Original Coverage & Source Attribution: www.telegraph.co.uk
In 2018, Sir Philip Green was named in Parliament as the businessman at the centre of the British MeToo scandal that was revealed by The Telegraph.
The Topshop owner was identified by Lord Hain, a former Commons leader, after two days of speculation over the name of the man behind the injunction.
Lord Hain said at the time that he had been contacted by someone “intimately involved in the case” and felt a “duty” to reveal the name using parliamentary privilege.
Sir Philip abandoned High Court action against The Telegraph. It could then be disclosed that he allegedly paid a female executive more than £1m after she accused him of groping her.
The retail tycoon was also alleged to have racially abused a senior black employee, who received around £1m, telling him that his “problem” was that he was still “throwing spears in the jungle”.
In the wake of the Walliams scandal, figures obtained by the Daily Mail showed that 111 applications for privacy injunctions had been made in the past decade.
‘MPs ought to use their right to give the information’
Urging his successors in the Commons to name the subject of NDAs, Sir Jacob said Britain had never passed a privacy law.
“MPs, under Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689, have an absolute right of freedom of speech,” he told Times Radio.
“What they say cannot be cannot be questioned in any court or place [outside] of Parliament. And therefore, as I think this is essentially a political issue, and that the judges have decided against freedom of speech, I think Parliament should use its right to decide it in favour of freedom of speech.”
Sir Jacob said he did not know who the reported 111 injunctions were about, suggesting that gagging orders obtained by people who were less well-known did not matter so much.
However, he added: “I think if they’re about powerful and important people, I think MPs ought to use their right to give the information on these.
“I think it’s a matter of protection and safeguarding of women so that they know who these people are and are then able to avoid them, and so I would encourage Parliament to use its right to freedom of speech.”
