Peer who named Green in Lords was paid adviser to lawyers in case

PETER Hain was at the centre of a row over his decision to name Sir Philip Green in the House of Lords as it emerged that he is a paid adviser to a legal firm involved in the case.

The former Labour minister was branded ‘arrogant’ for using parliamentary privilege to unmask the Arcadia boss as the businessman at the centre of sexism and racism allegations.

The criticism heightened yesterday when it was revealed that he works for a law firm that is representing a newspaper seeking to publish claims about Sir Philip’s activities.

However, others continued to support the peer and said his actions had helped highlight an ‘abuse of power’.

Lord Hain, 68, has been working for London firm Gordon Dadds as a ‘global and government adviser’ since 2016. Its lawyers have represented The Daily Telegraph since July as it unsuccessfully fought to stop Sir Philip from taking out an injunction to prevent publication of the claims.

His role with the company will raise questions about a potential conflict of interest and could see the firm sanctioned by the courts if it is found to have conspired with Lord Hain.

The Labour peer broke the interim injunction granted to Sir Philip on Thursday after claiming that he had spoken to ‘someone intimately involved’ in the case.

Lord Hain last night dismissed suggestions of improper conduct.

‘I took the decision to name Sir Philip Green in my personal capacity as an independent member of the House of Lords,’ he said. ‘I categorically state that I was completely unaware Gordon Dadds were advising the Telegraph regarding this case.

‘Gordon Dadds… played absolutely no part whatsoever in either the sourcing of my information or my independent decision to name Sir Philip. They were completely unaware of my intentions.’ The law firm categorically denied discussing the case with the peer, whose work for it is mentioned on his parliamentary register of interests.

It said: ‘Any suggestion that Gordon Dadds LLP has in any way acted improperly is entirely false.’

Lord Hain’s profile on the company’s website states that he advises on governmental matters.

He was able to name Sir Philip by using parliamentary privilege, which gives MPs and Lords the right to free speech without the threat of being sued or arrested.

The 17th century legal principle allows the media to freely report what is said.

He described his decision as a ‘duty’ and insisted that the move did not undermine the courts and was only taken after painstaking consideration.

‘What concerned me about this case was wealth, and power that comes with it, and abuse,’ he said.

Former attorney general Dominic Grieve QC led criticism of Lord Hain yesterday.

The Conservative MP said: ‘It was an entirely arrogant decision. You cannot operate a democratic, free society subject to the rule of law when peers or MPs decide quite capriciously to take the law into their own hands.’

Ex-lord chief justice Lord Judge said: ‘I don’t think that parliamentary privilege is designed to take away any citizen’s rights, even if we don’t very much like them.’

But others defended Lord Hain’s decision and said his actions would help to prevent wealthy individuals from using super injunctions to block scrutiny.

Labour MP Jess Phillips said: ‘I think that he wouldn’t have taken the decision lightly at all.’

The matter could be referred to the Lords Commissioner for Standards if a complaint is received.

‘Wealth and power’