But The Telegraph remains gagged …
We watched with interest as Lord Hain named Sir Philip Green as the businessman who used non-disclosure agreements (NDAS) to stifle allegations of harassment. Speaking under parliamentary privilege, the peer described the story yesterday as being in the public interest. The Telegraph, however, is currently subject to an injunction that remains in place pending a trial of the matter in the New Year. As a result, we cannot publish any of the material subject of that injunction: the accused, the details of the claims against the businessman, who made them, or what amounts were paid under the terms of the NDAS. A sum close to £500,000 has been spent to keep The
Telegraph from revealing this critical information, an exercise in privilege that runs counter to the spirit of this age – when some are doing their best to bring injustices to light – and counter to the UK’S history as a country that values a free press.
It is a good thing that parliamentarians enjoy the ability to speak their minds. Otherwise they would plainly be unable to do their duty. Our courts, however, have brought themselves into disrepute. The Court of Appeal overturned an earlier decision by the High Court, and while it noted the High Court’s finding that publication by The Telegraph could “significantly [contribute] to a debate”, it ruled that the confidentiality of the contract agreements is more important and imposed an interim injunction.
At the heart of this debate is what we regard as a clear misuse of NDAS, contracts which may well have legitimate commercial purposes but which have been used in order to gag those alleging sexual harassment and racist abuse. The time has come to reform them. The Prime Minister has said that changes will be suggested via consultation, and we would urge politicians to get on with the job as soon as possible. Reform should ensure that employees can properly understand NDAS and that they cannot be used unethically, such as to intimidate those who are victims of harassment. In their current state they are preventing serious allegations from being properly scrutinised.
However, the courts have a duty to act, too. The public have a right to know when allegations are made, especially when they concern alleged harassment by a powerful figure against vulnerable people. It is wrong that this newspaper should be silenced.