Until relatively recently, few people beyond corporate boardrooms had heard of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs). In business they act as a contractual constraint on senior employees divulging commercial secrets to other firms. To that extent they have a legitimate function.

They then came into the public eye as a means of binding employees, such as nannies or au pairs working in the homes of the famous, not to reveal gossipy titbits about the behaviour of their celebrity employers. Shamefully, they have also been used in the public sector, notably the NHS, to stop workers highlighting safety concerns, to the detriment of the public.

Over the past year or so, they have become associated with the efforts of the rich and powerful to prevent information about their nefarious activities coming to light. The most high-profile case is that involving Harvey Weinstein, the Hollywood producer, who used NDAs to pay off and silence women who have now come forward to allege that they were harassed or abused.

It might be thought that wealthy individuals using their considerable influence and legal clout in this way deserve to be exposed. After all, these are not people merely seeking to protect their privacy. They are trying to cover up a dirty secret and one that has had a profound impact on the victims they have sought to shut up.