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.”