One side of the story

Speaking to another newspaper, Sir Philip Green has said he has only indulged in “banter” with his employees. The billionaire retailer was named in Parliament last week as the businessman who had used non-disclosure agreements (NDAS) to silence allegations of sexual harassment and racial abuse, but Sir Philip told the

Mail on Sunday that he “had a good relationship with his staff ”.

This intervention is deeply problematic. The

Telegraph is currently subject to an injunction that prevents it from publishing any details of the allegations that have been made against the businessman, and the individuals who have signed the NDAS continue to be prohibited from telling their side of the story. If the businessman has done nothing wrong, he should lift the injunction and release the individuals from their NDAS, so the full facts of this case can be set out.

Why should one side be able to dismiss allegations freely, while the other remains gagged? One of the problems with NDAS, insofar as they are employed to stifle allegations of harassment and abuse, is that they can be used to sweep serious problems under the carpet and provide an inaccurate impression of the types of behaviour that go on in particular companies. As Maria Miller MP, chairman of the Women and Equalities committee, said this weekend, “there is a real problem with NDAS and the way they are masking abusive and unacceptable behaviour at work”.

The original High Court ruling established that there is a legitimate public interest in this case. The public, however, cannot judge the truth of the matter until both sides are able to speak openly and freely.