| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
1 Mar 2005 : Column 205WH—continued
1 Mar 2005 : Column 206WH
Port of Liverpool Police
11 am
Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas (Crosby) (Lab): I am delighted to have secured the opportunity to speak today about a question to which I have been trying to get a clear answer for four years, and I am grateful to the Minister for attending the debate to answer the concerns of my constituents who belong to the port of Liverpool police. I hope that he will be able to help my constituents to resolve their inequitable situation. I am delighted that, after trying for many years, we have a Minister present who is willing to answer for the employment rights of the port of Liverpool police.
Despite the efforts of the police officers of the port of Liverpool in contacting their Members of Parliament, attending meetings, filing a joint case to an employment tribunal and contacting Ministers, they have been unable to make any headway on the issue of their employment rights. I start by paying tribute to their efforts, because their dedication and determination to achieve appropriate redress has been second to none. I hope that the Minister and other Members will join me in praising those efforts.
In order to understand the situation of the port police officers fully, it is necessary to provide some background information. The port of Liverpool police is a non-Home Office police force funded by the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company. The force was founded in 1974 to provide dedicated police cover for the port of Liverpool. It is constituted in the Mersey Docks and Harbour (Police) Order 1975. It has identical legislative powers to those of any other police force in the geographical area of the port, plus special powers granted by the port of Liverpool's byelaws. However, despite the responsibility and risk that the officers of the port of Liverpool police face, it is not a force covered by the police Acts.
As a result, its officers are not afforded the same protection as Home Office police forces if they have a grievance against their employer. If a port of Liverpool police officer has an employment grievance, there is an internal investigation of the complaint. The case is then referred to a port superintendent, on to the port's chief officer and finally to the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company police committee. No external redress is available to port police officers.
It is possible that the Minister believes that external redress exists in the form of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company police committee. However, that committee is chaired by the chief executive of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company. The committee does have some external representation, but it could hardly be called independent of the owning company—the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company—against which individuals may have a legitimate grievance. By comparison, a Home Office police officer who has an employment grievance would have access to internal redress in their force. They would then have a right of appeal to the Home Secretary, a tribunal, the divisional court—if the matter was about a point of law—and, finally, the House of Lords.
Port of Liverpool police officers do not have access to a union. As with other police forces, a federation exists to represent their views, but since the port police is a
1 Mar 2005 : Column 207WH
smaller force, the federation has no funding, no office space and no paid officials. It is extremely difficult for a port police officer to access advice and achieve appropriate redress.
I am sure that hon. Members will be surprised to learn that, despite the port of Liverpool police having been refused the routes of external redress offered to other police officers, when it appealed to an employment tribunal, that appeal channel was refused. On 8 March 2002, the decision of the employment tribunal in the cases of 18 police officers of the Port of Liverpool v. the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company was that
"All of the applicants were employed under contracts of employment in police service and accordingly their claims are dismissed."
The tribunal cited section 200 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, in which it is stated that the Act does
"not apply to employment under a contract of employment in police service or to persons engaged in such service."
That section of the law applies because the port of Liverpool police was constituted by an enactment in the 1975 order that brought it into being.
So there exists an anomaly whereby the officers of the port of Liverpool police are not covered by the police Acts and do not have recourse to an industrial tribunal. They are left at the mercy of their employer, as they have no access to an external independent tribunal. The grievances that the port police officers have tried to raise include claims of unfair dismissal, unfair pension agreements and unfair treatment over sick leave. When injured, some of them have not been able to claim sick pay, and they have been suspended without pay or threatened with dismissal. They are being exploited, and we have not been able to help them, since no one will take responsibility for their employment rights.
The men involved in that case and their families have tried to seek redress via all appropriate means. They have pursued their employment grievances appropriately through the internal system. They made attempts to seek redress as police officers, and once that was refused they attempted to seek redress through the employment tribunal system as members of the public.
Those men have sought legal advice and taken out joint legal insurance to provide quality advice equally to all port police officers who signed up to it. When all their personal efforts failed, they contacted their Members of Parliament and Ministers, and I am ashamed to say that we have not managed to achieve anything on their behalf. In August 2001, I met my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Benton) and the then Home Office Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham). We were informed that the port of Liverpool police fell under the auspices of the then Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. My right hon. Friend the then Minister replied stating that the Department's remit covered legislation relating to the port police, but did
A little frustrated, I sought clarification from the then Leader of the House of Commons, my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). He assured me that the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions was undertaking a review of the
1 Mar 2005 : Column 208WH
powers, duties and standards of the port police forces. Unfortunately, that review appears to have done nothing to improve the situation of the port police officers. Along with several colleagues I sought further meetings with Ministers, and in 2004 I received assurances from the Home Office that the Green Paper "Policing: Building Safer Communities Together" would explore whether anything could be done to help to rationalise small specialist forces such as the port of Liverpool police. Again, despite that assurance, the Police Reform Act 2002 and the 2004 White Paper "Building Communities, Beating Crime . . ." have not addressed port police. It would appear that no Department will take responsibility for the employment rights of the port police officers, yet we are happy to receive their protection. That is unacceptable.
On 10 February 2004, the Minister responsible responded to the complaints of one of my constituents by referring to the circulation of a ports police discussion paper. The paper was supposed to have been circulated before the Minister sent the letter. When my office tried to obtain the paper over a year after the letter was sent, we were told that it was still in draft form. I hope to receive a copy of the paper from the Department for Transport after this debate. That is typical of the evasive way that this issue has been dealt with. There is no clear information available, and Ministers have avoided this sticky and exceptional problem for far too long.
So far, all that my constituents have gained from their active engagement with the Government is the knowledge that the Department for Transport has legislative control of their police force, but it does not have any duty regarding the day-to-day operations of the police or their employment conditions. That knowledge has achieved nothing. Despite numerous reviews and consultations, if the port of Liverpool police officers have a grievance, they are still at the mercy of their employer. I would like the Minister to address the questions of why no Department has taken responsibility for that situation and why there is still no external accountability procedure for the grievances of the port of Liverpool police officers. They find themselves in the invidious position of neither being in the care of the police nor having access to the legitimate rights of normal employees.
The employment rights of the port of Liverpool police leave much to be desired, and yet, as I mentioned at the start of my speech, under legislation they have the same powers within the port as any other police force in the country. The nature of the crimes that they face has escalated from petty theft to serious organised crime, illegal immigration and a potential terrorist attack. I am sure that I do not need to remind Members that 37 port police officers were killed in the terrorist attacks on New York in September 2001.
Port police officers are as vulnerable to serious organised crime as any other police officers. Some would say that the port police are even more vulnerable, as they patrol our borders. Port police officers who have complaints should be treated with fairness and respect, as is fitting for those who risk their lives in order to protect ours. Does the Minister agree that port security is vital for national security, and that the role of the port of Liverpool police is therefore very important?
1 Mar 2005 : Column 209WH
Finally, what will the Minister do to ensure that the discrepancy between the grievance procedures for police forces and for the port of Liverpool police is harmonised? As matters stand, their procedure is unfair, and, despite the best efforts of the officers concerned, we have not rectified that disparity in five years of continuous struggle. I ask the Minister to assure my constituents that he, as a Minister with responsibility for transport, will take personal responsibility for this, and that he will ensure that in future they will be treated with the fairness that they have earned through their service to this country.
11.11 am
Mr. George Howarth (Knowsley, North and Sefton, East) (Lab): I shall be brief, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) has covered the ground very fully. I congratulate her on securing the debate, and on the comprehensive and lucid way in which she introduced the subject.
I have with me a letter from a constituent of mine, Mr. David Hayes. He is a former port of Liverpool police officer who lives in Aintree. In his letter, he sets out his dilemma and that of his colleagues, and he puts it in context:
"On the advice of local Members of Parliament we applied for a hearing at an Employment Tribunal and a pre trial hearing was held at the Employment Tribunal Offices in Liverpool to decide if they could hear our case. Unfortunately the Tribunal decided that they could not hear our case under Section 200 subsection 2(a) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 which states 'section 137 does not apply to employment under a contract of employment in police service or to persons engaged in such service'."
It then goes on to define what "police service" means.
The fact of the matter is that, for purposes of central Government, these men are not treated as police officers. For normal serving police officers, there is an appeal procedure for grievances that can go all the way up to the Home Secretary. That procedure does not apply for these men, but when they go to a tribunal in order to determine whether they are covered by other legislation, they are told that they are not because they have the title of "police."
I realise that the Minister and the Government face a conundrum in how to deal with this matter, but I echo what my hon. Friend said: if these men are not policemen, but they are called policemen and are thereby denied the right to go through a tribunal process in the same way that people in any other form of employment would be, there is a gap that needs to be closed. I am relaxed about whether it is closed by my hon. Friend the Minister, the Home Office or the Department of Trade and Industry, but I hope that Ministers from all three Departments will put their heads together, decide who is going to do it, and then get on with it.
11.14 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson) : I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) on raising the employment rights of the port of
1 Mar 2005 : Column 210WH
Liverpool police, and on making her points with her customary thoroughness and courtesy. My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) succinctly put his points on behalf of his constituents. I am also pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Benton) is present; he has taken a great interest in these matters.
The port of Liverpool is one of the United Kingdom's top 20 ports. In 2003, it handled almost 32 million tonnes of traffic, which is more than either Felixstowe or Dover. I am told that the total tonnage of cargo passing through the port is at an all-time high—higher, even, than in the port's heyday in the 19th century. The volume of traffic continues to grow, so the port is a major contributor to the renewed vitality of Merseyside. My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby is to be congratulated on having such a successful port in her constituency. The port, which is owned and operated by the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company, is responding to new growth. In the past five years, it has invested more than £100 million, including £25 million on expanding and upgrading the Seaforth container terminal in which my hon. Friend has had a considerable interest. She will know that we have been given notice of an application for the further extension of the terminal, and are about to give our opinion on the environmental information that must accompany the application for the order.
The port activities of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company are well known, but it is also a direct employer of the port of Liverpool police force, which was established under the Mersey Docks and Harbour (Police) Order 1975. The order provides for the appointment of constables, with powers, within the port of Liverpool and one mile of its limits. It also provides for the establishment of a port of Liverpool police federation to represent the interests of the appointed constables
Port of Liverpool police officers are employees of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company. The port police forces are established under section 79 of the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847 or, as in the case of Liverpool, the incorporation of a similar section into their own legislation by way of the Mersey Docks and Harbour (Police) Order 1975.
As announced in our policy paper "Modern Ports: A UK policy", we have carried out an initial review of the arrangements for port police in England and Wales. The review has examined the powers, duties and accountability of port police forces. It has not, however, considered the employment terms and conditions of individual forces or officers. Indeed, it never intended to do so, as terms and conditions of employment are not a matter for my Department.
Our draft discussion paper on the accountability and standards of the port police forces was circulated in 2003 to the association of port police chief officers and the Home Office. We learned during that exercise that other initiatives in play had the potential to have an impact on our own work and would therefore have delayed action until their outcomes were known.
1 Mar 2005 : Column 211WH
Mr. George Howarth : My hon. Friend said, in effect, that his Department did not believe that it was responsible for the employment conditions of the port police. Why, then, is he replying to this debate?
Mr. Jamieson : I asked the same question. I often wonder why I reply to some debates, but here I am, speaking on behalf of my Department and the Government. Unfortunately, several issues do relate to ports and to my Department. Some employment issues, however, are for the Department of Trade and Industry, not for my Department, and police issues are, of course, for the Home Office. If hon. Members want certain issues to be clarified, they may want to seek an audience with the appropriate Ministers or call a debate and draw another Minister to the House. I can speak only for my Department and about issues that relate to my Department, although I may be able to help my hon. Friend if I have time.
The first initiative was the Home Office's public consultation paper "Policing: Building Safer Communities Together", which refers briefly to small specialist police forces such as the port police. Although several responses to the consultation strongly emphasised the positive contribution of the specialist police forces, the subsequent policy paper "Building Communities, Beating Crime—A better police service for the 21st century", which was published in November 2004, made no specific recommendation in respect of the non-Home Office police forces. It has not, so far, seen a need to force through change in that area.
Mr. Joe Benton (Bootle) (Lab): I return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) about the Department's not being responsible. The Minister will recall that, I think it was in 2002, my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) and I met him. It comes as a surprise to discover this morning that the Department for Transport has no responsibility in that regard, because that was the main thrust of that meeting.
Mr. Jamieson : I recall that meeting. At the time we were talking about our review. However, conditions of employment are, ultimately, matters for the DTI.
The Association of Chief Police Officers port group has launched its own review of port policing, with the aim of ensuring that port police forces are fully integrated into the national policing structure. It has drawn on our initial discussion paper and we, in turn, want to ensure that any conclusions from our paper are take into account. Once the outcomes of the other initiatives are known, we will decide whether the outstanding issues merit our proceeding with the planned full consultation on ports policing.
We recognise that port police forces such as that in Liverpool have an important role to play in the security of ports. I concur with what my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby said on that. I am pleased to say that the port of Liverpool successfully met the deadline of 1 July 2004 for implementing the international ship and port facility security code. The port of Liverpool is a diverse operation, so the challenge of complying with
1 Mar 2005 : Column 212WH
the new security requirements was significant, and port employees deserve every credit for their efforts in securing that compliance.
The ports police unit typified the commitment of the port of Liverpool, and was at the forefront of implementing the ISPS security measures. That proactive approach has continued beyond 1 July 2004, and the ports police and the port are participating in a pilot project to determine whether the multi-agency threat and risk assessment programme, which has been successfully rolled out for airports, is relevant to the maritime sector.
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas : I am grateful for what my hon. Friend is saying, but it does not seem to have much relevance to the subject, which is the employment rights of the port of Liverpool police. Is he able to say anything about the consolidation of the employment rights of the port of Liverpool police that would give them parity either with the police forces or with other employees of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company?
Mr. Jamieson : I shall see whether, in my latter remarks, I can get to those points. My hon. Friend has, on a number of occasions, raised with me the concerns of her constituents relating to employment rights and operational matters within the port of Liverpool police. I have advised her that my Department has no remit in those matters, and I am afraid that I have to repeat that message today.
Retirement ages are, like other terms and conditions of employment, a matter for negotiation and agreement between employers and their employees, or their representatives. Unless they discriminate on the grounds of sex, race or disability, or between comparable part-timers and full-timers, employers are free to decide the retirement policies best suited to their business needs, and can require employees to retire at a particular age if that is a condition of their employment.
Once terms and conditions of employment are agreed, they form a contract that is legally binding on both parties. Employees whose contracts are varied without their consent, for instance by a requirement to retire at a different age from the one originally agreed, may be able to seek redress through the civil courts or employment tribunals.
Employees have the right to redress through employment tribunals when employment rights conferred by the Employment Rights Act 1996 are infringed. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East pointed out, section 200(1) excludes employees who are under a contract of employment in the police service from many rights conferred under the Act. There thus appears to be an anomaly whereby the terms and conditions of service of ports police are not regulated, and the officers have no recourse to investigation of their perceived unfair treatment by their employers.
I understand that in Liverpool, at least, informal arrangements have been made for such issues to be referred to an independent third party. Again, because the issue is one of employment, my Department cannot
1 Mar 2005 : Column 213WH
intervene in it directly. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby has made a pertinent point, overall, which has been picked up in the review. I hope that she will appreciate that we have not wanted to pursue each issue as it has arisen, without the chance to have it considered as part of the usual consultation process.
I recognise, however, that because the review has been delayed, for the reasons that I have given, the chance to deal with the point has been put back. Therefore, ahead of the review and armed with the arguments that have been made today, I undertake to raise the apparent gap in employment protection with my colleagues in the DTI and the Home Office, although of course I cannot guarantee the precise outcome that my hon. Friend requires. The issue will no doubt have to compete for priority with all the other policing issues, but I undertake that my Department will explore with the company the possibility of a local solution to the problem.
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas : If it is my hon. Friend's intention to explore that opportunity with the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company I welcome that, but I want to ensure that any independent body is independent of employees or employer or the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company. Anything else would clearly compromise the position of an employee bringing a case to the independent panel.
Mr. Jamieson : Yes; I have undertaken that we will work closely with the DTI and the Home Office in investigating the matter to see how we can take things forward. My hon. Friend will appreciate my difficulty today in that I cannot speak directly for those Departments; the matters in question are not in the control of my Department. We shall also make contact with the company to see whether a solution can be reached.
The difficulty, also, is that the changes that we want would almost certainly need primary legislation, which, as we know, is like gold dust. The Departments may, by working together, be able to reach other agreements to the satisfaction of those concerned. I have enormous sympathy with them and a certain frustration that my Department cannot take action of the kind that we should like to.
I applaud my hon. Friend for raising the matters as she has. She has yet again brought before the House the difficulties of her constituents. I urge her and the policemen and women who are directly concerned to pursue, as far as possible, local solutions to their individual cases. However, I undertake to do everything in my power to find a solution to a difficult situation.
11.29 am
Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |