Peer tells of ‘hundreds’ of allegations made against Sir Philip Green

SIR PHILIP GREEN’S firm faced “hundreds” of grievance cases from employees and the tycoon “grabbed” women’s breasts, Parliament heard yesterday.

Lord Hain, who revealed in the House of Lords last year that Sir Philip was the businessman at the centre of the British “Me Too” scandal, defended his use of parliamentary privilege to identify the Topshop owner. He disclosed that one of the alleged victims told him inappropriate behaviour was “rife” and the billionaire would “touch and repeatedly slap women’s bottoms … grabbing thighs and touching legs”.

In a debate about whether the Lords’ rules on parliamentary privilege should be tightened, the former Labour minister said he had identified Sir Philip last year for “moral reasons” and that he was told that the billionaire was “still doing exactly the same thing”. Lord Hain said that by naming Sir Philip in Parliament, he believed that he “exposed gross injustice … when the law was clearly failing to do so”.

“Part of the injustice I acted against is the misuse of NDAS [non-disclosure agreements] which Sir Philip Green deployed to suppress victims from obtaining redress,” he added.

The comments are likely to increase pressure on the Government to tighten rules governing the use of NDAS, and the claims about Sir Philip’s behaviour could lead to renewed calls for him to be stripped of his knighthood.

Last night, Jess Phillips MP, who sits on the women and equalities committee, said: “He totally should be stripped of his knighthood. What we saw today in the Lords is Peter Hain being hauled over the coals, really, for doing the right thing. There’s no way that Philip Green should represent our country or have any accolade.” During the debate Lord Hain said he would reveal “for the first time … exactly what one of Sir Philip Green’s victims told me while pleading with me to name him under parliamentary privilege.

“He was touching and repeatedly slapping women staff’s bottoms, grabbing thighs and touching legs. Hundreds of grievance cases were raised

with HR,” the peer said. The debate was brought forward by Lord Brown of Eaton-under-heywood, of the House of Lords Conduct Committee and the Sub-committee on Lords’ Conduct.

The former Supreme Court judge said he wanted his colleagues to consider whether the rules over the use of parliamentary privilege should be tightened following Lord Hain’s decision to name Sir Philip as the businessman who had taken out an injunction against The Telegraph to stop reporting allegations of sexual harassment and racial abuse against him and his attempts to gag former staff with nondisclosure agreements.

Lord Brown said he felt Lord Hain’s decision to name Sir Philip was an “abuse” of parliamentary privilege.

Other peers disagreed. Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe said “it’s clearly not used lightly, nor do I believe that its recent use by the noble Lord Hain in October represents an escalation that needs to be addressed”.

When Lord Hain named Sir Philip last October, he said that he had felt a “duty” to name the businessman.

In January, following a six-month legal battle, Sir Philip dropped the injunction against The Telegraph, which meant this newspaper was able to report details of the allegations and how the businessman had paid a female executive more than £1million after she accused him of groping. Sir Philip is also alleged to have racially abused a black employee by saying he was still “throwing spears in the jungle”.

The businessman has always denied any unlawful behaviour. Last night he hit out at Lord Hain, saying: “To abuse parliamentary privilege in this way at this time knowing the damage it can cause is beyond irresponsible.”