§ 'After section 104C of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (c.18) insert—
§
104D Journalists
An employee who is dismissed shall be regarded for the purposes of this Part as unfairly dismissed, if the reason (or, of more than one, the principal reason) for the dismissal is that—
- the employee works as a journalist and,
- refused (or proposed to refuse) to carry out any act that would amount to a contravention of the Press Complaints Commission Code of Practice that applies at that time.".'.—[John McDonnell.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ John McDonnellI beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Journalists have come under pressure in recent times with regard to their employment, as a result of their courage in standing by their code of practice as agreed by the Press Complaints Commission. A number of journalists have made it clear to their employers that they wish to uphold the status of their profession by adhering to the code of practice, which ensures, for example, that they do not misrepresent, that they do not identify or in any way contribute to the identification of victims of sexual assault, and that they protect their confidential sources.
The new clause introduces into British law a conscience clause to protect that area of employment. The clause would ensure that any attempt to dismiss a journalist for refusing to break the Press Complaints Commission code of practice would be unlawful and therefore actionable in law in respect of compensation. The issue has come up on a number of occasions. There is a case that is currently sub judice so we cannot refer to it, but the National Union of Journalists believes that the matter should be debated adequately and that we should return to it later.
§ Mr. SutcliffeLet me stress that the Government always deplore arbitrary and unfair dismissals. The unfair dismissal legislation, which is generally considered to be working well, has been carefully drawn up to ensure that employees are protected against unfair treatment. For a dismissal to be fair, an employer must not only have dismissed the employee for a fair reason, but must have acted reasonably in doing so. As hon. Members know, the legislation also specifies certain 1364 particularly serious reasons for dismissal that are regarded as automatically unfair. These include, for instance, pregnancy or maternity, and trade union membership, non-membership or activities. My hon. Friend seeks to add to these reasons.
Before any additions to the list of automatically unfair reasons are considered, however, we must be clear that they are both necessary and appropriate, and I do not believe that the addition proposed by my hon. Friend fits either criterion, although I am sympathetic to his underlying concern. I understand that the Press Complaints Commission code of conduct applies to editors and publishers, as well as to those who work for them. A publisher or editor's dismissal of a journalist for declining to breach a code of conduct that applies equally to both parties is most unlikely to be considered a fair one by an employment tribunal, and to that extent the amendment is unnecessary.
I also understand, however, that exceptions to some of the code's provisions can be made in exceptional circumstances, and to that extent the amendment is inappropriate. It assumes, in effect, that no breach is ever defensible, and thus that no journalist should ever be called to account by his employer for refusing to depart from its recommendations. That goes too far in constraining employers. I hope my hon. Friend will accept these points. In view of the ample protection provided by the existing legislation, I invite him to withdraw the new clause.
§ John McDonnellI beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.