
Philip Green tried to overturn my parliamentary privilege – he has so far failed, and good thing too
First, he took out an injunction in 2018 to block the media from mentioning him over complaints from his employees at Arcadia Group, overwhelmingly women, about bullying and abusive conduct, behaviour which he categorically denied.
But that failed when I named him as the person making the injunction on 25 October 2018 in the House of Lords, under a form of legal immunity known as parliamentary privilege - whereupon his lawyers tried to get me sanctioned by the parliamentary standards commissioner. That failed too when his complaint was roundly dismissed.
Green's latest action was to instruct lawyers to appeal to the European court of human rights to overturn the concept of parliamentary privilege in Britain, claiming that my comments had circumvented court orders around the injunction, violated his privacy and violated his right to fair trial. That also failed when the Strasbourg court this week sensibly ruled it was not a matter for them. (This was a chamber decision, so there are still three months during which he could ask for the case to be referred to the grand chamber of the court for a final ruling.)
If he were to succeed in overriding parliamentary privilege in this case, that would be seismic for human rights and freedom of speech.
It dates back at least to parliament's finest historic moment in January 1642, when King Charles I and his soldiers invaded the House of Commons to arrest five MPs for treason after their speeches criticising his rule.
The Speaker courageously defied him while MPs chanted 'Privilege! Privilege!' – a cry taken up in the streets by the people of London. In 1689, the right to free speech in parliament was entrenched in the English Bill of Rights.
It means that MPs or peers when speaking in parliament cannot be sued and what they say can be reported in the media without the rich or powerful being able to suppress it with legal injunctions or asset seizures.
Despite outrage from the legal establishment, it was used in 1955 to name for example, the notorious spy Kim Philby. It was vindicated again in 1978 when MPs used it to expose the bogus secrecy of 'Colonel B', wrongly (as judges later found) given anonymity by a court to bolster an oppressive official secrets case against journalists.
When the director of public prosecutions immediately threatened the press with prosecution, newspapers, led by the Times, defied him.
That said, parliamentary privilege should be used very responsibly and sparingly. In my 34 years as a parliamentarian, I had used it just twice before naming Green.
In January 2000, as a Foreign Office minister, and using British intelligence, I named traffickers selling arms for 'blood diamonds' fuelling wars in Africa. They went out of business. Their chief 'merchant of death', Putin crony Victor Bout was subsequently imprisoned.
In 2017 in the Lords, I named British-based global corporations alleged to be complicit in former president Jacob Zuma's corrupt activities in South Africa.
These examples are living proof of parliamentary sovereignty – irrespective of the wishes of the executive, the powerful, and the wealthy, and even rulings by the legal establishment when it prevents the publication of allegations of misconduct – as the courts did initially over the Green case.
I acted for moral reasons and was not second-guessing or criticising the judiciary when I further used parliamentary privilege to name Green and share details of allegations against him in the House of Lords on 23 May 2019 - Green repeated that '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'.
I did this partly because Green's employees had signed non-disclosure agreements, when such NDAs are meant to ensure the sanctity of confidential commercial matters, not to hide allegations of abuse.
Film tycoon Harvey Weinstein used NDAs to silence his sexual harassment victims, as did organisers of the Presidents Club dinner in London in January 2018, when 130 women were required to sign agreements in a bid to stop any details of harassment, groping and propositioning going public.
Former Conservative cabinet minister Maria Miller, when chair of the women and equalities committee, said that the case had 'thrown a spotlight on the way NDAs can be used repeatedly to cover up alleged wrongdoing'.
Because of Charles I's attacks, the monarch is still barred from entering the House of Commons. Parliamentary privilege is an absolute free speech right entrenched in the law, a fundamental part of Britain's constitution and a part of the rule of law itself.
It should not be whittled away by allowing judges, at the behest of the powerful or wealthy, to override the sovereignty of parliament.
Peter Hain was the Labour MP for Neath from 1991 to 2015 and secretary of state for Northern Ireland from 2005 to 2007
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Daily Mirror
2 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
Brit Cameron Bradford charged with drug trafficking in Germany after 'cannabis smuggle'
Cameron Bradford, a 21-year-old mother of one, was detained in Munich, Germany on suspicion of smuggling cannabis - she's the latest young British woman to now be charged overseas Another young British woman has been charged overseas for allegedly smuggling cannabis from Thailand. Cameron Bradford, 21, was detained in Munich Airport when she went to collect her luggage. The mother of one had travelled to Thailand on her own, according to a family friend. Bradford's family was alerted to her disappearance when she did not return to Heathrow Airport as expected. They then filed a missing persons report. It's understood Bradford, from Knebworth in Hertfordshire, changed her flight to Munich at the last minute - which German authorities were alerted to as a red flag. She could face around months behind bars in a German jail while the origin of the drugs is investigated. Bradford, who has a young son, will next appear at Munich District Court on August 6. She remains in custody in Munich until at least that hearing. 'We can confirm that we are conducting proceedings in this matter,' said the Munich Public Prosecutor's Office's chief prosecutor Anne Leiding, according to The Sun. 'The defendant is still in custody.' A Foreign Office spokesperson said: "We are supporting a British woman who is detained in Germany and are in contact with her family and the local authorities." There are currently no details from the prosecution regarding the charges or potential trial date. Germany legalised cannabis for recreational use by adults last year, but this does not extend to non-residents. Bradford is the latest in a number of young British women to have been arrested in connection with drug-related offences. It emerged this week that Nottinghamshire model Clara Wilson, 36, was charged with a drug running offence after more than 34 kilos of cannabis were found in her suitcase at Barcelona's El Prat airport. It is not yet clear how she intends pleading and whether she will try to strike a pre-trial plea bargain deal in the hope of getting more lenient treatment. Under Spanish law the British model can be held for up to two years in prison before she has to be bailed, but well-placed sources said they expected her to be tried later this year. Brits Bella May Culley, 18, Charlotte May Lee, 21, and Isabella Daggett, 21, are all facing lengthy prison sentences in harsh overseas prisons if they are convicted of drug smuggling. Bella, 18, was the first hit the headlines following her arrest in Georgia. She flew into the former Soviet state from Thailand on May 11. She faces a lengthy spell behind bars if found guilty — which could be life if she receives a severe sentence. Little is still known about how she came to be caught at Tblisi Airport after her family reported her missing in Thailand. Charlotte arrived in Sri Lanka again from Thailand on May 12, allegedly with a stash of cannabis in her luggage valued at £1.2million which she denied knowing anything about. She has been in custody since she was arrested at Bandaranaike Airport. And Isabella Daggett, 21, is another alleged drug mule who is being held in a hellhole Dubai prison where she has not been able to shower or change clothes. Her case has been highlighted by her family after she was arrested in March, just five weeks after moving to the United Arab Emirates for work. She was working for a businessman doing internet recruiting for construction sites in the UK and he offered to send her to the Middle East for a similar role. But police in Dubai allegedly arrested her along with another man not long after she arrived in Dubai. Her family insist she was taken by police simply for being 'in the wrong place at the wrong time' and has never used drugs. And she has not taken a shower or even changed her clothes in months after being banged up in a prison in March, her family claims. Her grandmother Heather Smith told the DailyMail: "She was arrested with a lad, who was not her boyfriend, with whom she was staying because things had fallen through with another house. She didn't really like him that much. He may be guilty of something, but she isn't. We told Bella before she went to Dubai, 'you know the rules in Dubai, play by the rules, don't flaunt this, don't do that'." All the women deny the charges against them.


The Herald Scotland
2 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Disabled could be helped back into work with new right similar to maternity law
They said such a right would 'would clarify and strengthen existing legal protections' under the the Equality Act and 'provide a much stronger message to workers about what they are entitled to'. The report warned that the Government risks failing to meet its aim to raise the employment rate to 80% without a 'serious strategy to shift employer behaviour' and argues employers must be incentivised to reintegrate existing workers back into jobs. The report comes in the same week as the Universal Credit Bill cleared the House of Lords, aimed at rebalancing the benefit 'to remove work disincentives', according to a Government minister, while giving existing claimants 'the security and certainty they need'. Separately during the debate, Paralympic champion Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson, who sits in the Lords, said disabled people have been portrayed as 'benefit scroungers and a drain on society' in the conversation on welfare reform. In its report, the Resolution Foundation said around 12% of disabled staff leave work each year – consistently 1.5-times the rate of non-disabled workers. It added that twice as many people move from work into inactivity due to ill health – around 304,000 each year – than those moving the other way (around 151,000). But the think tank said despite there being 'strong' legal obligations in place already on employers, they are 'simply not doing enough to retain existing workers', with fewer than half of disabled workers who request a reasonable adjustment – which can include a change to working arrangements or provision of equipment, services or support – having this granted in full. With 15% of disabled people reporting workplace discrimination relating to their disability in 2022, the report said this remains a 'pressing issue'. The think tank said: 'Boosting disability employment is not straightforward: it will involve improvements to the health system, benefits system and world of work. But action to incentivise and support employers is a vital piece of the puzzle.' Louise Murphy, senior economist at the Resolution Foundation, said: 'The Government should do more to incentivise firms to employ disabled people – especially those who have been out of work for long periods – but employers need to do more in return. 'A new right to reintegration could help disabled workers back into work in the same way that maternity rights transformed women's employment prospects a generation ago.' The foundation said the new right could be enforced through employment tribunals, but urged the Government to also consider 'more proactive enforcement mechanisms, whether via the Equalities and Human Rights Commission or connected to a new system of caseworkers that are expected to be covered in the forthcoming Mayfield Review'. Former John Lewis boss, Sir Charlie Mayfield, is undertaking a review to investigate how Government and businesses can work together to support ill and disabled people into work, with a report expected in autumn. The Government has been contacted for comment.


Scottish Sun
3 hours ago
- Scottish Sun
Fury as over 6,000 migrants use pre-paid cards loaded with £50 a week funded by YOU at betting shops & casinos
Shadow Home Secretary brands finding a 'slap in the face' for British taxpayers MIGRANTS' BET SPREES Fury as over 6,000 migrants use pre-paid cards loaded with £50 a week funded by YOU at betting shops & casinos Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) OVER 6,000 migrants have used government-issued cards loaded with £50 a week at betting shops and casinos. Pre-paid cards given out to pay for basics including food and clothing were used in gambling venues, Home Office data reveals. Sign up for Scottish Sun newsletter Sign up 1 Thousands of migrants have used government-issued cards loaded with £50 a week at betting shops and casinos Credit: Getty In the last year, up to 6,637 asylum seekers have used taxpayer handouts to fund their gambling habits. At the highest incidence, 227 asylum seekers attempted to use or successfully used the cards to gamble in a week last November. While attempts to gamble online using the cards had been made, they were blocked each time so they were forced to use them in physical sites. There are currently around 80,000 ASPEN card users in the UK. Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp told PoliticsHome: 'It is shocking that over 6,000 illegal immigrants have attempted to use hard-working British taxpayers' money to gamble. "They have illegally entered this country without needing to – France is safe, and no one needs to flee from there. 'The British taxpayer has put them up in hotels, and now they slap us in the face by using the money they are given to fund gambling. 'These illegal immigrants clearly don't need the money they are given if they are squandering it at casinos and arcades.'