Pressure mounting to reveal Sir Fred’s secret

Mr Hemming said it was “important to determine” whether the information covered by Sir Fred’s injunction affected “corporate governance” at RBS, which needed a Government bailout during the banking crisis in 2008. The taxpayer still owns more than 80% of the bank.

If MPs did decide to go public with the details the move would mark a major change in the use of the controversial injunctions. Earlier this year Mr Hemming used parliamentary privilege, which protects the right of elected politicians to speak freely in Parliament, to reveal the existence of the court order.

There has been increasing controversy over the use of super-injunctions in recent days, amid concern judges are introducing a privacy law by the back door.

Earlier this week Andrew Marr revealed he had used such an order to hide an extra-marital affair. However, the BBC journalist went on to question the increased use of super-injunctions, suggesting they had become “out of control”.

Last night Lord Oakeshott, the LibDem peer and former Treasury spokesman, called for Sir Fred’s super-injunction to be handed over to the Financial Services Authority (FSA), the banking regulator, currently compiling a report into RBS. He added: “If the FSA or Treasury Select Committee decided it was in the public interest to publish then I would trust their judgment more than a judge’s.”

Lord Oakeshott has also used parliamentary privilege to put down a question in the House of Lords asking if the injunction relates to events while Sir Fred was head of RBS.

Louise Bagshawe, a Tory MP, has also called on Sir Fred to lift the order, saying it would be “a good idea if he followed Andrew Marr’s example”.

John Mann, a Labour MP and member of the Treasury Committee, said parliamentary privilege was not absolute and the committee would only be able to publish the injunction if it was judged to be in the public interest. He added that a systematic approach was needed.

“Parliament should fast-track a privacy law so the media is able to report on things that are in the public interest, and not on things that are not,” he said. “There will always be a grey area, but at least that would offer some guidance.

“And parliament should be creating these laws not the courts.”

It is not known how many super-injunctions have been handed out in the UK, although some estimates put their number at around 30.

There was outrage last year when it was revealed that Trafigura, the oil firm, had obtained a gagging order to prevent the reporting of a question in the House of Commons.

At the time politicians warned that the use of the injunctions could trample basic democratic principles.

Mr Marr was accused of hypocrisy for continuing to ask MPs questions relating to their private lives after obtaining the superinjunction.

On Tuesday he admitted using the court order, saying: “I did not come into journalism to gag journalists.”

There has been a spate of revelations about such orders in recent days.

They include that a married actor obtained an injunction to prevent the publication of the fact he had sex with a prostitute who also slept with Wayne Rooney.

Last week Prime Minister David Cameron suggested he believed the use of such orders was now too widespread and that politicians may have to intervene.

Critics warn that the orders are repressing freedom of expression. There has also been concern that the injunctions offer a service to the rich that is unavailable to the less wealthy.

Imogen Thomas, a former Big Brother contestant, who has been served with a High Court order banning her from naming a footballer with whom she allegedly had an affair, yesterday protested that she did not have enough money to protect her name.

She said she had no intention of ever speaking out, adding: “I just wish that my name was protected. I didn’t have £50,000 to get an injunction.”