that came into force 330 years ago says that what's said in parliament is absolutely privileged. Nobody can sue on it, nobody can be prosecuted on it.

"In a way it's arrogant of Peter Hain to have used parliamentary privilege to break and injunction.

"He's said 'I think I am more important than three Court of Appeal judges who have heard the evidence'.

"What I think a parliamentarian should have done is said 'the law isn't right, we're parliament, we change the law, judges follow the law that we change'; rather than focussing on an individual case."

Critics of Lord Hain have also highlighted how, in their assessment about granting the injunction, the Court of Appeal noted two of the complainants in the case had supported the application for the allegations to remain private.

Judges wrote how there would be a "high risk" of them being identified if the Daily Telegraph "publishes particulars relating to their allegations".

Is the injunction still in place?

Yes, technically. Mr Lewis explained: "The injunction is still in place, technically it would be a contempt of court. You have Lord Hain saying in the House of Lords who he believes it is.

"No one from the Daily Telegraph has confirmed that yet, so we're in this very 'Alice in Wonderland' position where everybody knows, everybody's talking about it.

"But technically you're in contempt of court if you say there is an injunction obtained by Sir Philip Green."

But Mr Lewis added it is "inevitable" the injunction would soon be lifted.

"I would expect the Daily Telegraph's lawyers will go into court and say - with some force - that this injunction should go," he said.

Has parliamentary privilege previously been used to get around junctions?

In 2011, an order granting anonymity to ex-Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) boss Fred Goodwin was lifted at the High Court.

It came after then Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming made knowledge of a super-injunction public using parliamentary privilege in the House of Commons.

The super-injunction, which usually bans the media from reporting even the existence of a court order, was said to relate to a "sexual relationship".

Later that year, Mr Hemming again used parliamentary privilege to name Ryan Giggs as the footballer identified on Twitter as having an injunction preventing publication of allegations he had an affair with a former reality TV star.

Also in 2011, as a debate about the use gagging injunctions continued to rage, TV presenter Jeremy Clarkson lifted an injunction banning the publication of details of his private life after claiming it was "pointless".

The former Top Gear host claimed "injunctions don't work" in the "legal-free world on Twitter and the internet".

However, in 2016, the Supreme Court extended a privacy injunction preventing the identification of a celebrity who had been involved in a three-way sexual encounter.

This is despite a judge noting how many of the details had already been published on the internet and on social media.

In the summer of 2016, the Cabinet Office revealed Sir Philip's knighthood was "under review" following a controversy over the collapse of BHS, the department store chain which had been part of the businessman's Arcadia Group.

MPs passed a symbolic vote to strip Sir Philip of his knighthood in October that year, following a debate in which Labour MP David Winnick called him a "billionaire spiv".

However, he clung on to the honour after agreeing to pay £363m in cash to rescue the BHS pension fund.

The Cabinet Office would not comment on Thursday on whether it would review Sir Philip's knighthood.

Mr Goodwin, who was heavily criticised over the collapse of RBS, had his knighthood removed in 2012.

The forfeiture committee, which has a majority of independent members and is chaired by a top civil servant, makes recommendations for honours to be revoked.

The Queen has the sole authority to rescind a knighthood, after taking advice from the government.</s>Retail billionaire Sir Philip Green has been named in Parliament as the businessman accused by a newspaper of sexual harassment.

Peter Hain, who identified him in the Lords, said it was his duty to name him, given the “serious and repeated” nature of the allegations.

On Tuesday, the Telegraph ran an article accusing a leading businessman of racial and sexual abuse of staff.

A legal injunction prevented the Telegraph from publishing his identity.

The Court of Appeal’s ruling on Tuesday, blocking publication of Sir Philip’s name, remains in place, but Lord Hain’s statement, made under parliamentary privilege, has been widely reported in the UK media.

Lord Hain said publication of the story was “clearly in the public interest”.

The Daily Telegraph said it had spent eight months investigating allegations of bullying, intimidation and sexual harassment made against the man in question.

What were the allegations made in the Telegraph?

The newspaper reported that interviews with five members of staff revealed that victims had been paid “substantial sums” in return for legal commitments not to discuss their alleged experiences.

The BBC has not been able to verify the allegations contained in the Telegraph’s report.

Lord Hain said he had been contacted by someone “intimately involved in the case”.

He said that given the use of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) “to conceal the truth about serious and repeated sexual harassment, racist abuse and bullying”, he felt it was his duty under parliamentary privilege to name Sir Philip as the individual in question.

Parliamentary privilege protects MPs or peers from being prosecuted over statements made in the Commons or Lords and is one of the oldest rights enshrined in British law.

Sir Philip has been contacted by the BBC for comment, but did not immediately respond.

Camilla Tominey, associate editor of the Telegraph, told BBC Radio 4’s PM it was “farcical” that Lord Hain was able to name Sir Philip in the House of Lords, but, as the paper remained the subject of an injunction, it was unable to confirm or deny a name.

“It’s not the first time it’s happened and it won’t be the last,” she said.

The people who have made the claims had “bravely” come forward to the paper with the accusations, Ms Tominey added.

“We won’t ever be naming any of the claimants.” BBC</s>Philip Green, the billionaire owner of the Topshop clothing chain, was named in parliament as the British businessman alleged to have used legal agreements and payments to hide accusations of sexual harassment, racist abuse and bullying — an allegation he denies.

Peter Hain told the House of Lords on Thursday that he felt it was his “duty” to reveal the name under parliamentary privilege after being contacted by someone involved in the case.

The accusations are the latest in the #MeToo movement that has implicated high-ranking officials and businessmen for allegedly harassing and abusing women.

Hain’s statement named Green as the subject of an article published in the Telegraph newspaper on Wednesday about a leading British businessman accused of sexually harassing and racially abusing his staff.

“I feel it is my duty under parliamentary privilege to name Philip Green as the individual in question, given that the media have been subject to an injunction preventing publication of the full details of the story, which is clearly in the public interest,” Hain said.

Green, of fashion empire Arcadia Group, denied the allegations in an emailed statement sent from a spokesman.

“I am not commenting on anything that has happened in court or was said in parliament today. To the extent that it is suggested that I have been guilty of unlawful sexual or racist behaviour, I categorically and wholly deny these allegations,” the statement said. “Arcadia and I take accusations and grievances from employees very seriously and in the event that one is raised, it is thoroughly investigated.

“Arcadia employs more than 20,000 people and in common with many large businesses sometimes receives formal complaints from employees. In some cases these are settled with the agreement of all parties and their legal advisers. These settlements are confidential so I cannot comment further on them.”

A UK court prevented the newspaper from publishing details of the account, including the man’s name, the companies, the specific allegations against him or how much he paid in settlements. The businessman had nondisclosure agreements, which the court said justified an injunction.

Earlier this month, the Guardian newspaper reported that Green had been involved in a spat over a feminist pop-up shop at one of his Topshop stores.

Penguin Books had collaborated on a display that featured a book of essays about feminism, and Green ordered the display taken down, the Guardian reported.

Green later apologised for what he called a misunderstanding, according to British tabloid the Daily Mail.

Parliamentary privilege has been used to skirt court orders before. In 2011, legislators took to both branches of parliament to identify two men who had separately taken out so-called super injunctions to stop newspapers from publishing stories about extramarital affairs. One of them was former Royal Bank of Scotland CEO Fred Goodwin.

The allegations against Green come about a year after the New York Times reported on accounts of serial predation by Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein.

After the report, women came forward with a deluge of accusations against prominent men in entertainment, business and politics.

What came to be known as the #MeToo movement tallied at least 429 people with publicly reported allegations of sex-related bad behaviour in national, state and local media, trade publications and the public record since the Weinstein story was first published.

Green, worth about $2.7bn according to the Bloomberg billionaires index, has also been embroiled in scandal for years over his management of the UK department-store chain BHS.

He netted a fortune in dividends from the company while the employee pension fund was hundreds of millions of pounds in the red.

In 2015, Green sold the troubled business for £1 to a former race-car driver with no previous retail experience. The company subsequently collapsed.

Legislators unsuccessfully demanded revocation of Green’s knighthood, calling him the “unacceptable face of capitalism”.

In 2017 he agreed to pay as much as $465m to fund his former employees’ pensions.</s>The retail tycoon Philip Green has been named as the businessman at the heart of the sexual harassment and bullying allegations which the Daily Telegraph was barred from reporting by an injunction.

Green, the owner of Top Shop, was named in parliament by Labour peer Peter Hain, who said he had been contacted by “somebody intimately involved in the case” and was using parliamentary privilege in the public interest.

“I feel it’s my duty under privilege to name Philip Green as the individual in question, given that the media have been subject to an injunction preventing publication of the full details of a story, which is clearly in the public interest,” he said.

Lord Hain’s intervention came after Court of Appeal judges temporarily barred the Telegraph from publishing “confidential information” from five employees about a figure the newspaper described as a “leading businessman”. The paper wants to reveal what it calls “alleged sexual harassment and racial abuse of staff”, who have been prevented from discussing their claims by non-disclosure agreements.

The newspaper said it spent eight months investigating allegations of bullying, intimidation and sexual harassment made against the businessman.

The Labour peer told the House of Lords: “Having been contacted by somebody intimately involved in the case of a powerful businessman using non-disclosure agreements and substantial payments to conceal the truth about serious and repeated sexual harassment, racist abuse and bullying which is compulsively continuing, I feel it’s my duty under parliamentary privilege to name Philip Green as the individual in question, given that the media have been subject to an injunction preventing publication of the full details of a story which is clearly in the public interest.”</s>Topshop owner Philip Green named as the businessman who gagged media from publishing sexual harassment allegations in #MeToo scandal

Topshop owner Sir Philip Green has been named in Parliament as the businessman behind an injunction against the Daily Telegraph by Lord Hain.

The peer told the House of Lords chamber: “Having been contacted by somebody intimately involved in the case of a powerful businessman using non-disclosure agreements and substantial payments to conceal the truth about serious and repeated sexual harassment, racist abuse and bullying which is compulsively continuing, I feel it’s my duty under Parliamentary privilege to name Philip Green as the individual in question, given that the media have been subject to an injunction preventing publication of the full details of a story which is clearly in the public interest.”

The Telegraph had spent the past eight months investigating allegations of bullying, intimidation and sexual harassment made against the businessman.

But on Tuesday the newspaper was prevented from revealing details of the non-disclosure deals by Sir Terence Etherton, the Master of the Rolls, the second most senior judge in England and Wales.

Topshop has a number of stores and concessions including at Bury St Edmunds, Clacton-on-Sea and Colchester.</s>A British politician has used Parliament's free-speech guarantee to name a prominent businessman who is accused of sexual harassment and secured a court order barring the media from revealing his identity.

Philip Green, owner of clothing retailer Topshop, was named in the House of Lords on Thursday by Labour politician Peter Hain.

Green obtained a court injunction to stop the Daily Telegraph from running stories about employee allegations of sexual harassment and racial abuse.

The Court of Appeal made the order because the five alleged victims signed non-disclosure agreements as part of settlement packages in which they received substantial payments.

The injunction prevented the media from naming Green, but lawmakers' words in Parliament are immune from legal action under a measure known as parliamentary privilege.</s>High Street mogul Sir Philip Green has been named in Parliament as the businessman at the centre of an injunction over sexual harassment and racial abuse allegations.

Lord Peter Hain, a former Labour cabinet member, told the House of Lords he felt a 'duty' to reveal the name.

He said: 'I feel it's my duty under parliamentary privilege to name Philip Green as the individual in question given that the media have been subject to an injunction preventing publication of the full details of this story which is clearly in the public interest.'

Lord Hain said he had been 'in contact with someone intimately involved in the case', which related to 'a powerful businessman using non-disclosure agreements and substantial payments to conceal the truth about serious and repeated sexual harassment, racist abuse and bullying which is compulsively continuing'.

The Daily Telegraph has reported that five former employees signed controversial non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) in which they agreed to remain silent over the claims.

The newspaper said it learned of the secret deals while investigating claims of bullying and intimidation.

But before the information was published, Green's lawyers launched a legal case and three appeal judges ruled the information was likely to have been passed to the paper in breach of the NDAs.

They imposed an injunction preventing the publication of the allegations until a full hearing could consider the case.

Laws on free speech in Parliament mean politicians cannot face legal action for speaking in the House of Commons or Lords, and everything said there can be published.

Billionaire Sir Philip Green is well-known throughout Britain as the boss of Arcadia, which includes huge brand names such as Topshop, Miss Selfridge and Dorothy Perkins.

His ownership of British Home Stores was his most controversial business move.

He took over the business for £200m in 2000 but after poor financial results he eventually offloaded it for just £1 in 2014. It collapsed less than a year later leaving a £571 million pension hole.

It left 19,000 former workers facing severe pension shortfalls and triggered a public outcry over how he extracted profits from BHS and then tossed it aside.

MPs called for Sir Philip to lose his knighthood, but he agreed to pay £363million into the pension fund.
Labour peer Peter Hain uses parliamentary privilege to name Philip Green as the British businessman who used an injunction to prevent allegations of sexual harassment against him being published in The Daily Telegraph.