Top Tory lawyer Dominic Grieve blasts ‘arrogant’ peer who named Sir Philip Green in harassment cover-up row
2 min read
The peer who used parliamentary privilege to name Sir Philip Green as the businessman at the centre of an alleged harassment cover-up has been branded "arrogant" by an ex-attorney general.
Tory MP and QC Dominic Grieve said Lord Hain was "plainly wrong" to sensationally out the Topshop tycoon in the House of Lords yesterday.
The peer made the controversial move after the Daily Telegraph said a businessman took out gagging orders to suppress the reporting of sexual harassment and bullying claims against him. Sir Philip denies the allegations.
Mr Grieve, who served as Attorney General under the coalition government, said he could not see the justification for Lord Hain to name the tycoon.
"It was an entirely arrogant decision that had absolutely no regard for judicial process or the rule of law," he told the BBC’s World at One.
"Parliamentary privilege is very important, but like any power which is extremely important it is open to abuse. I can't see, looking at this particular matter, that Peter Hain can argue that he hasn't abused it."
Mr Grieve said the Labour ex-minister had driven "a coach and horses" through the case in what amounted to "a flagrant breach of every proper convention of our constitution”.
“It makes, in practice, the operation of our justice system unworkable and it was done as far as I can see without any justification at all,” he added.
The move was also branded "improper" by top QC Hugh Tomlinson, who founded the Hacked Off press regulation campaign.
He told the BBC it was not right for parliament to "trespass into areas of the courts and say we think the courts have got it wrong - and that's what Lord Hain is effectively doing".
But Labour MP Jess Phillips told the World at One that Lord Hain "did the right thing". She added: "It was brave and I doubt he took the decision lightly."
Lord Hain last night defended his actions, telling BBC Newsnight: “I considered it extremely seriously before I said it."
He added: "I'm not disputing judges' responsibilities or timing or anything like that. That's a matter for the judiciary.
“I'm just charging my function as a parliamentarian and 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."
PoliticsHome Newsletters
PoliticsHome provides the most comprehensive coverage of UK politics anywhere on the web, offering high quality original reporting and analysis: Subscribe
