Editorial Comment

Compare and contrast. In today’s

Sunday Telegraph, Auna Irvine, an American former employee of Sir Philip Green’s business empire, speaks publicly about the shocking abuse she claims to have suffered at his hands. Yesterday, in The Daily Telegraph, we reported on the allegations of five other people who say they suffered harassment when working under Sir Philip. We did not reveal their names. The reason? They, unlike Ms Irvine, are bound by non-disclosure agreements (NDAs), an instrument that is being used to silence accusations of sexual and racial harassment.

This is why we are puzzled by arguments such as those made by Lord Garnier, a Tory barrister, on the Today programme yesterday, who said of the NDAs used in the Green case: “There were lawyers of quality on both sides, they reached an agreement and they paid money for it.” This perspective is naive. For a start, even if Lord Garnier’s words are accurate, this is not how the NDA system is meant to work; it’s not supposed to allow a rich person potentially to contract out of the law. What is the point of even having laws against harassment if employers can theoretically buy their way around them? This doesn’t happen in any other sphere of life.

Secondly, there could have been a real power imbalance. One accuser said Sir Philip is “like a general hiding behind an entire army… of wealth, power and influence”. If, as Sir Philip insists, the allegations against him were just banter, why did he fork out so much money to oblige silence? And why did he impose an injunction on the Telegraph that stopped us from reporting the details? Now that this injunction has been lifted, we can let readers judge for themselves.

There are claims that the businessman “groped” and “kissed” women in his employ. Ms Irvine says he swung between innuendo, obsessive phone calls and appalling abuse: “retard”, “incompetent”, “slut”. It is understood that one woman told Sir Philip “not to come any closer”. Another Arcadia executive complained of humiliation and assault, that the businessman put her in a “headlock” in front of witnesses. It is alleged that Sir Philip mocked the dreadlocks of a black, male executive, accused him of smoking cannabis and said his problem was that he was still “throwing spears in the jungle”.

Sir Philip’s lawyers deny any unlawful racist or sexist behaviour or that his actions “amounted to any type of crime, or anything that would amount to gross misconduct, or a serious risk to health and safety”. Nevertheless, there is a “public interest” in publishing them. In fact, a failure to disclose could perhaps contribute to the culture of silence that Sir Philip appeared to be trying to buy. We are sure that if any of our readers, or any member of their families, were considering working for someone accused of such serious harassment, they would want to know all about the allegations.

As regards to that culture of silence, there is one other person who now needs to speak up: Baroness Brady, the chairman of Sir Philip’s business empire. Some readers might be surprised that she hasn’t resigned. For years she has championed women and condemned men accused of harassment, but when it comes to Sir Philip she has only ever offered praise; in 2012, she wrote that he “enjoys engaging with people at every level of the business”. When approached by the

Telegraph for comment about these accounts of racial and sexual abuse, all she could offer was that the allegations have been “denied”. Is this really good enough from a woman of her standing and with her avowed commitments to supporting women in business?

A similar question could be asked of the Government. We certainly welcome Penny Mordaunt’s strong words in her op-ed for the Telegraph; there will be a consultation to determine if there need to be more limitations on confidentiality clauses. Let us hope that it is not dragged out. Arguably, a lot of the evidence is already in, as demonstrated by our coverage yesterday and today. NDAs can obviously serve very useful purposes, for example when making sure that people do not disclose confidential commercial information to competitors – but, last year, a parliamentary committee found that NDAs can also be “used unethically by some employers and… some members of the legal profession to silence victims of sexual harassment” and that there is “insufficient oversight and regulation”.

Reform is desperately needed, and as soon as possible. The Government insists it takes the abuse of employees seriously. We submit the Green case as evidence of the problem and its urgency.

The non-disclosure agreement is not supposed to allow a rich person to contract out of the law

A committee found NDAs can be ‘used unethically by some employers’ and that there is ‘insufficient regulation’