Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 1999, publiée 88ème session CIT (2000)

Referring to its observation under the Convention, the Committee requests the Government to supply additional information on the following points.

1. Domestic workers from abroad

In its previous direct request, the Committee had taken note of the indications of the Government concerning the cases of abuse of domestic workers which have been brought before the courts, and requested the Government to communicate details concerning the court decisions, including the number of convictions and the penal sanctions imposed, in accordance with Article 25 of the Convention. The Committee hopes that the Government will supply this information with its next report.

2. Unconvicted prisoners

In its previous direct request, the Committee had asked the Government to specify the means by which remand prisoners were encouraged to participate in work.

The Committee notes the information given by the Government in its reply regarding the privileges scheme established under Prison Rule 4(3) of the former Prison Rules, which corresponds to Rule 8(3) of the 1999 Prison Rules. It notes that there are three privilege levels, "basic", "standard" and "enhanced", under a national framework which includes the withdrawal of privileges if prisoners do not continue to meet required standards. The national framework applies to all prisoners, including unconvicted prisoners, but its application to unconvicted prisoners reflects the additional rights and privileges which flow from their special legal status. Unconvicted prisoners are not required to work although under the terms of Rule 31(5) of the 1999 Prison Rules (Rule 28(5) of the former Rules), "an unconvicted prisoner shall be permitted, if he wishes, to work as if he were a convicted prisoner".

The Government indicates that consequently unconvicted prisoners enter schemes at the standard level and move to the enhanced level, and from the enhanced level back to standard level on the basis of assessments of behaviour and participation in a range of activities, including work where this is available.

The Government adds that in practice at HMP Blakenhurst, the prison is contractually obliged to provide work for convicted and sentenced prisoners as a first priority. Only if no convicted prisoner was available to do the task would it be offered to an unconvicted prisoner who had expressed an interest.

The Committee takes due note of these indications. It would appreciate disposing of further information regarding (a) the scope of "privileges" available to prisoners at different levels, (b) the opportunity to earn wages and (c) the Government's views on data provided by the TUC in its observations.

(a) Privileges

The Committee observes that conviction in a court of law is one of the conditions for compulsory prison labour to be exempted from the scope of the Convention under Article 2(2)(c) and to fall within the definition of "forced or compulsory labour" in Article 2(1) of the Convention, work or service must be exacted "under the menace of any penalty". In this regard, the Committee has recalled in paragraph 21 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour that "It was made clear during the consideration of the draft instrument by the Conference that the penalty here in question need not be in the form of penal sanctions, but might take the form also of a loss of rights or privileges."

The Committee requests the Government to supply full details on the range of "privileges" of prisoners included at the "standard" and "enhanced" levels.

(b) Wages

The Committee further notes, with regard to the opportunity to earn wages, that under Rule 62 of the 1964 Prison Rules, prisoners awaiting trial or sentence were to benefit from Rules 58 to 60 as they applied to an appellant, but that Rule 61, under which "an appellant, if discharged on his appeal, shall be entitled to payment at a special rate ... for work done by him under Rule 28 of these Rules while he was treated as an appellant" was not made applicable to prisoners awaiting trial or sentence. The Committee also notes that the provisions of Rule 61 appear to have been omitted from the Prison Rules now in force. It requests the Government to specify whether the opportunity to earn wages is limited for remand prisoners to the levels fixed for convicted prisoners, or whether market rates are to apply.

(c) Data provided by the TUC

The Committee notes the TUC's indication in its observation received on 15 November 1999 that in Brockhill, a remand prison for young women run by the state Prison Service, prisoners were paid o8 per week for removing threaded eyelets from wooden curtain rings, work that appeared to have the intended function primarily of "occupational therapy"; that the prison was paid o4.16 per thousand rings and the job consisted of 33,000 rings, which was completed by four prisoners in a week. According to the TUC's figures, the weekly wage of o8 paid to the unconvicted prisoners involved thus not only was far below the minimum wage for adult workers, but also represented less than a quarter of what was actually being paid for their work by an outside company.

Recalling the Government's indication in its report that for unconvicted prisoners, participation in work activities was "providing an opportunity to earn wages" as well as enhancing their privilege level, the Committee requests the Government to comment on the figures supplied by the TUC.