By Gabriel Princewill-
Lord Hall was right to exercise parliamentary privilege in naming Sir Phillip Green as the man at the centre of the disturbing sexual and racial claims.
Peers were yesterday warned to be careful about exercising parliamentary privilege after Lord Hain used it to name Sir Philip Green as the businessman accused of sexual harassment and racism. Lord Hain correctly pointed out that the frequency of the complaints warranted his exceptional use of Parliamentary Sovereignty .
If indeed Sir Phillip Green subjected his victims to racial and sexual bullying, Lord Hall did the right thing in exposing him. His judgement would necessarily have embodied intimate facts about the case that assured him the allegations were true and needed to be stopped in its tracks. Ministers of Parliament enjoy the privilege of Parliamentary Sovereignty which gives them the power to ‘make or unmake any law’.
This means they can intervene in sidestepping a law or a court ruling, where it is deemed reasonable to do so. However, in principle, their decision should have the general support of members of parliament. Their peers must concur that the intervention was necessary, legitimate, and proportionate to the aim to be pursued. If Sir Phillip Green’s peers agree that his intervention satisfied the three aforementioned criteria, his decision was justified.
CONFLICT
Lord Fowler’s warning to the House to avoid a conflict with the judiciary was also necessary since the exercise of the underlying notion of Parliamentary Sovereignty should not be abused. The working of the whole system guided by the live forces of checks and balances works in this instance. In exceptional circumstances where consequences of a serious malpractice outweighs the need to observe a ruling, the might of Parliamentary Sovereignty may be used.
However, legal precedence will maintain its observance of contracts between more than one party in relation to private settlements or compensation. Perhaps judges should decide where the line should be drawn. The exercise of the use of such powers will have to be exceptional. Yet, an act so wrong that it is capable of having a perpetual effect on others could not have been left unchecked. The courts know Parliament is above them, and it is parliament’s duty to be responsible, both individually and collectively.
If the allegations against Sir Phillip Green turn out to be false, Lord Hall will have egg on his face, and the media will still be safe for reporting Lord Hall’s decision to name Sir Phillip Green as the man at the center of the claim. And given the Daily Telegraph’s 8 months investigation on the story, it is likely true the allegations were made, it was serious enough for the power of his cash to be curtailed. He will be compensated handsomely if the claims are eventually proven to be untrue.