CMNT_TITLE

With reference to its comments regarding the privatization of prisons and work performed by prisoners, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report.

The Committee also notes the observations made by the Trade Union Congress (TUC) on the application of the Convention which have been sent by the Government with its report.

Article 2, paragraph 2(c), of the Convention. The Committee noted previously that under the Criminal Justice Act of 26 July 1991, certain prisons may be contracted out (section 84); they are run by a director appointed by the contractor and approved by the Secretary of State, and controlled by a Crown servant (section 85). The Government indicated that the Act enables the Government to seek tenders from the private sector for the management of the new remand prisons and that a first contract had been signed for a period of five years relating to the remand prison of Wolds accommodating prisoners awaiting trial or sentence. The Government also indicated that under the Prison Rules, unconvicted prisoners are not required to work, while for convicted prisoners work is compulsory. At Wolds, work would apply to domestic requirements and to a multi-skills workshop and prisoners choosing to participate would receive pay and acquire training. The Committee also noted the Government's indications concerning control, discipline, inspection and monitoring of prisons and it requested the Government to provide detailed information on the number of prisons contracted out and of prisoners concerned, the wages paid in relation to the normal minimum wages applicable in the different work sectors and other details on social security benefits and on deductions made from pay.

The Committee notes the Government's indication in its latest report that two prisons have been contracted out namely the Wolds Remand Prison (operational as from April 1992) and Blakenhurst Prison (as from 26 May 1993). At Wolds, in a typical week in March 1993 out of an average population of 318 untried or unsentenced prisoners, 122 worked a total of 2,089 hours a week. As concerns Blakenhurst, the contract with the private sector operator requires that convicted and sentenced prisoners (about half of the expected 649 inmates) participate in work and vocational programmes (35 hours per week in a seven-hour day), while remand prisoners are able to participate if they so wish, and are encouraged to do so. The Government adds that opportunities for work in both the internal domestic areas and the internal grounds are provided and there exists a range of workshops with provisions for a number of industrial or training sections which include a laundry, three workshop training areas and two construction industry training shops for painting and decorating courses and plastering. Work in training workshops should lead to nationally recognized qualifications.

As concerns remuneration the Committee notes that the Government refers to the "Prisoners' Pay Manual" published by the Prison Service in November 1992 and communicated by the Government with its report. This pay scheme applies to prisoners in the (state-run) prison service.

According to the Government's indication this new pay scheme provides a framework, delegating application to each prison governor, and there exists no standard payments for different sectors of work available to prisoners in the prison service. The governor sets the pay rates locally and prisoners have to achieve acceptable levels of quality, output and activity which should be agreed with them in advance; where the required standard is not met, reductions in pay can be made. The Government also states that most prisoners do not earn enough to have deductions made from pay.

The Committee notes the Government's statement that it is the intention of the contractors both at Wolds and at Blakenhurst to follow the principles for inmates' pay set out in the "Prisoner's Pay Manual".

The Committee notes that the scheme provides for three different wage levels: a Basic Rate (BR), set nationally, which a prisoner willing to engage in purposeful activity but who cannot be offered a place, should expect to receive to meet his basic needs; an Employment Rate (ER) which is the same for all prisoners across the Service, to be paid to a prisoner engaged in a purposeful activity and who performs this activity to an acceptable level of quality and effort; a Standard Rate (SR) which may be set by the prison governor locally for purposeful activity at a rate above the Employment Rate. For the purpose of the pay scheme, "purposeful activities" encompass work (i.e. in workshops; on farms and gardens; domestic services; works maintenance parties; community projects; or work for outside employers), training and day-time education.

The Committee notes that the Manual stresses that in the prison service prisoners' pay has traditionally been set at pocket-money level; pay levels were inadequate even for this modest purpose; pay increases have been recommended in several reports; thus the "Woolf report" proposed an average weekly wage of 8 and the Government's White Paper "Custody, Care and Justice" published in 1991 accepted this as an initial aim, as soon as resources allow.

The Committee notes the comments by the Trade Union Congress (TUC) that a programme of privatization has been introduced whereby the running of two prisons has been contracted out to private security companies and Blakenhurst prison and Wolds remand prison have been privatized. Blakenhurst is run by "UK Detention Services", a consortium of the Corrections Corporation of America and the construction companies "Mowlem Alpine" which built Wolds. Wolds is run by the "Group 4 Company". As concerns the functions devolved to the Controller which are to inquire into and adjudicate on disciplinary charges brought against prisoners, the TUC considers that this does not amount to supervision and control by a public authority of the prison labour, as required by the Convention. The TUC draws attention to Article 2, paragraph 2(c) of the Convention and the Committee's 1979 General Survey on the Abolition of Forced Labour recalling the rejection (by the Conference) of a proposal which would have permitted the hiring of prison labour to private undertakings engaged in the execution of public works.

The TUC refers more specifically to the nature, conditions and pay of work done by prisoners in the privately run prison of Blakenhurst and in different state-run prisons which have concluded delivery contracts with outside private companies. The Committee notes in particular that the TUC states in relation to Blakenhurst prison, that the Director of the prison service has provided information to the effect that prisoners are engaged in kitchen, wing servery, domestic cleaning, works maintenance, garden work, light assembly and laundry work; that pay scales average 6.50 per week and rates vary according to the work undertaken; and that revenue accruing from work is used for prisoner pay. However, in the opinion of the TUC, normal wages are not paid and, while it is said that profits accruing from prison labour are used to enhance facilities for prisoners, it seems to the TUC that prison labour is being used by a private company to cut the costs of running the prison and enhance private profit.

The Committee notes that the Government has provided no comments in response to the TUC's observations.

The Committee also notes information according to which a further prison is in the process of being contracted out.

The Committee recalls that Article 2, paragraph 2(c), of the Convention, explicitly prohibits that persons from whom work is exacted as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law, be placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations. As the Committee has noted in its 1979 General Survey on the Abolition of Forced Labour, in adopting this provision the Conference expressly rejected an amendment which would have permitted the hiring of prison labour to private undertakings engaged in the execution of public works. It is therefore not sufficient to limit the use of prison labour to works of public interest, since such works may be carried out by private undertakings.

The Committee has indicated in the above-mentioned General Survey that the prohibition of Article 2, paragraph 2(c), is not limited to work done outside the penitentiary establishments but applies equally to workshops operated inside prisons by private undertakings. A fortiori, the prohibition covers all work organised by privately-run prisons.

The Committee recalls that wherever prisoners are placed at the disposal of private companies only work performed in conditions of a free employment relationship can be held to be compatible with the prohibition of the Convention; this necessarily requires the formal consent of the person concerned and, in the light of the circumstances of that consent, guarantees and safeguards in respect of wages and social security that are such as to justify the relationship being regarded as a free one.

The Committee hopes that the Government will provide detailed information on measures taken or envisaged to ensure the observance of the Convention.