Like others in the Chamber, I am a member of the justice unions parliamentary group, and I will speak very briefly to new clause 3. As many Members know, the justice unions group comprises the probation officers’ union, Napo, as well as the Prison Officers Association and the PCS. It acts as the voice of the frontline workers in Parliament from those particular unions. There is an overall welcoming of the Bill by the unions themselves, which is good, but a specific concern has been raised with us with regard to the development of unpaid work and community service, and how that is managed in the future. Many Members will also know about the history of community service; in fact, in the past we have had a few Members in this House who did a bit of community service—but that is another issue all together. Historically, it has been a way in which people have been able to avoid prison sentences: by working in the community and making reparation for the damage that they have often caused in it. I think we can report that it has been relatively successful in most of our constituencies.

Unfortunately, though, there have been experiments with privatisation, including of the management of the service; and there has been debate about whether this could be unpaid labour for private companies. In London, in 2013, community service was privatised to Serco. It was an absolute disaster. There was a lack of supervision on site, a lack of workers, and a lack of tools being delivered. It was also exposed that offenders were sometimes being crammed into vehicles that were unsuitable and unsafe. As a result, that privatisation collapsed. The last Government then engaged in a wholesale privatisation of probation, under the title, “transformation of rehabilitation”. That included unpaid work and community service. Again, even the last Government had to accept that probation would have to be brought back in house because of a combination of incompetence and profiteering, alongside a failure to go for realistically effective rehabilitation.

During that period, the National Association of Probation Officers expressed to the Government its opposition to privatisation, and took action by referring the matter to the International Labour Organisation, as a breach of the ILO’s convention on forced labour. The ILO found in favour of the union, framing its judgment in this way:

“All work or service that is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty and for which the said person has not offered himself”

or herself voluntarily is forced labour. It made an exception of

“work as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law”.

However, the ILO also said that the person must not be

“hired or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations”.

The union is seeking an assurance from the Government that they will abide by the ILO convention, and will not place this forced labour with private companies, as that would enable those companies to profiteer from those workers, and would prevent those who want a job from being hired legitimately. The union also asks that we prevent a repetition of the disaster of privatisation. It says that if there is an increase in community sentences, there obviously has to be adequate staffing through the Probation Service, as has been said, and recognition of the failure of the private sector to manage this process in the past.

The union wants to remind Members that there is a requirement for supervision to be adequately staffed, because there is a concern about the nature of unpaid labour placements and how they will be supervised in future. There are already concerns about what is happening; we are dealing with cases involving people who have committed knife crime, domestic violence or stalking, and there are issues with the mental health of some of the offenders being supervised, as well as drug-related issues.

There is a fear of heightened risk if privatisation is attempted again, and if private companies offer placements in their companies for the sake of profiteering.

All new clause 3 seeks is an assurance from the Minister, preferably in the Bill, that unpaid work will be undertaken only for non-profit organisations. In the past, such work has been undertaken for these bodies, including social enterprises, voluntary organisations and, yes, local authorities, working with local community initiatives. The private sector should never be allowed to profit from such work.

…. There is an argument that once a system starts using the private sector, as in America, offenders become economic units for exploitation and profiteering. The Justice Unions Parliamentary Group warns that we should not venture down that path, both as a result of historical failures, and given what has happened in other countries when the private sector has been able to use offenders in that way. The new clause is about returning to the traditional community service approach in this country. It was relatively effective, but in this new Sentencing Bill, which we welcome, it will be expanded on a scale perhaps not envisaged in the past. It is as simple as that.

… My final point relates not to new clause 3, but to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) on the naming and shaming of offenders and the idea that offenders’ photographs will be publicised locally. He suggests in his amendments that there should be much wider consultation on the issue, and probation officers are saying exactly the same thing. A lot of their role in rehabilitation is about ensuring that people have a connection with their families once again. They are concerned about the effect that naming and shaming has on the the family serves the sentence alongside the offender, and we would not want any actions taken that increase the stigma for family members of offenders. If the Government are going down this path, there is a need for more detailed and widespread consultation and discussion.