Wishful thinking? 'Article 2c of the ILO forced labour convention allows "any work or service exacted from any person as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law, provided that the said work or service is carried out under the supervision and control of a public authority" ' Presumably the CRCs and their Privateer successors will be viewed as under the ultimate supervision and control of the public authority and that will be the end of that...
Anyway, here's that e-mail:-
Dear Napo Member
PROBATION UNIONS CLAIM TRANSFORMING REHABILITATION PROPOSALS BREACH INTERNATIONAL LABOUR REGULATIONS
Today, Napo, UNISON, and the GMB, are referring the UK Government to the International Labour Organisation (“ILO”).We are doing so because we consider that the Government’s Transforming Rehabilitation proposals (TR) will breach the ILO’s Forced Labour Convention by selling the supervision of Community Payback to the private sector. The Convention which dates back to 1931 expressly requires forced labour, carried out under a court order, to be supervised by the public sector and for those undertaking the labour not to be placed at the disposal of private companies.
What is the ILO?
The ILO is a United Nations agency that is devoted to promoting internationally recognised human and labour rights and which is committed to greater cooperation between governments and employers’ and workers’ organisations in encouraging social and economic progress.
The ILO seeks to achieve this by way of a system of Conventions, and a supervisory process to help ensure that countries implement the Conventions they sign up to. These Conventions establish internationally recognised labour standards, and cover a wide range of subjects such as: freedom of association, collective bargaining and industrial relations, forced labour, child labour and discrimination.
The representations procedure
The representations procedure grants trade unions the right to make a representation against any Member State which, in their view, "has failed to secure in any respect the effective observance within its jurisdiction of any Convention to which it is a party". On receipt of a representation, the ILO will set up a committee to examine and report on the representation and the government's response. The committee’s report will state the legal and practical aspects of the case, examine the information submitted, and conclude with recommendations. Where the government's response is not considered satisfactory, the ILO is entitled to publish the representation and the response.
The ILO Convention on Forced Labour
The United Kingdom ratified (brought into force) the Forced Labour Convention on 3 June 1931. The Convention provides that each country that ratifies the Convention undertakes to suppress the use of forced labour in all forms.
The Convention defines ‘forced labour’ as all work which is exacted from a person under the menace of penalty and for which that person has not offered themselves voluntarily. There are a number of limited exemptions to this definition, which permit some forms of forced labour. One of the exemptions, which allows Community Payback, is:
- Where work is exacted from a person as a consequence of a criminal conviction; and
- The work is carried out under the supervision and control of a public authority; and
- That person is not placed at the disposal of private individuals or companies.
Community Payback
The supervision, monitoring and delivery of Community Payback was, until recently, carried out exclusively by public sector Probation Trusts; thereby meeting all the terms of the above exemption. However, in 2012 the Ministry of Justice awarded the London Community Payback contract to the private contractor Serco. Members will have seen last week’s formal announcement that Serco has now been served notice of termination for their failure to deliver, and that it is intended that this work will be transferred back into the London CRC by December 2014.
Under TR the Government intends to roll-out the privatisation of a large range of probation functions, including Community Payback, across the whole of England and Wales. If these plans come to fruition, it is anticipated that all Community Payback will be run by private sector organisations after the intended CRC ‘share sale’ takes place.
Breach of the Forced Labour Convention
Following comprehensive legal advice the Unions submit that such outsourcing to the private sector is in breach of the Convention. In summary:
- The work performed under Community Payback is forced labour within the definition of the Convention; but
- While work under Community Payback is exacted from an offender as a consequence of a criminal conviction, under the existing London Community Payback contract and under the Government’s ‘Transforming Rehabilitation’ plans it: (i) is not carried out under the supervision and control of a public authority and
(ii) involves those subject to Community Payback being placed at the disposal of private companies.
What are the Unions asking the ILO to do?
The Unions argue that the provision of Community Payback by non-public sector bodies, such as the Serco CP contract in London, is a violation of the ILO Forced Labour Convention. We believe there has been a breach of the Convention in relation to the London Community Payback contract awarded to Serco, and there will be further breaches if and when the Government awards other contracts, involving the delivery of Community Payback, to private sector bodies.
The Unions are therefore requesting that the ILO holds that the UK has violated and is proposing to violate the Forced Labour Convention in respect of its Transforming Rehabilitation proposals. The joint statement is contained in the link below:
More news on the progress of the referral will be published as soon as it becomes available.
Ian Lawrence
NAPO NEC has now formally called the SGM for Wednesday 5th March 2014 at Birmingham Town Hall. Why jump to MOJ's rushed timetable, why legitimatise TR and splitting up of public sector probation service. Cancel SGM and amendments for napo constitution to recognise CRCs. If this isn't a mixed message what is, ---?we want members to oppose TR, but by the way we are going to adopt a constitution to help it come about, plus we will help to form a probation institute to further help TR on its way. Why
ReplyDelete"On receipt of a representation, the ILO will set up a committee to examine and report on the representation and the government's response. The committee’s report will state the legal and practical aspects of the case, examine the information submitted, and conclude with recommendations. Where the government's response is not considered satisfactory, the ILO is entitled to publish the representation and the response."
ReplyDeleteSo the penalty for breaking ILO rules is... a report? Is this really what we're reduced to?
This Government is merrily talking about repealing the Human Rights Act, and delighted in denouncing the UN Special Rapporteur on Housing as a Marxist when it didn't like her conclusions. Do we really think they're going to be bothered picking this obscure fight? I sincerely hope this isn't the best HQ can come up with.
HQ are clearly confident this strategy will be the end of TR . That's why they're, uh, calling a special meeting to change the union constitution to accommodate Privatisation and, um, colluding in the Probation Institute, funded by the MoJ as a means to smooth the way for Privatisation...
DeleteI think they are just hedging their bets. If it does not work out then at least NAPO are alright as they are on the PI.
DeleteIf it does work out, then NAPO are alright as they have just swung in like Bruce Willis and saved the day.
Either way NAPO are alright.
A lot of smoke and mirrors if you ask me. They knew about this over 12 months ago and did nothing. The whole thing could have been nipped in the bud right then and saved a whole lot of grief and stress for it's members. My view is that this is designed to put bidders off Grayling's TR as they may end up with no UW.
That said, if the Government have been acting illegally (heaven forbid!!!), I really really hope that everyone who completed UW for Serco sues the fecking arse off them!!!
It would be a shame if this information was leaked to offenders in LPT who then sought a class action ;) Now that would REALLY up the ante!!!!!
But cant The United Nations say it is illegal and stop or slow down the legislation? I can write a bloody report!!
ReplyDeleteWHAT DO YOU PEOPLE EXPECT NAPO TO DO? March on Downing Street with flaming torches? Tar and feather the TR team at NOMS? The only thing that will stop this is a legal challenge or a lack of interest from the market. If there are questions over the legality of the process, or the risk of reputational damage, there may be hesitation and delay. It ain't going to be called of just because it's a s*** idea that won't.
ReplyDeletePlan, coordinate and instigate Industrial action?Just a thought....
DeleteThis has already been proven to be a non argument. The MoJ specifically sought advice on this point pre cp privatisation in London. It was included in paperwork at the time. Paperwork the unions saw.
ReplyDeleteThey are fighting an argument they already know they will lose.
The challange relates soley to forced labour- community payback.
ReplyDeleteIf the challange is successful, what then? NPS gets community service?
It's not going to stop the split.
I don't really understand the thinking behind it as it surely relates to a smallish and specific aspect of probation work.
Sorry to stray off topic but this just appeared in the F.T. IT's just wrong.
ReplyDeleteSerco back on government payroll
By Gill PlimmerSerco has won its first contract with the British government since a ban on it bidding for public sector work was lifted 10 days ago.The outsourcing group saw off rival Babcock to secure a £15m deal with the Ministry of Defence over six years with an option to double the length of the contract.The work – a retender of an existing Serco contract – involves maintenance and support services at the Royal Air Force missile detection and early warning base at Fylingdales in North Yorkshire – one of the most sensitive military sites in the UK.Mike Murphy, analyst at Numis, said the deal demonstrated “the government’s willingness to look forward and be commercial, rather than political, in its contract awards”.Serco is still under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office for allegedly overcharging on electronic monitoring contracts, while staff have been referred to the police for manipulating figures on transferring prisoners to courts in the southeast.Last week it was also revealed that the group had a multimillion-pound contract to manage community punishments in London cut short amid claims the scheme has been “a disaster”.Serco was due to run the £37m community payback project for four years until 2016 but concerns were raised when a BBC inquiry alleged that offenders were not properly supervised.Serco has denied the allegations and the Ministry of Justice said ministers wanted to overhaul all probation services nationally “to ensure a consistent approach”.An investigation into healthcare services run by Serco in Suffolk also last week called on the company to improve, although it found “no evidence of harm to patients”.Despite Serco’s troubles, the Cabinet Office decided two weeks ago that it was sufficiently cleansed of recent scandals to be allowed to return to bidding for public sector contracts.The company is still searching for a new chief executive after Chris Hyman resigned in October in the wake of the scandals.Government contracts in the pipeline include a £400m, 10-year deal to run the defence estate, which is expected to be awarded imminently.Serco is competing against Capita for the deal, which involves helping the Defence Infrastructure Organisation manage 2,500 staff and 230,000 acres of land covering conservation sites, offices, barracks, homes and military bases.Serco’s troubles have raised doubts over the company’s financial position. Last month the group issued a profit warning after admitting the continuing fallout from the scandals meant profits for 2014 would be 10-20 per cent lower than the £277m investors had been expecting.David Greenall, an analyst at RBC Capital Markets, warned at the time that with debt likely to be about £700m this year and earnings falling, the company’s balance sheet was becoming a source of concern.Duncan Mackison, managing director for defence at Serco, said: “RAF Fylingdales plays a critical role in defending the nation . . . We are delighted that both the MoD and RAF continue to have confidence in our ability to deliver a high quality service.”
Annon 21:13
ReplyDeleteWhat do I want NAPO to do? Keep me informed of whats happening, why it's happening, and what progress (or set backs) is being made.
Thats just common curtosy for your membership. I think you should expect that much without tar and feathers.
Has anyone actually ever asked the serco cp staff what they think? Surely they are just probation practitioners too? Does anyone care about them? Where were all of you when they were sold off in 2012?
ReplyDeleteWe were there. Some of us still are. And You?
DeleteDid you strike for them? No. Did you picket for them? No.
DeleteYou're right. The only fair thing to do is to not fight this either....
DeleteWhat happened to the judicial review that Mr Lawrence signed papers for at AGM?
ReplyDeleteOf those who were there (& may still be), would you mind if I ask are you able to confirm the swingeing cuts to staff numbers, to terms and conditions and working practices were as grim as rumour suggests? In an area far far away from the big smoke we only get to hear the occasional whispers that escape the tightly managed embargo on comment.
ReplyDeleteWe're told its a blueprint for future CRC models, but the early termination isn't encouraging either.
I don't understand anything anymore.
The link here provides a useful outline of the events leading up to the privatisation of community service and the aftershocks – when basically Serco did as it pleased, the unions were powerless. I quote here from the piece:
Delete'The Serco redundancies impacted on managerial grades as well as supervisors. We were shocked by the speed and number of the redundancies, and complained – up to a senior Serco managerial level – about this, but unfortunately we were unable to persuade the company to reduce the numbers.'
http://naponewsonline.org/2013/05/17/lessons-from-the-part-privatisation-of-london-community-payback/comment-page-1/?blogsub=confirming
Thanks Netnipper - but the link doesn't seem to work.
DeleteI think this was what Netnipper was trying to share,
DeleteWhich I have copied from the PDF pf Napo News published last May - sorry about the layout -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Lessons from the part privatisation of London Community Payback
"Page 6 Napo News 248 May 2013
www.napo.org.uk
Pat Waterman, explains the background
Colleagues working in Community Payback
(formerly Community Service, then Unpaid
Work), had felt that they were a neglected
part of London Probation Trust (LPT) long
before the transfer to Serco last summer.
Over 10 years ago, following the introduction
of Enhanced Community Punishment
(ECP), which was supposed to make the sentence
a more meaningful experience for our
clients, Community Service in London saw a
significant reorganisation. Many new roles
were created which remained even though
ECP was eventually shelved. With hindsight
the groundwork was already being done to
split Community Payback into two sections:
case management and client supervision.
‘Privatisation blight’
For the past six years the spectre of privatisation,
has hung over Community Payback.
Previous attempts to outsource failed; the
stumbling blocks being data security and
pension provisions. But, while all this was
going on, CP was left to rot to make it ripe
for privatisation.
The bidding process started in earnest in
2011. The unions were invited to numerous
meetings with LPT and treated to presentations
about the tendering process. We
can only begin to guess at the amount of
public money devoted to putting together
LPT’s bid. Despite
repeated requests we
were never allowed
to know the details of
the bid. Commercial
confidentiality was
cited and there was
no meaningful consultation.
The announcement in July that the bid
had been won by SERCO and LPT was of
little surprise to anyone. What was a surprise
was the fact that although LPT was
to retain the case management function,
it announced it would do so in accordance
with the Serco model, which demanded
that all 68 case administrators posts be
‘deleted’ and that the number of full time
case managers be reduced. We were not told
the rationale for this.
Working to protect members
The branch worked hard in partnership
with Chivalry Road to protect the interests
of those members staying in LPT and
to ensure that the ‘window’ for Voluntary
Redundancy (VR) was extended to enable
members to make decisions without feeling
under pressure. We made sure that
anyone who had already started the PQF
was removed from the process and that
redeployment opportunities within LPT
were ring-fenced for those
at risk of redundancy. In
the end the restructuring
was achieved without
compulsorily redundancies
and over 300 LPT staff
were transferred to SERCO.
However, no sooner was
the ink dry on the trade
union recognition agreement
(pictured right) than
Serco announced its plans
to make 99 redundancies.
Sarah Friday takes
up the story
The scale of the job losses arising from the
privatisation of London CP is one of the
most devastating aspects, with nearly 200
jobs being cut from a pre-privatisation total
of around 550 (including about 100 casuals).
We were shocked by the speed and number
of the redundancies, and complained
vigourously – up to a senior Serco managerial
level – but were unable to persuade
them to reduce the numbers.
We were however able to influence the
redundancy process and to persuade Serco
to push back the deadline for applications
for VR, and to ensure they abided by their
commitment to manage the redundancies
according to the LPT
redundancy procedure.
Cuts and job losses
By the end of the
process, 89 of the 99
redundancies were
achieved through VR.
To be continued (I Hope!)
Andrew Hatton
CONTINUED : -
DeleteAs with any redundancy situation people
take VR for a variety of reasons; but there
was a great deal of demoralisation as staff
saw their ‘old way of working’ being devalued.
It remains to be seen if the contract can
work successfully with such a reduced
workforce. Serco claim it can because of
new ways of working. Some of these are
imaginative, but they could potentially be
very problematic and Napo has warned
Serco that they could find themselves short
of staff. Only time will tell.
Staff transferred to Serco are covered by
TUPE (Transfer of Undertakings Protection)
regulations, but this is limited. Negotiations
around the terms and conditions for those
that transferred will no longer come under
the remit of the Probation Service National
Negotiating Council; instead all negotiations
will take place locally through the
JNCC. The necessity for compulsory redundancies
could not be referred to the Joint
Secretaries and the Probation Service job
evaluation scheme does not apply to the
new posts.
Staff will no longer have the opportunity
to study for PQF. Serco decided not to
let their staff undertake the qualification
because this training would have involved
them working on a secondment with LPT,
Serco’s competitor: and because putting
staff through PQF would not benefit Serco.
Freedom of information
It is a scandal that when public sector work
is outsourced the detail of the contracts
are not available to the public. Napo wrote
to Michael Spurr to express our concern at
a statement made Chris Grayling, to the
Justice Select committee in February when
he said that there will be 40% savings from
the London CP contract. We asked for a
breakdown of how he arrived at this figure.
How were the costs for LPT delivering CP
measured? How much was saved through
job cuts and office and workshop closures?
How much was spent on redundancy payments?
Were the costs of devising the process
and drawing up the contract included?
The response was couched in the language
of ‘commercial confidentiality’, and so we
are no further forward in finding out how
much public money was wasted on this
contract.
The main lesson to be learnt from this
privatisation is that we need to make sure
we have a strong membership base in those
areas of the service under threat of privatisation.
It is galling to hear LPT senior managers
say at conferences that the unions did
not present a problem in relation to privatisation
going ahead. Unfortunately we were
in a poor bargaining position in London CP
as we didn’t have the membership. We need
to make sure we are in a strong position to
effectively represent members threatened
with privatisation. So get out, organise and
recruit!
Pat Waterman, Chair Greater London Napo
Sarah Friday, National Official"
Andrew Hatton
NAPO were completely useless and not because of lack of members but because they didn't have a clue. Unison have done a far better job with serco cp. Everything is unison led.
DeleteNapo spent so much time shouting about how angry they were instead.
Terms and conditions didn't change. Lots of staff did leave but mostly via VR and with union agreement. Napo and unison were there and did you hear a massive fuss? No because there wasn't one. Staff have been through a lot but from what I've seen they've done a good job.
ReplyDeleteThanks. At risk of sounding dim, if it was a fuss-free experience and everyone's done a good job, why is the contract ending early?
DeleteBecause it makes sense for it to be done at same time as the rest of you. The contract is high performing.
DeleteCrap!
DeleteThe flying pig says all is well with SERCO's CP contract. They are chucking it in just to be helpful.
DeleteAt AGM Mr Lawrence mentioned with some selr satisfaction having completed some papers towards a judicial review. Whatever happened with that?
ReplyDeleteA very good question - a dickie bird told me there were no grounds found to mount a Judicial Review.
DeleteThe impression I'd got was that we didn't have the money to mount a judicial review. (Back to the depleted funds issue again......)
DeleteDeb
Now then, lets not descend into in fighting folks................although I recognise what has gone before has left colleagues, esp in LPT with a bad taste ....NOW we are all in it together and we need to remain together. Whilst I give credit to NAPO for their last ditch attempt to do something, I am with Anon yesterday at 21.13, and we need to concentrate on creating an environment where there is a "lack of interest from the market". To this end, NAPO's latest missive/response may raise a few concerns, which for me is worthwhile. However, non conforming sounds like a more tangible and personally satisfying reaction to this whole mess. One caveat, be kind to each other as individuals.
ReplyDelete