6. Staff costs account for about 80% of the running costs of a prison. Consequently, innovation from the private sector has often focused on the more efficient use of staff. Shift patterns in PFI prisons allow receptions to open later, visiting times to be more flexible and prisoners on enhanced regimes to eat with their families. These innovations have been possible because employee terms and conditions were written with operational flexibility in mind. The Prison Service had reviewed staffing at all public prisons, which had enabled it to introduce more flexible shift patterns, similar to those used by contractors. The changes to staffing levels had not always been greeted favourably or with enthusiasm, but had been implemented without opposition.6
7. The drive for greater efficiency had led to downward pressure on the price of recent contracts, leading to reductions in staffing levels and concerns that prisons would not be able to meet their full obligations. For example, the ratio of staff to prisoners at Rye Hill was much lower than for earlier PFI prisons, such as Altcourse and Parc. The Home Office also had concerns about staffing levels at two of the public prisons-Manchester and Blakenhurst-operating under Service Level Agreements. The two PFI prisons currently being built at Peterborough and Ashford would have higher staff-prisoner ratios. The contractor had been selected for the innovation and quality of its bid rather than just the contract price. The Home Office wanted the successful contractor to be fully committed to spending time on reducing re-offending.7
8. The private sector had been able to pay less in areas of the country where wage levels were lower. However, as the three most recently opened PFI prisons were located in areas of low unemployment and high average salaries, contractors had found it difficult to recruit staff and were failing to meet even the low staffing levels agreed in the contract. Dovegate had incurred high financial penalties in respect of assaults, security breaches and positive drug tests, which the contractor believed was due to the difficulty in retaining staff. Ashfield had also found it difficult to recruit good teachers as the terms and conditions offered were worse than at local schools.8
____________________________________________________________________________
6 C&AG's Report, para 3.15; Qs 14-15
7 Qq 77-78, 110, 122; C&AG's Report, para 3.6