A Global Alliance Against Forced Labour - International Labour ...

A DYNAMIC GLOBAL PICTUREProbation Ombudsman, to whom prisoners can refergrievances against the Prison Service.126. In many countries there is no real differencebetween the supervisory arrangements for public andprivate prisons, respectively. In the United Kingdom,for example, prison officers serving in private prisonshave to be licensed by the public authorities. In somecases, however, the State exercises little authority overthe management of private prisons. Notably in caseswhere prisoners work as trainees in private workshopsoutside the prisons, there is often no custodialsupervision. While prison authorities tend to stressthat work is only one aspect of the prison regime andof its inspection services, there can be scope for labourinspection services to train and collaborate withprison authorities on matters which relate strictly tothe work regime.Issues for the private sector127. There are two main issues with regard to privatesector involvement. The fi rst is the actual privatizationof prisons. The second is the role that may beplayed by the private sector in providing employmentand skills training for all prisoners.128. The view is often expressed that prison privatizationis most likely here to stay, as part of thepolitical economy of modern times. When prisonpopulations have been increasing sharply in somecountries, the private sector has often invested thecapital to build new prison facilities. There are clearlymixed views as to the desirability of such a trend. InGermany, for example, a 1998 decision of the FederalConstitutional Court on remuneration of prisonersaffirmed that certain prison labour must only be carriedout under the responsibility of the prison authoritiesand under public supervision. 44 Yet the centralissue in the debate on prisons and prison labour todayis not so much the merits or demerits of privatizationof public services – a matter that goes beyondthe scope of the present Report – but rather the securingof minimum safeguards for those detained inall kinds of prison establishment.129. On the second issue, concerns are expressedby both workers’ and employers’ representatives.Workers are strongly of the view that private entitiesshould not profit from prison labour, unless thisis derived from decent work performed in conditionsthat approximate a free employment relationship,and without artificial suppression of wage costs.Employers can point to the considerable difficultiesin determining a fair wage for prisoners, when theactual cost of providing training or the establishmentof health and safety standards for prisoners can behigher than the cost of providing such services in thefree market. There are also concerns that the averageproductivity of prisoners tends to be low.130. An added and understandable concern formany private companies is the reputational risk of involvementwith prison-produced goods. There havebeen cases where transparent labelling of prison-madegoods can inform consumer decisions. 45 Yet companiescan be faced with a range of questions on which thereis limited available information. It is often difficult toestablish the exact nature of the work, the operationalsafety and health standards, the levels of remuneration,or the voluntary nature of the work. Such problems forthe supply chain have often dissuaded companies fromsourcing materials from prisons. A possible remedy isto encourage prisons to distribute public information,for example through web sites, describing the standardsmaintained in the prison and the level of vocationaltraining provided to prisoners.The need for research and information131. Above all, the ILO meeting identified theneed for more solid information on which to basetechnical advice and policy prescriptions. The ILOwas encouraged to undertake a research programmeon – among other things – the magnitude and theeconomic dimensions of prison labour, the impact ofdifferent types of work on the welfare and skills ofprisoners, the empirical meaning of consent, the empiricalreality of conditions of work, good practice inprivatized prison labour, and bad practice of exploitativeforced prison labour, as well as on the elementsof a fair and acceptable prison labour model. Theseproposals are reflected in the Action Plan containedin Part III.44. BverfG, 2 BvR 441/90 of 1 July 1998.45. For example, the penal institutions of a number of federal states in Germany market hand-crafted goods produced by prison workshops andtrainee programmes under the brand name Haeftling. Products ranging from clothing to household linen are marketed under a “made inprison” label. Proceeds from sales are divided between the prison, the Government and the Haeftling corporation to cover marketing anddistribution costs.29