Observation (CEACR) - adoptée 2011, publiée 101ème session CIT (2012)

Convention (n° 29) sur le travail forcé, 1930 - Royaume-Uni de Grande-Bretagne et d'Irlande du Nord (Ratification: 1931)
Protocole de 2014 relatif à la convention sur le travail forcé, 1930 - Royaume-Uni de Grande-Bretagne et d'Irlande du Nord (Ratification: 2016)

Articles 1(1), 2(1) and (2)(c) of the Convention. Privatization of prisons and prison labour. Work of prisoners for private companies. For a number of years, the Committee has been making comments on the privatization of prisons and work of prisoners for private companies in the United Kingdom. The Committee recalls that Article 2(2)(c) of the Convention expressly prohibits that convicted prisoners are hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations. It clearly follows from the wording of this provision that the exception of compulsory prison labour from the scope of the Convention does not extend to work of prisoners for private parties (including privatized prisons and prison workshops), even under public supervision and control. The Committee therefore asked the Government to take the necessary measures in order to ensure that, with regard to contracted-out prisons and prison industries, any work by prisoners for private companies be performed under the conditions of a freely consented upon labour relationship, without the menace of any penalty and, given their conditions of captive labour, subject to guarantees as to wages and other conditions of employment approximating a free labour relationship.

The Committee notes with concern that there has been no change in the Government’s position and in national law and practice since the Government’s previous report. The Government reiterates that the United Kingdom continues to have in place a robust set of rules and regulations to ensure that prison labour is not abused, and that both public and private sector prisons and workshops are subject to rigorous independent inspections, both domestically and internationally. The Government also takes the view that, if it accepts the interpretation of the Convention by the Committee of Experts, working of prisoners in a number of prisons in the United Kingdom would no longer be viable, and therefore, compliance with the Committee’s views would be highly damaging for prisoners and their rehabilitation.

While noting these views and comments, the Committee points out once again that the privatization of prison labour falls outside the express conditions provided in Article 2(2)(c) of the Convention for exempting compulsory prison labour from the scope of the Convention. However, the Committee has considered that the work of prisoners for private companies may be held compatible with the Convention where it does not involve compulsory labour, which requires the formal, freely given and informed consent of the persons concerned. Such voluntary consent, since it is given in the context of a captive labour force having no alternative access to the free labour market, should be authenticated by the conditions of work approximating a free labour relationship, which is the most reliable indicator of the voluntariness of labour and which include wage levels (leaving room for deductions and attachments), social security and occupational safety and health (see paragraphs 59–60 and 114–120 of the Committee’s 2007 General Survey on the eradication of forced labour).

As the Committee repeatedly pointed out, in spite of the express prohibition for prisoners to be hired to or placed at the disposal of private parties under the terms of the Convention, it is fully possible for ratifying States to apply the Convention when designing or implementing a system of privatized prison labour, once the abovementioned requirements are complied with. The Committee draws the Government’s attention once again to paragraphs 61 and 122 of its 2007 General Survey where it observed that a certain number of countries have made progress towards full compliance with the Convention by taking measures, both in law and in practice, so that conditions of the private employment of prisoners progressively approach those of free workers.

While noting the Government’s indication in the report that it is currently exploring possible models for increased work in prisons, as well as the Government’s commitment to have regard to the relevant ILO Conventions in developing these models, the Committee trusts that measures will be taken to ensure that formal, freely given and informed consent is required for the work of prisoners in privately operated prisons, as well as for all work of prisoners for private companies, both inside and outside prison premises, such consent being authenticated by the conditions of work approximating those of a free labour relationship, as regards wage levels (leaving room for deductions and attachments), social security and occupational safety and health. The Committee expresses the firm hope that such measures will be taken both in law and in practice, in order to grant prisoners working in privately operated facilities and other prisoners working for private enterprises a legal status with rights and conditions of employment that are compatible with this basic human rights instrument ratified by the United Kingdom more than 80 years ago, and that the Government will soon be in a position to report the progress made in this regard.

The Committee is raising other points in a request addressed directly to the Government.