What’s the reaction to the parliamentary privilege row over Sir Philip Green?

Lord Hain’s use of parliamentary privilege to name retail tycoon Sir Philip Green as the businessman at the centre of #MeToo allegations – which the Arcadia chairman strongly denies – after the Daily Telegraph was prevented from doing so by a legal injunction has caused controversy.

– How did Lord Hain justify his action?

The Labour former minister said: “I’m not disputing a judge’s responsibility, 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.”

– Has the move drawn criticism?

Prominent barrister Hugh Tomlinson QC said: “I think it was completely improper. The courts are the proper institution for deciding these issues. Lord Hain said in his statement that this was a story clearly in the public interest. Well, I don’t know how much he knows about the facts, but the Court of Appeal did know about the facts. And the Court of Appeal decided that there should be a temporary injunction and the question of public interest should be decided at a trial.”

– What are the implications of what Lord Hain did?

Mr Tomlinson said: “Under our constitution certain questions are dealt with by Parliament and certain questions by the courts. And Parliament can’t trespass into the area of the courts and say ‘we think the courts got it wrong’. That’s what Lord Hain is effectively doing.”

– What does Sir Philip say?

The businessman said he would not comment on what had happened in Parliament, adding: “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.”

– Has something like this happened before?

In 2011 Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming said Ryan Giggs had secured an injunction regarding an allegation about the footballer.