Non-disclosure agreements have been in the spotlight once more this week thanks to the revelation that Topshop owner Sir Philip Green frequently used such contracts to shut down allegations of sexual harassment, racial abuse, bullying and intimidation.

Following a lengthy investigation, The Telegraph reported on Wednesday (24 October) that “a leading businessman” had “used controversial NDAs to silence and pay off his alleged victims” on five occasions. Thanks to a High Court injunction, the newspaper wasn’t initially allowed to report on the details of the non-disclosure deals. Nor could it name the man at the heart of what it described as “Britain’s #MeToo scandal” – alluding to Harvey Weinstein, who also regularly used NDAs to gag his alleged victims.

But during an appearance in the House of Lords on Thursday afternoon, Labour peer Lord Hain invoked parliamentary privilege to disclose that Green was the businessman in question. Parliamentary privilege is a right that allows MPs and peers to speak freely during parliamentary proceedings – and permits the media to report what they say – without any risk of being sued for defamation.

Green has denied engaging in any “unlawful sexual or racist behaviour”. But the news that the retail magnate deployed NDAs to prevent his accusers from speaking out has prompted prominent UK politicians to condemn the use of such agreements in cases of sexual misconduct and workplace bullying. Before Green was named in the case, Prime Minister Theresa May agreed to bring forward a consultation on the use of NDAs in workplace disputes, acknowledging that “it is clear that some employers are using them unethically”.

The Philip Green saga proves NDAs shouldn’t be used in sexual harassment cases