Session 2007/2008

Seventeenth Report

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

Report on
Managing Sickness Absence in The Northern Ireland
Civil Service

TOGETHER WITH THE MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE
RELATING TO THE REPORT AND THE MINUTES OF EVIDENCE

Ordered by The Public Accounts Committee to be printed 26 June 2008
Report: 38/07/08R Public Accounts Committee

This document is available in a range of alternative formats.
For more information please contact the
Northern Ireland Assembly, Printed Paper Office,
Parliament Buildings, Stormont, Belfast, BT4 3XX
Tel: 028 9052 1078

Public Accounts Committee
Membership and Powers

The Public Accounts Committee is a Standing Committee established in accordance with Standing Orders under Section 60(3) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. It is the statutory function of the Public Accounts Committee to consider the accounts and reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General laid before the Assembly.

The Public Accounts Committee is appointed under Assembly Standing Order No. 51 of the Standing Orders for the Northern Ireland Assembly. It has the power to send for persons, papers and records and to report from time to time. Neither the Chairperson nor Deputy Chairperson of the Committee shall be a member of the same political party as the Minister of Finance and Personnel or of any junior minister appointed to the Department of Finance and Personnel.

The Committee has 11 members including a Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson and a quorum of 5.

The membership of the Committee since 9 May 2007 has been as follows:

Mr Paul Maskey*** (Chairperson)
Mr Roy Beggs (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Thomas Burns**
Mr Jonathan Craig
Mr John Dallat
Mr Simon Hamilton
Mr David Hilditch
Mr Trevor Lunn
Mr Mitchel McLaughlin
Ms Dawn Purvis
Mr Jim Wells*

* Mr Mickey Brady replaced Mr Willie Clarke on 1 October 2007
* Mr Ian McCrea replaced Mr Mickey Brady on 21 January 2008
* Mr Jim Wells replaced Mr Ian McCrea on 27 May 2008
** Mr Thomas Burns replaced Mr Patsy McGlone on 4 March 2008
*** Mr Paul Maskey replaced Mr John O’Dowd on 20 May 2008

Table of Contents

List of Abbreviations used in the Report

Report

Executive Summary
Summary of Recommendations
Introduction
Absence Reduction Strategy
Addressing the Main Absence Problems
Industrial Absence in the Department for Regional Development 13

Appendix 1:

Minutes of Proceedings 17

Appendix 2:

Minutes of Evidence 23

Appendix 3:

Chairperson’s letter of 30 May 2008 to Mr Bruce Robinson, Accounting Officer, Department of Finance and Personnel.
Correspondence of 16 June 2008 from Mr Bruce Robinson, Accounting Officer, Department of Finance and Personnel.
Clerk’s letter of 30 May 2008 to Mr Paul Priestley, Accounting Officer, Department for Regional Development.
Correspondence of 12 June 2008 from Mr Paul Priestley, Accounting Officer, Department for Regional Development.

Appendix 4:

List of Witnesses 59

List of Abbreviations used in the Report

NICS Northern Ireland Civil Service

GB Great Britain

DFP Department of Finance and Personnel

NI Northern Ireland

C&AG Comptroller and Auditor General

NISRA Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency

OHS Occupational Health Service

DRD Department for Regional Development

NIW Northern Ireland Water

Executive Summary

Introduction

1. The health and well-being of the Northern Ireland Civil Service (NICS) workforce is crucial to the effective delivery of our public services. Staff sickness absence considerably reduces the productivity of Government departments, affects service delivery and carries a significant financial cost. It is important, therefore, that NICS departments protect the health of their workforce and manage sickness absence effectively.

2. Some degree of absence is inevitable and it is accepted that when employees are sick they should not come to work. Effective management can, however, help to minimise absence by ensuring that any causes of work-related ill-health are addressed and that staff are helped back to work as soon as possible.

3. Civil Service sickness absence levels in Northern Ireland are around 36% higher than in Great Britain (GB) and are costing the NICS more than £25 million a year in direct salary costs. The NICS has set a target to reduce absence to an average of 9.5 days per employee by 2010. However action taken to date has not delivered levels of the order necessary to meet this target and absence is currently 12.7 days per employee.

4. The sickness absence problem in the NICS is not new and should have been dealt with much more vigorously long ago. As so often when the public service is faced with a major challenge, there has been no shortage of bureaucratic activity in terms of research, committees, working parties and reports addressing absence. However, many of these have not been acted upon, important questions remain unanswered and, too often, plans have been put in place but not seen through. There has been too much needless piloting of initiatives on a small scale but little evidence of their implementation. The Committee wants to make it absolutely clear that from now on departments will be assessed on actions and outcomes, rather than words and documents.

Absence Reduction Strategy

5. Although there has been a recent reduction in the level of sickness absence from 15.5 days in 2003-04 to 12.7 days in 2007-08, it remains unacceptably high and it is a matter of concern that this problem was allowed to become so entrenched for so long. The recent rate of improvement needs to be maintained so that progress is made towards achieving the target.

6. The current annual targets for individual departments were set centrally by Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP). Targets set according to a standard formula do little, either to encourage departmental ownership of the process, or to address absence hotspots at a sub-departmental level. Moreover, targets are of limited use without detailed plans to achieve them, and the NICS strategy to reduce absence would be strengthened if it was underpinned by detailed action plans at individual departmental level. The Committee welcomes the production of a consolidated action plan in March 2008, but considers that it does not go far enough in compelling all departments to develop specific actions which are tailored to their own individual problems.

7. Action to reduce absence in recent years has been characterised by a series of initiatives which have had potential to deliver, but which have not been followed through. There is a clear risk that the consolidated action plan could follow suit and it is therefore important that this plan is underpinned by a greater degree of transparency and accountability.

8. Senior management commitment is a fundamental prerequisite for a sustained and permanent reduction in absence. It is welcome, therefore, that DFP has re-emphasised the importance of this by including reduction targets in its three year Corporate Plan. However, savings from absence reduction have not yet been included in DFP’s own efficiency plans nor is it clear whether absence reduction targets have been set for its agencies.

Addressing the Main Absence Problems

9. Civil servants in Northern Ireland do not take sickness absence any more frequently than in GB but, on average, absences in the NICS last more than twice as long. Early referral to an occupational health professional is the key to preventing an absence from becoming long-term and more should have been done sooner by DFP in this regard. The lack of activity in this area is indicative of the lack of urgency which has characterised absence management.

10. Levels of female sickness absence in NI are almost double the female rate in GB. DFP has been aware of this for many years, but has done nothing about it and clearly has no plan as to how it will deal with it in future. It is a devastating indictment of NICS management that this problem has been allowed to become so entrenched and it is evident that the high rates in NI can largely be attributed to poor management within the NICS.

11. Psychiatric/psychological illness is the main cause of absence in the NICS, accounting for 29% of all working days lost. For a long standing problem of this nature, a significant number of the responses from DFP were disappointing. Of particular concern to this Committee is the failure by the NICS to implement the Health and Safety Executive’s stress management standards.

12. The level of sickness absence in the Northern Ireland public sector is more than twice that of the private sector. Until NI has senior officials in its public service who aim to match or exceed the private sector performance in areas of efficiency such as absenteeism, the public sector will continue to be a drag anchor on NI’s overall productivity and performance.

13. A very significant proportion of public services are delivered outside of central government departments and agencies. Indeed, over 200,000 people are employed in the public sector. In addition to improving its own performance, it is therefore important that the NICS ensures that good practice is disseminated throughout the wider public sector.

Oversight of Northern Ireland Water

14. The Committee also took evidence from the Accounting Officer of the Department for Regional Development (DRD) on industrial sickness absence, since the former Water Service had one of the highest absence rates when it was part of the NICS. In clarifying his accountability for Northern Ireland Water (NIW) the Accounting Officer noted that legislation gives NIW day-to-day operational independence from the Department. The Committee recognises this, but notes that any future value for money reports on NIW’s performance undertaken by the C&AG will come before this Committee for scrutiny. The Accounting Officer should therefore bear this in mind when considering how best to exercise his oversight of the Company.

Summary of Recommendations

Absence Reduction Strategy

1. It is important that DFP addresses the C&AG’s report in a comprehensive and timely manner. The Committee recommends that the progress in implementing the C&AG’s recommendations is closely monitored by DFP and reported to the departmental audit committee

2. To assist in the monitoring of future performance, the Committee has asked for the NISRA Annual Report on absence to be presented to it and recommends that it is also sent to all Departmental Committees to ensure that this important issue is kept firmly in the spotlight. This report should be sufficiently disaggregated (for example at Grade 3 level) to identify absence hotspots within departments and agencies.

3. The Committee recommends that consideration should now be given to setting targets beyond the current 2010 cut off date and that the predominant input to this process should come from individual departments themselves, with DFP playing a coordinating and oversight role. Departments should also set separate targets for agencies and major business areas, or for other identified absence hotspots.

4. It is difficult to see how the NICS can assure itself that it will deliver absence reductions if it does not have detailed action plans at departmental level. The Committee recommends that all departments and major agencies produce such plans and that progress against these are monitored and reported on annually in a transparent manner.

5. The Committee recommends that the new consolidated Action Plan is subject to regular monitoring and public reporting. Clear performance measures should be put in place by DFP to demonstrate progress against key milestones and these should be reported publicly, for example, on the Department’s website.

6. The Committee recommends that all departments should follow the example of DFP by including absence reduction targets in their Corporate Plans with links, where appropriate, to Public Service Agreement objectives and to the personal responsibility plans of senior staff. Agency targets should be formalised and monitored as key performance indicators and savings expected from absence reduction should be included in departmental efficiency plans.

7. The Committee recommends that all departments should designate a senior official with responsibility for absence reduction. The performance reporting and related performance pay of these officials should take account of their success against the absence reduction targets for which they are responsible.

Addressing the Main Absence Problems

8. The issue of long-term absence needs to be addressed as a priority and early referral to OHS has a key role to play in managing this type of absence. The Committee recommends that DFP closely monitors departmental performance in this area and sets challenging targets which will achieve a reduction of average referral times in the short to medium term.

9. The Committee recommends that any action plan to address an absence hotspot should explicitly consider whether either over or understaffing is a contributory factor which needs to be addressed.

10. The Committee does not want to see action delayed by further research activity, as this has delivered nothing tangible to date. The Committee recommends that efforts are concentrated specifically on how female absence is managed in an area or areas where it is highest, with a view to identifying practical lessons for improvement which can then be rolled out on a wider basis.

11. Stress is clearly an issue in the NICS and the Health and Safety Executive stress management standards are recognised as good practice in this area. The Committee recommends that these standards are implemented across the NICS as quickly as possible.

12. Good management information is vitally important, but current information and the associated research and analysis has not contributed to an improved understanding of absence problems. The Committee recommends that, in commissioning future research, DFP should concentrate on work which is likely to produce tangible options for management action and reductions in absence levels.

13. The Committee recommends that as part of the post implementation review of HRConnect, DFP specifically evaluates the accuracy, completeness and timeliness of the information provided to all levels of management.

14. Current targets were set broadly at GB levels, but the GB Civil Service has itself been criticised and these targets should not be regarded as definitive. Further reduction is required. The Committee recommends that departments benchmark both performance and processes with larger scale private sector organisations, with a view to establishing the scope for further reductions beyond the current 2010 target and identifying the management practices which may help to achieve them.

15. The C&AG’s remit extends across the public sector. The Committee therefore recommends that, when assessing the performance and efficiency of other public bodies, he the C&AG should pay particular attention to trends in absenteeism.

Introduction

1. The Public Accounts Committee met on 29 May 2008 to consider the Comptroller and Auditor General’s (C&AG’s) report “Management of Sickness Absence in the Northern Ireland Civil Service”, and also to follow up a Memorandum of Reply from the Department for Regional Development relating to industrial absence.

2. The witnesses were:

• Mr Bruce Robinson, Accounting Officer, Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP).
• Mr Paul Priestly, Accounting Officer, Department for Regional Development (DRD).
• Mr Derek Baker, Director of Personnel in the NICS, Department of Finance and Personnel.
• Mr John Mallon, Head of Human Resources Consultancy Division in Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA), Department of Finance and Personnel.
• Mr David Thomson, Treasury Officer of Accounts.
• Mr John Dowdall CB, Comptroller and Auditor General.

3. Sickness absence levels in Northern Ireland are around 36% higher than in GB departments and currently cost the Northern Ireland Civil Service (NICS) more than £25 million a year in direct salary costs. The NICS has set a target to reduce absence to an average of 9.5 days per employee by 2010. However, action taken to date has not delivered reductions of the order necessary to meet this target.

4. In taking evidence on the C&AG’s report, the Committee focused on two main issues. These were:

• the NICS absence reduction strategy and in particular, DFP’s central role; and
• how the main absence problems have been addressed.

Absence Reduction Strategy

Recent performance

5. Although there has been a recent reduction in the level of sickness absence from 15.5 days in 2003-04 to 12.7 days in 2007-08, DFP accepts that the level of absence remains unacceptably high. The intention had been to reduce absence by 40% at this stage but only 20% has been achieved. However, the Accounting Officer indicated that momentum had been regained in 2007-08 and he believes that the overall target will be attained within a year of the original target date.

6. The Committee welcomes the recent improvements, but it is a matter of concern that this problem was allowed to become so entrenched for so long. The recent rate of improvement needs to be maintained so that steady and timely progress is made towards achieving the target. In this respect the Committee was encouraged by the Department’s unreserved acceptance of the recommendations contained in the C&AG’s report.

Recommendation 1

7. It is important that DFP addresses the C&AG’s report in a comprehensive and timely manner. The Committee recommends that progress in implementing the C&AG’s recommendations is closely monitored by DFP and reported to the departmental audit committee.

8. The problem of absenteeism has clearly been pushed up departments’ priorities since devolution by the active interest of local ministers. The Committee also believes there is an important contribution which the Public Accounts Committee and other Assembly Committees can make in monitoring performance in their particular areas of responsibility.

Recommendation 2

9. To assist in the monitoring of future performance, the Committee has asked for the NISRA Annual Report on absence to be presented to it and recommends that it is also sent to all Departmental Committees to ensure that this important issue is kept firmly in the spotlight. This report should be sufficiently disaggregated (for example, at Grade 3 level) to identify absence hotspots within departments and agencies.

Setting targets for departments and their agencies

10. The target for reducing absence to 9.5 days by 2010 was established to bring NICS sickness absence levels in line with those of civil servants in GB. The current annual targets for individual departments were set centrally by DFP based on a standard 7% reduction in long-term absence and a 5% reduction in short-term absence.

11. DFP explained that the targets were based on an analysis of each individual department which indicated that the patterns and trends were remarkably similar across the board. It also noted that, although the magnitude of the targets was set centrally by DFP, they were also agreed with each individual department and consequently this reflected a concerted approach to target-setting.

12. In the Committee’s view, even where the headline analysis shows a broadly similar pattern, this runs the risk of failing to pick up on the particular circumstances within individual departments and agencies. For example, the Committee notes that only two departments set targets either for their agencies or at sub-organisational level. A single high level target set according to a standard formula does little, either to encourage departmental ownership of the process, or to address absence hotspots at a sub-departmental level. It would be better if absence reduction targets were set by individual departments as they have a better grasp of their own problems and can bring to bear their knowledge of particular issues or circumstances.

Recommendation 3

13. The Committee recommends that consideration should now be given to setting targets beyond the current 2010 cut off date and that the predominant input to this process should come from individual departments themselves, with DFP playing a coordinating and oversight role. Departments should also set separate targets for agencies and major business areas, or for other identified absence hotspots.

The need for detailed action plans

14. Targets are of limited use without detailed plans to achieve them. It is clear from the C&AG’s report that the NICS strategy to reduce the frequency and duration of long-term absence would be strengthened if it was underpinned by detailed action plans at departmental level setting out how this is to be addressed.

15. DFP told the Committee that it had produced a consolidated action plan in March 2008 which clarified roles, highlighted the importance of training and set out the requirements of case management. It also drew attention to the opportunities for local strategies to be developed in particular hotspots. The plan has been issued to all departments and DFP assured the Committee that all Accounting Officers were committed to it.

16. While welcoming this development, the Committee has now received a copy of the consolidated action plan and is surprised to note that it is, in nature, a high level strategic framework, lacking specific targets and milestones. The Committee considers that it does not go far enough in compelling all departments to develop specific actions which are tailored to their own individual problems. It is important that definitive actions are now planned and taken to actually implement the overall NICS Strategy. The reasons for sickness absence will vary both across and within departments and their agencies. It clearly follows, therefore, that specific actions need to be developed to deal with the specific causes.

Recommendation 4

17. It is difficult to see how the NICS can assure itself that it will deliver absence reductions if it does not have detailed action plans at departmental level. The Committee recommends that all departments and major agencies produce such plans and that progress against these are monitored and reported on annually in a transparent manner.

18. Action to reduce absence in recent years has been characterised by a series of initiatives which have had potential to deliver, but which have not been followed through. Most notable of these was the 2005 Delivery Plan which aimed to reduce absence by better implementation of existing procedures and a series of key good practice action points. It was to be revised and updated as necessary and a report was to be made to the Permanent Secretary’s Group in September 2006. However no further action was taken. DFP acknowledged that the Delivery Plan was not followed through but indicated that the issues it identified were, to all practical purposes, included in the consolidated action plan.

19. The Committee believes that an important opportunity was missed with the Delivery Plan and not enough effort was put into driving the initiatives forward. There is a clear risk that the consolidated action plan could follow suit. This plan needs to be underpinned by a greater degree of transparency and accountability and, in this context, it is important that it is monitored and reported on regularly. The absence of such formal arrangements has made it difficult to validate the extent to which progress has actually been made on the components of the original Delivery Plan.

Recommendation 5

20. The Committee recommends that the new consolidated action plan is subject to regular monitoring and public reporting. Clear performance measures should be put in place by DFP to demonstrate progress against key milestones and these should be reported publicly, for example, on the Department’s website.

Ensuring senior management commitment

21. Senior management commitment is a fundamental prerequisite for a sustained and permanent reduction in absence. In order to stimulate such a commitment, it is customary to include absence in senior level performance agreements and key corporate performance measures. The C&AG found, however, that very few departments and agencies in the NICS had included absence reduction targets in their corporate documents.

22. It is welcome, therefore, that DFP has re-emphasised the importance of senior management commitment and has included reduction targets in its three year Corporate Plan, with links to the personal responsibility plans of all senior staff. The Committee noted, however, that savings from absence reduction had not yet been included in DFP’s efficiency plans nor was it clear whether absence reduction targets had been set for DFP’s agencies.

Recommendation 6

23. The Committee recommends that all departments should follow the example of DFP by including absence reduction targets in their Corporate Plans with links, where appropriate, to Public Service Agreement objectives and to the personal responsibility plans of senior staff. Agency targets should be formalised and monitored as key performance indicators and savings expected from absence reduction should be included in departmental efficiency plans.

24. As a practical illustration of senior management commitment, DFP also highlighted that its Director of Personnel has now been given responsibility for achieving the overall NICS absence reduction target. This has also been built into its Corporate Plan. The Committee welcomes the fact that a senior official now has overarching responsibility. This will help to provide a strategic focus and a sense of purpose which has been lacking in previous initiatives.

Recommendation 7

25. The Committee recommends that all departments should designate a senior official with responsibility for absence reduction. The performance reporting and related performance pay of these officials should take account of their success against the absence reduction targets for which they are responsible.

Addressing the Main Absence Problems

Long-term absence

26. Civil servants in NI do not take sickness absence any more frequently than in GB but, on average, absences in the NICS last more than twice as long. Long-term absence accounts for nearly 70% of the total working days lost in NI. It is generally recognised that early referral to an occupational health professional is the key to preventing an absence from becoming long-term, yet latest estimates suggest that an NICS employee would be off, on average, 53 working days before being seen by the Occupational Health Service (OHS).

27. The Department indicated that some actions had been undertaken in this area. A guide was issued in 2006 on how best to work with OHS and a review had recently been commissioned of the whole system involving OHS, departments and the engagement between them. The new consolidated action plan also advises that any case of psychiatric/psychological illness should be referred to OHS immediately.

28. These are welcome developments but more should have been done sooner. The importance of early intervention was highlighted in 2006 and DFP was tasked with providing urgent guidance. This was never issued and the Committee was not convinced by the Department’s assurances that the issue was wrapped up in the work of the Taskforce. This is indicative of the lack of urgency which has characterised absence management. An action that was identified as urgent two years ago is still being presented as a new approach. The Committee will expect to see a considerable reduction in the average time for a referral to OHS.

Recommendation 8

29. The issue of long-term absence needs to be addressed as a priority and early referral to OHS has a key role to play in managing this type of absence. The Committee recommends that DFP closely monitors departmental performance in this area and sets challenging targets which will achieve a reduction of average referral times in the short to medium term.

30. The Committee has a concern that in some areas of the NICS, high levels of absence and poor absence management may be related to over staffing i.e. that high numbers of staff may provide a built-in provision for absence and thus provide no incentive for managers to address absence management.

Recommendation 9

31. The Committee recommends that any action plan to address an absence hotspot should explicitly consider whether either over or understaffing is a contributory factor which needs to be addressed.

Female absence rates

32. Studies of sickness absence in the United Kingdom have observed that absence rates are higher among women, possibly due to their implicit role as carers and also due to their lower average grade. Northern Ireland is no exception to this pattern but levels of absence are almost double the female rate in GB, accounting for nearly two thirds of total days lost. If female absence was to be reduced to GB levels, this alone would make a huge contribution towards achieving the NICS target of 9.6 days by 2010.

33. DFP told the Committee that it had undertaken statistical analyses to identify the reasons for the higher rates of sickness absence. It suggested that women’s role as primary carers has a definite influence on the statistics and also noted that women who go off sick with pregnancy related illnesses stay off much longer in the NICS than in GB. However DFP has been unable to benchmark against GB and nothing has come out of its analysis of what departments have done in GB in order to manage this aspect of sickness absence so much better than the NICS.

34. Female sickness absence is perhaps the most obvious aspect of the pattern of absence in Northern Ireland which would help to explain the overall differential with GB. DFP has been aware of this for many years, but has done nothing about it and clearly has no plan as to how it will deal with it in future. In the Committee’s view, it is a devastating indictment of NICS management that this problem has been allowed to become so entrenched. The problems and issues faced by women in NI, such as their role as carers and the potential of prenatal and post-natal illness, are no different from those experienced by their GB counterparts. It is evident that the high rates in NI can largely be attributed to poor management within the NICS.

Recommendation 10

35. The Committee does not want to see action delayed by further research activity, as this has delivered nothing tangible to date. The Committee recommends that efforts are concentrated specifically on how female absence is managed in an area or areas where it is highest, with a view to identifying practical lessons for improvement which can then be rolled out on a wider basis.

Stress

36. Psychiatric/psychological illness is the main cause of absence in the NICS, accounting for 29% of all working days lost. The Northern Ireland Workplace Health Strategy has identified work-related stress as one of its major challenges and more than half of the NICS organisations surveyed in the C&AG’s report indicated that stress-related absence was one of the top three problems they faced.

37. DFP told the Committee that it has done a lot of work to get a better understanding of this issue and to address it. It undertook Workforce Health Surveys in 2000 and 2005 which asked a substantial number of questions related to stress. As an employer, it has in place a range of flexible work patterns, special leave arrangements, a supportive set of work/life balance policies and a good welfare service. It also intends to update and reissue its Mental Wellbeing at Work policy this year.

38. Despite this, the Committee must register that, for a long standing problem of this nature, a significant number of the responses were disappointing. For example, the Accounting Officer acknowledged that the work done and the achievements in this area did not satisfy him. He also admitted that DFP needed to conduct more work within departments to identify specific issues, that much more needs to be done to follow through on the output of that analysis and that this work needed to commence now.

39. Of particular concern to this Committee is the failure by the NICS to implement the Health and Safety Executive’s stress management standards. This is a proven approach to one of the major problems facing NICS which has been available since March 2005 yet, three years later, DFP is still only piloting these standards.

40. The Committee expects DFP to be in the vanguard of good practice in relation to absence management generally and stress in particular. It is, therefore, disturbing to be informed that the Director of Personnel’s own area is a sickness absence hotspot. This is difficult to understand since the personnel function of DFP is not one of the sensitive interfaces with the public where stress has been identified as highest. This is both an opportunity and a challenge. An opportunity to demonstrate how to manage improvement in this area; and a challenge to bring about improvement on a timescale which sets an example so that DFP becomes the exemplar for the system in this important area of human resource management.

Recommendation 11

41. Stress is clearly an issue in the NICS and the Health and Safety Executive stress management standards are recognised as good practice in this area. The Committee recommends that these standards are implemented across the NICS as quickly as possible.

Management Information

42. The Committee was told that NICS had invested heavily in gathering and analysing management information. It is disappointing, therefore, that this investment seems to have provided little in the way of an improved understanding of the key absence management problems or any remedial action to address them. The reasons for the higher levels of female absence relative to GB are still unknown and reviews of stress have indicated that problems are not significantly different from other organisations.

Recommendation 12

43. Good management information is vitally important, but current information and the associated research and analysis has not contributed to an improved understanding of absence problems. The Committee recommends that, in commissioning future research, DFP should concentrate on work which is likely to produce tangible options for management action and reductions in absence levels.

44. DFP told the Committee that the new HRConnect system would, for the first time, provide line managers with real-time, comprehensive information about sickness absence which would prompt early intervention. This is a very new system and it is important, if genuine absence reductions are to be achieved, that what DFP is promising, is delivered in practice.

Recommendation 13

45. The Committee recommends that as part of the post implementation review of HRConnect, DFP specifically evaluates the accuracy, completeness and timeliness of the information provided to all levels of management.

Benchmarking with the private sector

46. Levels of absence in the public sector generally, both in Northern Ireland and GB, tend to be higher than the private sector. In Northern Ireland the public sector level of sickness absence is more than twice that of its private sector counterpart. It is clear that the generous terms and conditions of employment in the public sector, particularly the relatively preferential occupational sick pay arrangements, are contributory factors to this differential (as suggested by Appendix 3 of the Accounting Officer’s subsequent letter to the Committee). Nevertheless, it appears to the Committee that the much lower levels of absence in the local private sector must also be a reflection of the fact that this issue is much better managed by private businesses.

47. The Committee was deeply unimpressed by the extent to which witnesses played down the value of benchmarking with the private sector. They claimed that data on absences in the private sector was not as robust or comprehensive as in the public sector. This is an unfortunate mindset. There are always differences when data sources are compiled independently but these cannot explain the massive gulf between the public and private sector on absenteeism. Until NI has senior officials in its public service who aim to match or exceed the private sector performance in areas of efficiency such as absenteeism, the public sector will continue to be a drag anchor on NI’s overall productivity and performance.

Recommendation 14

48. Current targets were set broadly at GB levels, but the GB Civil Service has itself been criticised and these targets should not be regarded as definitive. Further reduction is required. The Committee recommends that departments benchmark both performance and processes with larger scale private sector organisations, with a view to establishing the scope for reductions beyond the current 2010 target and identifying the management practices which may help to achieve them.

The wider public sector

49. The C&AG’s study examined absence of the 28,000 non-industrial civil servants employed in Northern Ireland Departments and their Executive Agencies. A much greater proportion of services are delivered outside of central government departments and agencies. Indeed over 200,000 people are employed in the public sector.

50. Given the scale of this problem within the NICS, the Committee has no doubt that similar problems also exist in their arm’s length bodies and the wider public sector. The Committee believes that departments should be gathering information and monitoring the pattern of the problem in these areas of the public sector which they oversee. In addition to improving its own performance, it is important that NICS ensures that good practice is disseminated throughout the wider public sector.

Recommendation 15

51. The C&AG’s remit extends across the public sector. The Committee therefore recommends that, when assessing the performance and efficiency of other public bodies, the C&AG should pay particular attention to trends in absenteeism.

Industrial Absence in the Department for Regional Development

52. The Committee also took evidence from the Accounting Officer of DRD, in follow up to a previous report by the Westminster Public Accounts Committee. This had examined the issue of industrial sickness absence, including that in the former Water Service.

53. Subsequent correspondence with the Department had indicated that Northern Ireland Water (NIW) is no longer bound by NICS terms and conditions. The Committee therefore sought to reassure itself that the accountability responsibilities for NIW were clear.

54. The DRD Accounting Officer told the Committee that it is the Board of NIW which has responsibility for the operation of the company and the delivery of the strategic objectives. While not completely absolving him from responsibility for NIW and how it spends public money, the Accounting Officer was nevertheless of the view that this changed his responsibilities. As an illustration, he indicated that he did not consider himself accountable for the delivery of sickness absence targets in NIW.

55. The Committee fully accepts that legislation gives NIW day-to-day operational independence from the Department. However an important point of principle needs to be established. As long as NIW is part funded by DRD, the Department’s Accounting Officer is accountable to this Committee for how the funding is spent. While the Committee accepts that the Board of NIW is responsible for the operations of the company, the Department’s Accounting Officer remains accountable for:

a. ensuring that the grants currently paid to the company are spent in accordance with the stated purpose and conditions, which should assure regularity, propriety and value for money;

b. the exercise of the Department’s shareholder responsibilities, including the appointment and removal of the Board; and

c. the Department’s policy making functions.

56. In addition, even at a future stage, if NIW is not receiving substantial amounts of public money, the C&AG will still have statutory rights of access to NIW to carry out value for money investigations. The Committee would expect the C&AG to exercise these rights from time to time. Any resultant reports on NIW’s performance will come before this Committee for scrutiny and will require the Accounting Officer to answer for his exercise of the shareholder rights on behalf of the taxpayer. The Accounting Officer should bear this in mind when considering how best to exercise his oversight of the Company.

Appendix 1

Minutes of Proceedings of the Committee Relating to the Report

Thursday, 29 May 2008
Senate Chamber, Parliament Buildings

Present:
Mr Paul Maskey (Chairperson)
Mr Roy Beggs (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Jonathan Craig
Mr John Dallat
Mr Simon Hamilton
Mr Trevor Lunn
Mr Mitchel McLaughlin
Ms Dawn Purvis
Mr Jim Wells

In Attendance:
Mr Jim Beatty (Assembly Clerk)
Mrs Gillian Lewis (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Mrs Nicola Shepherd (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Darren Weir (Clerical Supervisor)

Apologies:
Mr Thomas Burns
Mr David Hilditch

The meeting opened at 2.00pm in public session.

3. a) Evidence on the NIAO Report ‘Management of Sickness Absence in the Northern Ireland Civil Service’.

The Committee took oral evidence on the NIAO report ‘Management of Sickness Absence in the Northern Ireland Civil Service’ from Mr Bruce Robinson, Accounting Officer, Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP), Mr Paul Priestly, Accounting Officer, Department for Regional Development, Mr Derek Baker, Director of Personnel in the NICS, DFP, and Mr John Mallon, Head of Human Resource Consultancy Division in NISRA, DFP.

2.07pm Mr Dallat joined the meeting.

The witnesses answered a number of questions put by the Committee.

Members requested that the witnesses should provide additional information to the Clerk on some issues raised as a result of the evidence session.

b) Evidence on the Memorandum of Response: Northern Ireland: The management of industrial sickness absence.

The Committee took oral evidence on some issues arising from written evidence previously supplied to members on the Memorandum of Response: Northern Ireland: The management of industrial sickness absence, from Mr Paul Priestly, Accounting Officer, DRD, Mr Bruce Robinson, Accounting Officer, DFP, Mr Derek Baker, Director of Personnel in the NICS, DFP, and Mr John Mallon, Head of Human Resource Consultancy Division in NISRA, DFP.

4.00pm Mr McLaughlin left the meeting.
4.00pm Mr Lunn left the meeting.

The witnesses answered a number of questions put by the Committee.

4.15pm The evidence session finished and the witnesses left the meeting.

[EXTRACT]

Thursday, 26 June 2008
Room 144, Parliament Buildings

Present:
Mr Paul Maskey (Chairperson)
Mr Roy Beggs (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Jonathan Craig
Mr John Dallat
Mr David Hilditch
Ms Dawn Purvis
Mr Jim Wells

In Attendance:
Mrs Cathie White (Assembly Clerk)
Mrs Gillian Lewis (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Mrs Nicola Shepherd (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Darren Weir (Clerical Officer)

Apologies:
Mr Thomas Burns
Mr Simon Hamilton
Mr Trevor Lunn
Mr Mitchel McLaughlin

The meeting opened at 2.00pm in public session.

2.02pm Ms Purvis joined the meeting.
2.10pm The meeting went into closed session.

8. Consideration of the Committee’s Draft Report on Management of Sickness Absence in the NICS.

Members considered the draft report paragraph by paragraph. The witnesses attending were Mr John Dowdall CB, C&AG, Mr Robert Hutcheson, Director of Value for Money, and Mr Joe Campbell, Audit Manager, NIAO.

The Committee considered the main body of the report.

Paragraphs 1 – 6 read and agreed.

Paragraph 7 and paragraph 10, page 8, read and agreed.

Paragraphs 8 – 13 read and agreed.

Paragraph 14 read, amended and agreed.

Paragraphs 15 - 21 read and agreed.

Paragraph 22 read, amended and agreed.

Paragraphs 23 – 31 read and agreed.

Paragraph 32 read, amended and agreed.

Paragraphs 33 – 37 read and agreed.

Paragraph 38 read, amended and agreed.

Paragraphs 39 – 43 read and agreed.

Paragraph 44 read, amended and agreed.

Paragraphs 45 – 54 read and agreed.

The Committee considered the Executive Summary.

Paragraphs 1 – 14 read and agreed.

Agreed: Members ordered the report to be printed.

Agreed: Members agreed that the Chairperson’s letters requesting additional information to the Accounting Officers, Department of Finance and Personnel and Department for Regional Development, and their responses would be included in the Committee’s report.

Agreed: Members agreed to embargo the report until 00.01am on Thursday, 4 September 2008, when the report would be officially released.

Agreed: Members agreed not to hold a press conference on Thursday, 4 September 2008 to launch the Committee’s report.

[EXTRACT]

Appendix 2

Minutes of Evidence

29 May 2008

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mr Paul Maskey (Chairperson)
Mr Roy Beggs (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Jonathan Craig
Mr John Dallat
Mr Simon Hamilton
Mr Trevor Lunn
Mr Mitchel McLaughlin
Ms Dawn Purvis
Mr Jim Wells

Witnesses:

Mr Derek Baker Mr Bruce Robinson	Department of Finance and Personnel
Mr Paul Priestly	Department for Regional Development
Mr John Mallon	Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency

Also in attendance:

Mr John Dowdall CB	Comptroller and Auditor General
Mr David Thomson	Treasury Officer of Accounts

1. The Chairperson (Mr P Maskey): There are three sections to today’s evidence session. We will take evidence on the NIAO report on management of sickness in the NICS, the memorandum of response to the management of industrial sickness absence in NI, and the memorandum of response, entitled ‘Use of Consultants’. We will consider the Audit Office report on management of sickness absence in the NI Civil Service, and we will also revisit briefly the Department for Regional Development’s memorandum of response on industrial sickness absence in the Roads Service and the Water Service. At the end of that evidence session, we will ask for clarification on some issues that members may have raised on the memorandum of response on the use of consultants.

2. I welcome Mr Bruce Robinson, the accounting officer at the Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP). I congratulate Bruce on the recent announcement of his new job as head of the Civil Service. I also welcome Mr Paul Priestly, the accounting officer at the Department for Regional Development (DRD), and Mr Derek Baker, the director of personnel at DFP in NICS, and Mr John Mallon, head of the human resources consultancy division at the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) in DFP.

3. Mr Priestly, we will discuss industrial sickness absence in the Department for Regional Development later. The figures that are reported by DRD are not as bad as those of some other Departments. Feel free to contribute at any stage if Mr Robinson wants you to, or if you have anything to add.

4. As the Chairperson, I will ask several questions first. Mr Robinson, figures 2 and 3 of the NIAO report show that four Departments, including DFP, are responsible for three quarters of absence. What have you done specifically to tackle those worst offenders?

5. Mr Bruce Robinson (Department of Finance and Personnel): I congratulate you on assuming the role of Chairperson of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC); I believe that this is your first public meeting. I also congratulate Mr Wells on joining the PAC.

6. In response to your question, I will provide the Committee with a brief overview of DFP’s position on managing sickness absence in the Northern Ireland Civil Service (NICS) — it is an important matter. The level of sickness absence in the NICS is unacceptably high, and its management is a priority for us. Substantial progress has been made in reducing it by 20% over the past four years, but much more must be done. We welcome the Northern Ireland Audit Office report, and we accept all its key recommendations.

7. We all recognise that absence management is a complex and sensitive issue. Evidence shows that improvements in levels of sickness absence occur as a result of long-term strategies that are sustained consistently and that address, among other matters, cultural issues. It is a sensitive matter because staff become sick and require support and considered handling by management. It is a complex issue because, as the figures show, 40% of our staff have had no sickness absence reported, and 32·7% have had only one spell of absence. At the other end of the scale, 12·3% of staff are reported as having long-term absence.

8. You asked about what is being done to address those issues in the four Departments that have the highest figures for sickness absence. Figure 3 shows that the Department of the Environment (DOE) is one of the four Departments that have the highest volume of sickness absence. Figure 2 shows that the Department for Employment and Learning (DEL) has the second-highest level of absence. Therefore, five key Departments need to be considered. Figure 5b of the report shows that the estimated results for 2007-08 reflect an improvement in the performance of those Departments. That is encouraging, but we are not complacent, and we understand that we still have a significant way to go.

9. A sustained commitment by the Departments and senior management to improving the situation has been a key issue in contributing to the progress that has been made over the past year.

10. Strengthening the support to line managers has had a beneficial impact, and Departments have placed greater emphasis on individual case management. Part 6 of the report mentions the pilot work that has been undertaken, particularly by DEL, to tackle long-term sickness. DFP plays an important role, given that it is a large Department and its figures have a significant influence. Indeed, 2006-07 figures ranked its absence levels third highest of all Departments.

11. Securing senior-management commitment has been the key step that we have taken to produce the improvement that is outlined in figure 5. That will underpin DFP’s future work. We now report, in considerable detail, to the departmental board every month — that is a key part of DFP’s management process. Approximately 18 months ago, line managers received up-to-date training — which emphasised the procedures and trigger points — on that process.

12. Furthermore, our personnel department monitors cases of staff sickness actively, ensuring that staff who are off sick are clear that we are interested in them. That department also encourages staff — where feasible — to return to work, and it makes arrangements for phased reintroduction. Therefore, there is an active programme across the NICS, and DFP also has an active programme to improve the situation significantly. Encouragingly, over the past year, the trend has moved in the right direction.

13. The Chairperson: Thank you, Bruce. Paragraph 1.15 outlines that you prepared a delivery plan in 2005 that covered many of the areas that are highlighted in the Comptroller and Auditor General’s report. Had you implemented that plan, we would be discussing a very different report that would document much lower levels of absence. Why did you allow that plan to lapse?

14. Mr B Robinson: We have placed greater emphasis on tackling the components of absence. However, you are accurate in that the Audit Office report states that the delivery plan of 2005 has not been reported on since 2006. That is not to suggest that we have not placed significant emphasis on that work. In fact, many of the actions that are outlined in paragraph 1.15 have been completed. Indeed, I have referred already to some of those actions. Ensuring top-management commitment, which was top of that list, has been assured.

15. The report mentions training and awareness, which are at the core of our strategy, as well as building sickness absence into performance management, and improving case management. DFP has worked on those areas. The delivery plan influenced our actions in the first year. In summer 2006, it became evident that long-term absence was the main issue. Therefore, we switched our attention to the establishment of the task force and arranged a major seminar for senior personnel staff in September 2006 to reinforce our focus on long-term absence.

16. The report outlines clearly that when our Minister, Peter Robinson, took office in May 2007, he placed considerable emphasis on tackling the problem of long-term sickness. Moreover, an Executive review was presented in July 2007. That work has continued into 2008 after the period that the Audit Office report covers, and the Minister has held a meeting with all permanent secretaries to reinforce the importance of improving performance on that matter. Despite the fact that strictly, the delivery plan was not followed through, the issues that were identified in it in practical terms have — and continue to be — followed up. There is absolutely no question that managing sickness absence is at the top of the agenda for the managers of all Departments.

17. The Chairperson: The delivery plan has been in place since 2005, but in some ways the important issues have not been touched on or dealt with. If managing sickness absence is as important as you say, why has implementation of the delivery plan lapsed?

18. Mr B Robinson: I reassure you that following the meeting with the Minister at the end of February, Central Personnel Group has produced what we call a consolidated action plan, which picks up on all the issues that are mentioned in the delivery plan. To all practical purposes, we are following up on all components of the delivery plan.

19. The Chairperson: Paragraph 3.15 suggests that there is a marked reluctance on the part of senior managers to be accountable for absence management. Why is your absence-reduction target not built into your public service agreement or your agency’s business and efficiency plans?

20. Mr B Robinson: The reduction plan is now built into DFP’s corporate plan, and it sets out the targets for the three years of that corporate plan. That was published on the DFP website. It is part and parcel of the personal responsibility plans for all the senior staff in DFP who report directly to me. That has been the case since the early part of the past financial year.

21. Those targets have now been built into all the key areas. However, the one area in which it has not been incorporated is the departmental efficiency plans. Although those targets were not built into those plans for the period ended March 2008, I expect that they will be part of future DFP efficiency plans. I assure the Committee that DFP has acted on the Audit Office’s concerns in that regard, and I believe that that is the case for all the other Departments.

22. Mr Derek Baker (Department of Finance and Personnel): Picking up on that point, paragraph 3.18 recommended that a board-level officer in DFP be given responsibility for co-ordinating action across the NICS. I have the dubious honour of being that board-level officer who has been given responsibility for achieving across all Departments the NICS absence-reduction target that has been built into our corporate plan for the next three years.

23. The Chairperson: Is that necessarily the case, and do you have proof of that?

24. Mr B Robinson: Chairman, I am happy to write to you and confirm that what we have discussed is in place. Our website states DFP’s commitment to those targets for the next three years, and I expect that that is the case for other Departments. I will happily follow that up and confirm that for you.

25. The Chairperson: It is noted in paragraph 3.18 that you produce an annual report, which is made available to the Assembly through the list of papers that are presented. I am sure that that is an important and interesting document that deserves a higher profile. I would like that report to be circulated annually to the Public Accounts Committee so that we can review progress. I am sure that you will want to include the Committee for Finance and Personnel when that document is being circulated. When is the next report due?

26. Mr B Robinson: I am sorry Chairman; I missed that question.

27. The Chairperson: Paragraph 3.18 states that you produce an annual report, which is made available to the Assembly through the papers that are presented. We would like that report to be presented to the Public Accounts Committee and to the Committee for Finance and Personnel. When is that report next due?

28. Mr B Robinson: It is due in September, and I will be happy to send a copy to the Public Accounts Committee and to the Committee for Finance and Personnel.

29. The Chairperson: We will now move on to members’ questions. I remind members that they have approximately 10 minutes for each question; however, there will be an opportunity at the end of the session to ask further questions.

30. Mr Craig: Mr Robinson, paragraph 3.8 of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s report shows that DFP stated that the NICS strategy to decrease the level of sickness absence:

“should be to reduce the frequency and duration of long-term absence.”

To be honest, is that not close to stating the obvious? Would it not have been better to put more meat on the bone and explain to the Committee the details of the strategy? For instance, how do you intend to reduce the frequency and duration of absence due to sickness in DFP?

31. Mr B Robinson: The intention is to have an effective tool that will enable us to better manage sickness absence. The two components of sickness absence are the frequency and length of time that people take off. Elsewhere in the report, references are made to absence management being based largely on trigger points, which relate to the average duration of an absence. If we can ensure earlier intervention by, for example, the welfare service or the Occupational Health Service (OHS), in illnesses that tend to result in long-term absences, we should be able to influence and reduce the duration of those absences.

32. It is also important for line management to keep in touch with people who are off ill, encourage them, when appropriate, to return to work, and to support them in doing so. By setting targets to reduce the duration and frequency of absences, we are addressing the issues that we want to.

33. Mr Baker: To pick up on the point about the specific actions that are taken to address long-term sickness absence, the Audit Office report recognises that early intervention is the key to preventing an absence from becoming long term. In the updated and consolidated action plan, to which Mr Robinson referred, we made clear to all Departments what is now expected of them on receipt of any notification of sickness absence relating to psychiatric or psychological illness, including stress. They must not wait until the trigger point of 20 days has been reached; they must intervene immediately and make a referral to the Occupational Health Service, which can determine whether any further action or referrals are needed. A large proportion of absences are due to illnesses of that nature.

34. We are conscious of the critical role that OHS must play in supporting staff and in helping to make decisions on how best to manage a particular case. The task force on long-term sickness absence identified the need to re-examine the work of OHS. For example, does it take the correct action to support Departments, does it act quickly enough, and are the services that it provides relevant?

35. The Civil Service business improvement team was commissioned to carry out an internal review of the Occupational Health Service and of how it helps Departments. The team is due to report soon, and we will be able to make progress from there. We have acted to ensure that Departments intervene early, because that is the key to reducing long-term sickness absence.

36. Mr Craig: Thank you. In paragraph 3.10, the Comptroller and Auditor General suggests that action plans, detailing how Departments intend to achieve the targets that you have set, are required. Has your Department drawn up a detailed plan, and have you demanded that other Departments do likewise? Setting targets is understandable, but without a detailed plan of how to achieve them, they will be meaningless.

37. Mr B Robinson: Absolutely. I mentioned that in March 2008 we produced a consolidated NICS action plan, which follows on directly from all this work. Under several headings, we set out what we will do and how senior management is committed to the plan. We also clarified some roles and responsibilities, highlighted the importance of training and awareness and how the plan could be integrated into performance management. We also set out the requirements for individual case management. In addition, we drew attention to opportunities for local strategies to be developed in particular hot spots. We also outlined the importance of the workplace health initiatives that we have under way, and that is where we refer in particular to work/life balance. Furthermore, there is reference to the role that DFP will play in policy development and evaluation and to the work that Departments must carry out on compliance.

38. We have developed a comprehensive action plan that is designed to produce the desired outcomes. I am happy to forward a copy of that plan to the Committee with the material that I will submit in writing.

39. Mr Craig: We appreciate that. I assume that the document will be forwarded to the other Departments and that they will follow with similar plans.

40. Mr B Robinson: The action plan was issued to all Departments. We have raised it at the permanent secretaries group, and all my colleagues are fully committed to it.

41. Mr Craig: You stated several times that the secret to managing sickness absence is early intervention. Paragraph 3.12 refers to HR Connect. Can that system give you the information quickly enough to intervene early, or will there be issues with it?

42. Mr B Robinson: We certainly believe that it will deliver the information without any problems. However, Mr Baker may wish to add to that point.

43. Mr Baker: One of the basic premises on which the new HR Connect system is built is that there should be consistency of process across all 11 NICS Departments and the Northern Ireland Office, where appropriate.

44. One appropriate area is sickness absence, because it was sometimes handled in slightly different ways for no good reason other than that it had always been done that way. HR Connect will introduce a common process for all line managers, and it will provide them with instant access to information about their respective teams and about patterns of sickness absence in those teams, such as who has been off, how many episodes of sickness an individual has had and the reasons for absence. Therefore, for the first time, line managers will have real-time, comprehensive information about sickness absence.

45. Moreover, the system will ensure that line managers will be prompted by their computers to comply with the processes. For example, when an officer returns to work after sickness absence, his or her line manager will automatically be prompted to carry out a return-to-work interview, which is an important part of the process. The IT system will provide a structure for the line manager to go through the interview by prompting him or her on the sort of questions to ask and the sort of support services that he or she should offer to the individual. For example, it will ask whether the illness is work related, or whether intervention from the welfare service or the employee-assistance programmes should be offered, and so on. Therefore, when HR Connect is fully live we will introduce much more structure, much more process and much more timely information about managing attendance.

46. Mr Craig: Thank you.

47. Mr Dallat: I see from Paragraph 2.8 that psychiatric illness has caused about one third of absences for at least six years, but the task force has begun to research it only in the past 18 months. Psychiatric illness is the biggest cause of absence. Why was that area not examined earlier? Listening quietly in the corner, I heard about so many things that have just happened, are about to happen, or will happen, that I began to wonder whether there was any life in Civil Service management before the Assembly kicked in again. I mean that seriously.

48. Mr B Robinson: That is an important issue. As the report says, psychiatric illness is the main reason for long-term absence. Therefore, we must address that issue better.

49. As I said, the work that we have done and the achievements to date do not satisfy us. However, that work mainly concerned the workforce health survey, which we undertook in 2000 and in 2005.

50. That indicated that there was no perceptible increase — rather, there was a slight decrease — in our staff’s view of stress at work. I accept entirely that that is at variance with other trends. It is an issue that we must look at.

51. It is hard to distinguish between individuals suffering from depression or mental illness; stress is a category within that. Some of the work that we have done indicated that the root cause lies — in more cases than not — in issues outside work. However, the Audit Office recommends that we do more on this, and we are committed to doing so. Work is under way with the task force. As Mr Baker said, we have undertaken work with earlier referral to the OHS as one way of dealing with it.

52. There are a number of aspects of work in the Civil Service that support staff when they are in that situation. A variety of work patterns are available to staff; we have supportive policies around work/life balance; and there is the welfare service, which is generally regarded as a good support for staff. Although I accept entirely the recommendations of the report and the criticisms made, we have been doing a lot. Obviously, we need to do more.

53. Mr Baker: As long ago as 1999, under the workplace health improvement programme which the Northern Ireland Civil Service has had for some time, we produced a mental well-being at work policy. It was innovative and ground-breaking for that time. Copies were issued to every member of staff. It provided detailed information about mental well-being and it looked specifically at stress. It identified what stress was; described how it may be recognised; and gave advice and guidance on how to cope with it to individual members of staff. Line managers and colleagues were advised on how to support someone suffering from stress. Advice was also offered to human-resources professionals. That was a positive policy, and it was well-received.

54. Time has moved on: many of the basic tenets of that policy remain valid, but we are updating it and will reissue it this year. However, the support has been there. The whole area of promoting mental well-being is very difficult: even in the health and social services it is regarded as something of a Holy Grail. It would be difficult for the NICS to crack this one, let alone the wider society. That is not to say that we should not try — we have a duty to support our staff, and that is what the mental well-being policy is all about.

55. Mr Dallat: I hope that managers try much harder. My experience as a constituency representative is exactly opposite to what you have described. Young civil servants are off work for long periods without having an interview, and the cause of the stress, which lies not outside the Civil Service but within it, is not addressed. If this hearing is to serve any purpose, we must drill a lot deeper.

56. I speak in defence of all civil servants. When these reports are produced, the entire workforce is stigmatised. Most civil servants never miss a day from work, and stigmatisation is unfair to those who have been reduced to being mental wrecks as a result of the work that they do in the Civil Service. You have mentioned computers — the Civil Service uses clapped-out computers that are 20 years old. There are all sorts of stress, particularly for those who have to deal with issues by telephone.

57. It is clear from appendix 5 of the report that anxiety and depression are indicative of stress, yet I see from paragraph 2.12 that you do not include anxiety and depression in your estimates of stress-related absence. Why is that, and why do you seek deliberately to underplay the issue of stress?

58. Mr B Robinson: There is certainly no intention to underplay stress. As we said, we have carried out surveys, which indicated that about 20% of our staff are concerned about stress, and we have responded. Nevertheless, we entirely accept that we must do more, and I am happy to follow up the specific cases mentioned by Mr Dallat. Like him, I believe that it is important that we act as a responsible employer and deal with all those matters. These are difficult and complex issues, and they must be handled sensitively.

59. Mr Baker: I do not agree that we underplay stress. On the contrary, the workplace health survey that we conduct with all 25,000 civil servants is very comprehensive. In 2005, it included 35 questions specifically about stress. The workplace health survey is a massively comprehensive survey that is aimed at identifying stress-related issues in our workforce. We analyse the information that we gather, and, because we have a duty of care to our employees, we take it seriously.

60. To a certain degree, I am embarrassed by the fact that my own business area is an absence hot spot. Having identified that something must be going on there, we have commissioned a pilot scheme, inviting the Health and Safety Executive to determine whether there are any stress issues and to develop an action plan that will address them. Stress is not a matter that we wish to under-represent or sweep under the carpet; we want to identify it, shine a light on it and, if necessary, take action to deal with it.

61. Mr Dallat: Figure 11a starkly demonstrates that female sickness absence in Northern Ireland is twice that in Great Britain. Given that you have been well aware of that for many years, why is female sickness absence so much higher in Northern Ireland, and what specific actions are you taking to reduce it? I am sure that you will readily admit that the Northern Ireland Civil Service is not a happy place for females, particularly if they are young.

62. Mr B Robinson: First of all, female absence is universally higher than male absence. Work that has been carried out, both here and across the water, indicates that women’s role as primary carers has a definite influence on those statistics. The National Audit Office’s work is reinforced by work with focus groups that was carried out on our behalf by NISRA.

63. Mr John Mallon (Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency): In Northern Ireland, and elsewhere in the United Kingdom, people are well aware of higher levels of absence among women. It is a particular problem in Northern Ireland and, from the outset, every report that we have produced has provided analysis of absence data by gender, and we have considered the reasons for that. A consistently higher pattern of absence among females is apparent; even for colds or flu, women are off work for longer durations. The reason for that is not entirely obvious, and we are conscious that the statistics here are different. Although we have investigated that difference, we have been unable to put our finger on a specific reason why females here have a much higher rate of absence compared to elsewhere. That is not to say that we have not undertaken substantial research into that area.

64. Mr Baker: Following up on the point that women are recognised as having a caring role in society, we offer a wide and comprehensive range of work/life balance policies, such as part-time working, flexitime, job-sharing, career breaks and maternity, paternity, parental and special leave, in order to facilitate staff. Moreover, not only do we offer those options, we allow people to take advantage of them; approximately 15% or 16% of our staff have opted for alternative work patterns. We attempt to facilitate staff’s other responsibilities as best we can.

65. Mr Dallat: I accept that many female employees are carers. Do you accept that the policy of centralisation of jobs, and the uprooting of people from towns such as Coleraine and Limavady, is just adding to a complex problem, which, for example, might involve looking after an aged parent? When will the Civil Service realise that the real cost of that centralisation policy is causing heartache and suffering to a great many of its employees? I have not even mentioned Sandyknowes or the M1.

66. Mr B Robinson: The issues that Mr Dallat raises are the reasons for the alternative working patterns, and they are why the Civil Service offers term-time working and other hours of working. They are all designed to help our members of staff who have those responsibilities to cope with them. NISRA has done some work on the impact of absence across Northern Ireland.

67. Mr Mallon: We undertook an analysis of where people live and work, and examined the travel-to-work patterns, the length of time it took people to travel to work and the distances involved. We discovered that there was no relationship between distance travelled to work and level of absence, nor was there a relationship between time spent travelling to work and absence.

68. Mr Dallat: I am sure that it is not being suggested that it is Belfast people who are the skivers.

69. Mr B Robinson: There is no discernible difference in the pattern. We are saying that it is similar, no matter what distance people travel. We examined these issues as part of an effort to find solutions, because we are aware that a great many staff have caring responsibilities. There is no question that it is in our interest as management to see that that is coped with, that people are content with the arrangements, and that we have work arrangements in place that suit their requirements.

70. Mr Hamilton: I am still getting over the irony that the unit that deals with sickness absence is itself a sickness hot spot. However, I wish to ask a couple of questions about the nature of target-setting. The Audit Office report notes that targets for the reduction of sickness absence are centrally set by DFP. Why are those targets set centrally? Why are they not set by the individual Departments, which would have a better grasp of individual problems? Are those targets imposed by DFP, or are they worked on collaboratively with individual Departments so that their knowledge of particular issues or circumstances is brought to bear?

71. Mr B Robinson: This was the first time that such targets had been set, and they were set back in 2004. The Audit Office report makes it clear that the work that was done at that stage showed that there was a remarkably similar pattern to the absences in individual Departments. This was the first time that targets had been set, and they were broken down to have a 7% reduction in duration, a 7% reduction in the frequency of long-term absence and a 5% reduction in the frequency of short-term absences. We disaggregated the target into those categories.

72. It may well be that at the next stage the targets are set more by business area and by Departments. I am sure that at the back of your question is a belief that greater ownership of those targets by Departments would produce better outcomes in the medium term. We agree that that is a much better idea. However, the first stage of this exercise was top-down.

73. Mr Mallon: Although the targets were centrally set, they were based on an analysis of each individual Department and their business areas. Throughout all the analysis, we were struck by the fact that the patterns and trends in absence figures were remarkably similar. For example, the highest absence levels were for staff in junior grades, typically female AOs. The main reason for absence was psychiatric and psychological illnesses. No matter where we looked, we found the same patterns and trends. We had a view of absence figures from right across the Civil Service, so we could identify the key areas that needed to be addressed — the frequency and duration of absences. Those may be obvious matters to address, but they are the key to bringing about change. Our decisions on the targets for each Department were based on an individual analysis at departmental level, and then centrally we agreed the absolute magnitude of the targets. That said, the magnitude of the targets was agreed with each individual Department. Therefore, there was a concerted NICS approach to target-setting.

74. Mr Hamilton: The analysis showed broadly similar patterns across each Department. We have looked at absence rates in big Departments, such as the Department for Social Development, and parts of those Departments in particular. By providing a type of headline analysis that shows a broadly similar pattern, do you not run the risk of failing to pick up on particular circumstances within individual Departments? I am thinking of those circumstances that may arise in a big Department but not in a smaller one. That goes back to my earlier point about the importance of Departments being able to set targets for themselves.

75. Mr Mallon: Although we have said that we have identified similar patterns, it is obvious that the reasons for the high levels of sick absence will vary across business area. Part of our job is to work with Departments to identify specifically why a particular Department has such a high level of sick absence; the causes can differ between Departments. In some areas, absence rates could be due to a lack of management intervention, while in other areas they could be due to work pressures. The causes may be different, but the outcome is the same.

76. Mr Hamilton: Paragraph 3.4 mentions that only two Departments set their own targets for either their agencies or sub-organisational levels. Would it not be common sense to adopt that practice right across the board and allow all Departments to set their own targets? Should you not be working towards that goal? Clearly, some of those departmental absence rates are due to the aforementioned hot spots — particular units or agencies that could be distorting the overall departmental figure. A departmental target may therefore not be appropriate, and specific pressure may have to be placed on particular units. Should that not be rolled out across the board?

77. Mr B Robinson: In principle, yes, it should be, which is why I emphasised, that, first time around, the target was centrally set. Of course, by the same token, we want the targets to be stretching and challenging. Therefore, if the characteristics of some of the work units are such that they find it exceptionally easy to achieve their targets, DFP will want to reconsider the targets. Thus, a combined effort is required. However, I accept entirely that in order to motivate Departments to improve rates of absence, it is better if the predominant input comes from the Departments themselves, with DFP playing a secondary role.

78. Mr Lunn: We have talked about stress ad infinitum today, but I will prolong the discussion a little more. Paragraph 6.4 indicates that most Civil Service bodies identify stress-related absence as one of their biggest problems. The Health and Safety Executive’s stress-management standards provide the basis for stress audits to manage the sources of stress. You appear to have adopted those standards in 2005. Why have Departments taken no action to apply them?

79. Mr B Robinson: As we have said already, we have now adopted those standards as part of a pilot in DFP’s central finance group, and our objective is to roll that project out. The 35 questions on which the Health and Safety Executive’s audit is based were incorporated into the NICS workforce health survey in 2005. What we are talking about is conducting more specific pieces of work; moving away from a general workforce-wide survey to conducting more work within the Departments to help identify specific issues.

80. Mr Baker: The 2005 workplace health survey examined that area in quite some detail. As part of the analysis of the survey, NISRA produced reports for individual Departments, detailing responses to the survey and the types of health issues that staff were experiencing — health issues across the board, not just in relation to stress. The analysis was then forwarded to the Departments, and those Departments have adopted different measures in response. However, I fully accept that much more needs to be done to follow through on the output of that analysis and to ensure that all the difficult issues are picked up.

81. In the area of mental well-being, one of the items that emerged from the survey as a problem — or potential problem — was the area of substance misuse amongst some of our more junior staff. The Occupational Health Service did try to intervene to support those colleagues, but, unfortunately, that intervention did not work. Dealing with younger people who perhaps perceived an authority figure speaking to them about what is an illicit activity was a difficult activity to undertake. Consequently, we abandoned that effort. However, I do not believe that we should be criticised for trying to intervene in this particular area of mental well-being. In the area of stress, I fully accept that more does need to be done to follow up on the analysis provided to the Departments. Indeed, this is work that we need to commence now.

82. Mr Lunn: There seems to be a good deal of acceptance from the witnesses that more needs to be done. However, the stress-management standards were made available in March 2005. This is now May 2008, and the best that this Committee has heard from the witnesses today is that they are addressing the problem and have created a pilot scheme in DFP.

83. Page 47 of the report states that the Inland Revenue have carried out a pilot scheme — unfortunately, it does not actually say when this was carried out. As a result of this, there was a marked reduction — two-thirds — in the number of working days lost through stress-related complaints. Why is there a three-year time lag between recommendation and acceptance — even in the creation of a pilot scheme?

84. Mr B Robinson: I think that we are talking here about a specific subset of the problem —

85. Mr Lunn: It is quite a large subset.

86. Mr Robinson: I fully accept that. However, it is clear from the report, and from figure 5b, that we have been trying to improve the situation for 4 years, and it is also clear that we are making progress. In 2006-07 we made no progress — in fact, we regressed. However, it is important to recognise that work has continued on several fronts, and that the Audit Office recommendations have been accepted in their entirety. As Mr Baker said, that is an area that we now need to move into.

87. Mr Baker: Different Departments have taken action as a result of the workplace health survey — some more effectively than others. For example, the Child Support Agency (CSA) — which has since been reorganised — historically had major problems with sickness absence. Following the results of the survey, it invested a great deal of time and effort in dealing with work-related issues. It introduced a programme to help staff to cope with stress and an intranet site to support them in dealing with pressure. The CSA also carried out a programme of training for all line managers in ways to cope with stress — something that I feel has been particularly effective in reducing sickness absence levels in that organisation.

88. The Department for Employment and Learning also identified various issues as a result of the survey, and has also implemented a stress-management course. We now need to ensure that this type of good practice is replicated — where appropriate — in Departments or business areas which have stress-related problems.

89. Mr Lunn: Paragraph 6.5 of the report states that an employer has a duty of care to its staff, to ensure that they do not suffer stress-related illness at work. If you have not fully implemented the stress-management standards, how do you ensure that that duty of care is fulfilled?

90. Mr B Robinson: The Department has a number of policies in place, in a number of areas, which are all designed to alleviate the problem of stress. We have already discussed the flexible work patterns, which, as Mr Baker said, are used of by 15% of the NICS — over 3,000 people. There are also special leave arrangements to cover for any crises that may occur, concerning caring, for example, either for children or for elderly people. Support is provided through the employee assistance programme. That is now operational throughout all Departments, and, since 2006, 850 of our staff have availed themselves of that.

91. The Department has supportive policies concerning the use of welfare to support people, and there are a number of initiatives under way that are all designed to do that. That is how the Department discharges its responsibility as an employer, but we recognise that we want to take that further step and move to the next stage. There are a number of policies in place that, we believe, help with the situation, but we acknowledge that there is more that we should be doing.

92. Mr Lunn: Do you feel, at the moment, that the Department is fully discharging its duty of care, or is it in breach of that?

93. Mr B Robinson: We believe that we are a good employer. I think that most people would accept that, in general, the NICS is a good employer, but we recognise the challenge of this report, which is to be better.

94. Mr Lunn: I have one comment for Mr Priestly, by way of praise, I think. The Department for Regional Development (DRD), according to the report, has a much better absence level than a lot of other Departments; it is actually the best one on the list. Is that because of the iron hand of Conor Murphy, because of good luck, or because — as I would like to hear — you are actually implementing some of those policies more rigorously than the other Departments? Do you have any advice for Mr Robinson and the other Departments?

95. Mr Paul Priestly (Department for Regional Development): Thank you for the praise. I do not think that there is any magic pill or magic bullet. Sick absence is taken very seriously in our Department. Our performance pre-dates the resumption of devolution, so I do not think that the Minister can claim the credit for it. It is taken very seriously, and there is a lot of senior management commitment. We have put in place a whole set of processes and procedures for robustly managing sick absence, and we apply those procedures really quite rigorously. I would not want to give the impression that we are draconian, however. The aim is to get people back to work, and for them to be fully effective in work.

96. The robust application of the processes and procedures is allied with providing support to staff, through our health and well-being initiatives, to help them in work. We, like other Departments, are affected by the phenomenon of stress, or psychiatric and psychological illnesses. We try to support our staff; it is about getting that balance right. We do take sick absences very seriously, and we try to apply the procedures robustly.

97. Mr B Robinson: Our Department benchmarked what we were doing against what DRD was doing. We looked at whether there were lessons that we could learn, and the chief point to become apparent was that the actual nature of the reports that were provided to the departmental board in DRD were considerably more detailed on absence and on what was happening in the business areas. We are in the process of adopting that more detailed reporting, which underpins DRD’s work.

98. Mr Lunn: There you are, Mr Priestly, you are leading the way. What do you think of the statistic in the report that it takes 38 days to make a referral to the OHS?

99. Mr Priestly: I do not want to comment on the statistic in the report; as Derek Baker said earlier, some Departments are referring cases of psychiatric or psychological illness to the OHS straight away, and that is what we do.

100. Mr Wells: Following on from Mr Lunn’s comments, the picture painted is of people dragging themselves along to work in the Department for Social Development, getting ill, stressed, leaving early, and taking time off; whereas at Clarence Court they are bouncing in smiling, happy, and not taking time off. We should try to learn the lessons as to why things are going quite well in DRD. If the entire Civil Service were at that level we would not be here today, because it would be below the GB average.

101. Therefore, I can ask this question, confident in the fact that it will not embarrass anybody at the top table.

102. Paragraph 4.17 refers to a certain instance when NISRA examined what is described as a Civil Service body — although we are not told which one — that had high levels of absence. The agency identified a catalogue of problems, including continual organisational change and problems with computer systems. What specific part of the Civil Service does that research relate to? It is clear that things are going badly wrong somewhere in that body.

103. Mr Baker: I will answer that. The body referred to was the then Child Support Agency, which asked NISRA to help it identify the reasons behind the high level of sickness absence among its staff. I think that the Committee heard recently from witnesses from the Child Support Agency who were examining some of those issues. The analysis showed that the Child Support Agency’s policies and procedures for dealing with sickness absence were probably the best in the class.

104. I am sure that you are aware of some of the issues that have bedevilled the CSA, such as computer systems and constant changes in policy. It is a difficult place for staff to work — they deal with difficult and sensitive issues. Line management worked hard to support the staff there.

105. I mentioned some of the issues earlier. For example, the CSA arranged classes to help staff cope with pressure; they assisted with training for staff and line managers; and they created an intranet website to support staff in those areas. The proof of the pudding is in the eating — sickness absence rates in the Child Support Agency have reduced significantly over the past few years. John Mallon may be able to discuss those statistics.

106. Mr Mallon: I was involved in the initial study in the Child Support Agency, and we carried out a comprehensive analysis of the nature of the problems.

107. The quotation in paragraph 4.17 is taken from the conclusion of that study. It is true that at that time the board adopted all the report’s recommendations. They have been working diligently and have been successful in reducing the absence rate substantially. They are on target this year. Therefore, that substantial turnaround occurred in a relatively short time.

108. Mr Wells: To be fair to DSD, is its high level — 18·7 days a year — of sickness absence as a result of the CSA figures being included in the Department’s overall total?

109. Mr Mallon: The high level of sickness absence in DSD is not attributable to the CSA; it is due to the Social Security Agency. The CSA is on target.

110. Mr Wells: To some extent, I can see how that situation arises. I give them a lot of grief at times, which I am sure does not help.

111. On another matter, I see from paragraph 6.10 that Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland standards prompted a review of policy on mental well-being at work. Why has that taken so long, and what progress has been made on that review?

112. Mr Baker: I will deal with that question. I referred to the mental well-being at work policy earlier. It is — or was — a very innovative policy. Most elements of it remain relevant today. Little has changed; the basic information that helps staff identify and cope with stress remains the same, whether they are line managers or individual members.

113. Given the time that has passed, we feel that we need to raise the policy’s profile again and refresh it. That work will be done in this calendar year, and the policy will be reissued. The policy itself remains very relevant. It is helpful and provides support for staff. It is not that it is hopelessly out of date; we just want to raise its profile again.

114. Mr Wells: The issue of stress has come up time and again in the inquiry. If I direct you to paragraph 6.6 of the report, as you know the Cabinet Office indicated that it is very difficult to distinguish between work-related and non-work-related stress. Yet paragraph 2.11 states that your main effort seems to be focused on research into work-related stress. You seem to have done a great deal of work on the categorisation of stress, but done little to address the problem. Is that a fair comment?

115. Mr Mallon: We have done quite a lot of work here to get a better understanding of stress, because we know that throughout the United Kingdom, it is a major cause of illness. We found in all our work — in different pieces of research in different Departments and in stress audits — that the level of stress in the NICS is no different from other private and public-sector organisations.

116. Although there is a problem with high absence levels, stress is not a significant difficulty. However, we must address it. The Civil Service is not significantly different from other organisations in that respect. One of our jobs was to find out more about the label of psychiatric/psychological illness. Therefore, the task force carried out detailed analysis on the issue. We discovered that 22% of illnesses were work related — in other words, they could be attributable to things that happened in the workplace, such as interpersonal conflict and workload pressures. However, the majority of stress-related illnesses were due to factors outside the workplace. There was an interesting gender difference — work is the major source of stress for men, whereas factors outside the workplace, such as financial problems, are the major source of stress for women. Those facts are coming through in all our research, which makes us want to focus on a broader approach to stress and think about mental well-being. If we focus narrowly on stress, rather than on mental well-being, we risk not being able to target our efforts in the correct areas. Therefore, stress is a much wider issue.

117. Mr McLaughlin: It is difficult to dig our way through all the reassurances that are being offered today, especially considering that the report is quite damning and indicates a failure to achieve objectives. Although I take it at face value that the procedures concerned exist, the question comes back to practice and to how we can be satisfied and reassured that compliance with them, which the report acknowledges, reflect best practice elsewhere. Therefore, if the procedures were applied properly, accountably and effectively, there could be some delivery and return.

118. The report states that sickness absence costs £25 million a year. However, if you add the consequential costs of finding replacement workers, overtime and other factors, it may be double that amount. There are higher levels of absence here compared with other regions, with long-term sickness accounting for 70% of the total days lost and over 200 employees off work for more than six months. Furthermore, female sickness absence here is double that in Britain.

119. There are clearly headline issues that must be addressed. My initial comment is based on paragraphs 4.3 to 4.5 of the report. Good procedures are in place, but they are not always being applied in practice. However, we have known that for some time, and, indeed, it was referred to in the 2006 delivery plan. Therefore, why are we not checking compliance more robustly to find out where the process needs to be tightened up?

120. Mr B Robinson: I share Mr McLaughlin’s concern, and the matter is a big challenge for us. Figure 5b points to the fact that compliance is now real and happening. The improvement in absence levels over the past year points clearly to that fact. The emphasis that Ministers, including our own Minister, place on absences is the main factor in ensuring compliance. The Department of Finance and Personnel has overall responsibility for employment in the Northern Ireland Civil Service, but Departments have considerable flexibility in how the policy and procedures are applied across the board. It is crucial that we continue to ensure that, just as you said, the policies are applied consistently and rigorously.

121. That is what I meant when I said that improvements are yielded as a result of long-term sustained attention and action. Management’s commitment to sorting out the problem is probably one of the most important elements towards achieving the right solution.

122. Mr McLaughlin: As well as training and providing line managers with the resources to deal with the matter, is it sometimes necessary to sanction them — particularly those with direct line-management responsibilities — if they do not address absence effectively?

123. Mr B Robinson: Improvement in absence management is a personal responsibility plan item in all DFP direct-line reports, and it becomes part of the assessment of performance. It is not the only item in the personal responsibility plan, but it is part of it. The comprehensive action plan states that Departments, through the use of internal audit, use the plan to seek reassurance on compliance.

124. Mr McLaughlin: We are told — and it seems that you have accepted — that effective early intervention has a significant impact on long-term absence. I am not sure whether you answered yes to my question. Are incentives given or sanctions imposed on line managers who fail to deliver on their objectives in that regard?

125. Mr B Robinson: It is being built into the personal responsibility plans, and it is part and parcel of the performance assessment of senior DFP staff for last year. The answer, therefore, is yes.

126. Mr Priestly: I can elaborate on that to explain how the Department for Regional Development has dealt with the matter. If I understand the question correctly, I can take it back to something that Mr Hamilton said earlier about the tension between Bruce Robinson at the centre trying to manage absence levels and Departments trying to manage them. That can be played several different ways. Better results will be achieved if the managers with responsibility for the business are given the task of managing absence levels and if standards and procedures are set at the centre.

127. There will always be a problem with getting some line managers to face up to difficult and sensitive issues; they are dealing with people with whom they work daily. Such problems existed in DRD, so we set up our own managing-attendance team to take those decisions back to the centre of the Department. That team issues warnings to staff when triggers are activated. Line managers tend to shy away from taking the necessary robust action. That shows that there are different ways of addressing the attendance issues.

128. Mr McLaughlin: Mr Baker mentioned the perceived improvements under HR Connect. To what extent does that benefit line managers? Do they benefit from the triggers? Do they receive an automatic signal when someone is absent, for instance? Is that the type of assistance that they receive? Are they trained or given additional assistance?

129. Mr Baker: There are three areas in which line managers will be supported. First, HR Connect will give every line manager faster and better-quality information about the profile of sickness absence in his or her business area. They will be able to see whether there are any problems on which action is required.

130. Secondly, HR Connect will give the line manager — at his or her desktop — better support in carrying out some of the procedures, especially in the return-to-work interview. HR Connect will guide the line manager through the areas that need to be covered, the questions that need to be asked, and the support that should be offered to an individual with whom a problem has been identified. Thirdly, in preparation for the introduction of HR Connect, all line managers in the Civil Service will go through comprehensive training.

131. That training started last week. I went to a training session, and it guides the operator through the new systems and shows how best to operate them. It showed me what it will do for us, and what we need to do.

132. Mr McLaughlin: Could you take us briefly through the return-to-work process? Does it involve calling in the employee for an interview? At what point is that triggered?

133. Mr Baker: That is triggered as soon as the employee returns to work, and it involves a face-to-face interview, not an on-line process.

134. Mr McLaughlin: That is exactly what I am getting at. Is it the case that it is not part of the intervention to encourage a return to work; is it, rather, triggered on return to work, even after a long-term absence?

135. Mr Baker: Yes. It is held when an employee returns to work. However, it is only part of the process of supporting employees. When an employee is off work, HR in the Department will work with the line manager to establish what, if any, intervention is appropriate to support the employee, whether an OHS referral is required —

136. Mr McLaughlin: That has no practical impact on the problem that we are discussing. It is part of the process of facilitating a return to work and providing required and valuable assistance. However, it does not address the initial question of long-term illness and absence.

137. Mr Baker: The full raft of the policies and procedures — which are in place — is designed to identify the support that line managers need, to promote early intervention, and to get the right kind of support to employees. We have made clear what those policies are; we have issued action plans to Departments; and we have instructed Departments to ensure that they intervene early with OHS referrals or referrals to welfare service, where it is clear that there is a problem, particularly in the area of psychiatric or psychological illness.

138. Mr B Robinson: The system is designed to help support people so that they will not go off work again. One of the issues addressed is whether a special pattern of work is needed for a time, to allow the person to feel confident about being back at work. The Chairperson is quite right: it does not address the issue directly, but it helps to underpin the system. It encourages people to return to work and helps them realise that we want to work with them to facilitate their return.

139. Mr McLaughlin: I can see that; however, time prevents me from exploring whether it has that effect. I imagine that it would be helpful if there were a supportive circumstance for someone who had been absent, particularly in the long term, and who is returning to his or her desk. It would be interesting to know whether it has that desired effect of preventing a reoccurrence of the stress or the reason for absence.

140. To make best use of the available time, I must move on. Paragraph 6.17 tells us that referral to an occupational health professional after 10 to 15 days can have “a dramatic effect” on the duration of illness. Despite that, the report tells us that it takes an average of 53 days for staff to be seen by the Occupational Health Service. What is the current situation? That snapshot clearly reflects the situation at the time of the inquiry. I presume that you do not dispute that. Is there evidence that we have moved on? The issue costs a minimum of £25 million: obviously there is a cost-benefit argument for providing a significant resource, particularly to the Occupational Health Service.

141. Mr Baker: I would like to make a couple of points on that. Referral to OHS is not always appropriate. You will accept that there are different kinds of illnesses, and the report identifies that. If the average time taken to make a referral is 38 days, that is not good enough, and it needs to improve. We acknowledge and fully accept that. Given the time it takes to make referrals, and then the time taken for the OHS to see an individual —

142. Mr McLaughlin: Do you mean the time that it takes to make an appointment for an actual consultation?

143. Mr Baker: Yes. For those reasons, we commissioned a review of the whole system involving OHS, the Departments and the engagement between the two.

144. I referred to that review, and we will study the report that emerged from it. It will be produced soon. I do not have to hand the current position on the average time that is taken to make a referral to the Occupational Health Service, but I will try to get that information and write to the Committee.

145. Mr McLaughlin: I see from paragraph 1.17 that after a review of the 2006 delivery plan, Central Personnel Group was to produce guidance on early intervention in order to prevent long-term absence. Was that guidance ever issued?

146. Mr Baker: No. Paragraph 1.17 raises two issues. The revised management information was produced monthly by NISRA on the frequency and duration of long-term sickness absence in Departments. At that time, however, the focus shifted to long-term sickness absence, and the issue got wrapped up in the work of the task force on such absence. Therefore, new, separate guidance on early intervention was not issued. However, in the work that followed in 2007, all Departments were reminded of the need for early intervention, particularly in instances of psychiatric and psychological illness. That point was again picked up in the updated action plan to which Mr Robinson referred. However, separate guidance on early intervention was not issued at that time.

147. Mr McLaughlin: That is just over 18 months ago, and the review concluded that Central Personnel Group would issue, as a matter of urgency, revised guidance on early intervention, yet it was decided not to do that.

148. Mr Baker: The issues were picked up in the work of the task force on long-term sickness absence, and revised guidance was issued in the following year in 2007, but not at that time.

149. Ms Purvis: Paragraph 6.24 refers to initiatives that were taken to tackle long-term absence. In particular, a steering group was set up in January 2005, and it reported in May 2006 with some 20 recommendations. However, the Comptroller and Auditor General found little or no response to them. Why did you not respond to those recommendations, and do you intend taking any action?

150. Mr Baker: The working group that was set up involving the Department of Finance and Personnel and the Department for Employment and Learning was designed to look at interaction primarily with the Occupational Health Service. Following the work of that little group, a new best practice guide was produced explaining how Departments could get the best out of the Occupational Health Service. That was issued in 2006, and most of the group’s recommendations were incorporated into the best practice guide on OHS, which is now built into the procedures that Departments use for engaging with the service. Where appropriate, the guidance is built into the service level agreements that the OHS has with individual Departments.

151. Ms Purvis: Does that mean, therefore, that the 20 recommendations were more or less based around the interaction with the Occupational Health Service?

152. Mr Baker: Most of them were, yes.

153. Ms Purvis: The task force was set up some 18 months ago to examine the causes of long-term absence and to identify action to address it. At this stage, we see no evidence that that task force has reported. What action has the task force recommended, and what plans are there for implementing those recommendations?

154. Mr Baker: The task force has not reported, but a lot of the work that it did during 2007 has been implemented. Sickness absence is not a one-off issue in which there is intervention, a solution found, and the problem is then solved. One of the first issues that the task force identified was the need for early intervention. That was picked up in 2007 when the Minister renewed his interest in sickness absence. In the paper that went to the Executive, and the actions that flowed from that, it was made clear to the Departments that they needed to intervene with early referrals to OHS. In addition, the task force identified the need for a review of the processes in the Occupational Health Service. That review has been commissioned and completed.

155. Another issue that the task force identified, and which is picked up in the Audit Office report, is the need to identify hot spots in individual Departments, to investigate them, and, where appropriate, to take action. Again, that has been picked up, and the action plan has been issued to all Departments instructing them to dig into those hot spots and take action where appropriate.

156. The task force report has been drafted, but the areas that it covered were, in many ways, identical to the issues that were covered by the Northern Ireland Audit Office report. I wanted to await the recommendations of the Northern Ireland Audit Office so that we could reflect them in the final report of the task force, and so that we were not publishing something and then, a few weeks later, introducing another set of recommendations. I wanted to be able to bind them all together. It is comforting to see that the kind of recommendations resulting from the Audit Office report are very much in line with the views of the task force and the measures that need to be taken to address long-term sickness absence.

157. Ms Purvis: When do you expect that report to be completed?

158. Mr Baker: It has been drafted, so it will be completed within the next couple of weeks.

159. Ms Purvis: Can the Committee have a copy of the report?

160. Mr Baker: It can, of course.

161. Ms Purvis: I return to the issue of female sickness absence, because I am not entirely convinced by what I have heard so far. Research has been carried out in GB on the links between the high levels of female sickness absence and the links between gender, age and grade. You referred to the research that the Department carried out with regard to the focus groups, which looked at the role of women as carers and their position in society, etc. However, when I last looked at statistics, women in Great Britain still had the same status as women in Northern Ireland; they are still principal carers, and they are still in low-grade jobs. Nevertheless, the sickness-absence level for women in GB is half what it is in the Civil Service in Northern Ireland. Does that have less to do with the causes of sickness absence and more to do with how those absences are managed? It appears that the causes are similar in GB and Northern Ireland, but the sickness levels in Northern Ireland are twice as high. I argue that it has more to do with management.

162. Mr Mallon: You re quite right; the causes are very similar. However, the big difference here is that we have the same amount of people going off sick as in the rest of the United Kingdom, but here they go off sick for a long time. The problem is the long duration of illness among our females, and that is true right across illness categories. There is no obvious explanation as to why women who go off sick on pregnancy-related illnesses stay off for much longer in Northern Ireland as opposed to GB, or that when they return to work after having a child, they are more likely to be sick. There is no obvious reason to account for that.

163. Ms Purvis: The statistics show that pregnancy and post-natal illnesses account for only 16% of long-term absences. The causes should not be examined continually; we know already what they are. It is an issue of management. Given that sick absence figures in GB have reduced, what is being done differently there, and how is the situation being managed differently compared with Northern Ireland?

164. Mr Mallon: There is an obvious difference between us and GB. For example, a major cause of illness is psychiatric and psychological illness. There is no obvious reason why women in Northern Ireland are off work for much longer.

165. Ms Purvis: Perhaps it is a management issue.

166. Mr Mallon: I do not know whether it is a management issue per se, but management may be involved. Perhaps there is a role or scope for more management intervention.

167. The Chairperson: Perhaps Bruce or Derek could answer that. We have heard what NISRA has to say, so perhaps the departmental officials could say something about it.

168. Mr B Robinson: The difficult point is that the incidence does not change. Therefore, if management were a big issue, one would think also that incidences of long-term absence would be different. The Department tried to benchmark performance in Northern Ireland against that across the water, but unfortunately, it was unable to come up with a comparable benchmark in order to understand the matter better. We will understand the situation better by looking at it on a case-by-case basis and delving into it in greater detail. We plan to do that, and we accept the challenge that the report laid down when it said that we need to understand it better.

169. We can reassure the Committee that we have been looking at the matter and we want to understand it better. NISRA has done a lot of work for us on it, but we still have not got to the bottom of it.

170. Ms Purvis: My point is that some research has been done in GB, and the causes of sickness absence are known. Some research which has been done here suggests that there may be similar causes. What have Departments in GB done in order to manage sickness absence that has not been done here? The report suggests extending maternity leave. However, that will account for only 16% of the absence. Can anything else be done differently to manage absence?

171. Mr B Robinson: Nothing has come out of our analysis, but we are committed to examining the issues further. I have no doubt that the Committee will wish to return to the matter and to hear from us again.

172. Mr Baker: On that point, we have trawled through all of the best-practice guidance that has been produced in Great Britain, such as material from the National Audit Office, ministerial task forces and the Cabinet Office, and we cannot identify any approaches, interventions or policies that differ from those which we have adopted. Unfortunately, at this stage, we must conclude that it is a mystery, and the only way in which we can get behind it is to dive into individual cases and examine the reasons behind them.

173. Mr McLaughlin: I hope that it is not in the water.

174. Mr Beggs: You said that you were unable to find a comparable benchmark in GB. You also said that you were benchmarking against the Department for Regional Development (DRD), which has the best performance of the Northern Ireland Departments. Have you considered benchmarking against the private sector, which has an average of about six days’ absence, as opposed to more than twelve days in the Civil Service?

175. Mr B Robinson: We accept that the comparable figure in GB is nine and a half days, and that was our original target. That is still a perfectly valid target to aim for. We are talking about benchmarking two separate things. Incidentally, good as DRD’s performance is, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment is currently the best-performing department in Northern Ireland.

176. Mr McLaughlin: DRD is slipping.

177. Mr B Robinson: I should like to claim that I might have contributed to putting in place some of the foundations for DETI’s performance.

178. Mr Beggs: Do you aspire to the public sector matching the private-sector figure?

179. Mr B Robinson: We certainly do. There is, however, one caveat. Because the private-sector analysis is based on voluntary surveys and small samples, it is statistically not as strong as the work that we have done on the public sector. That is not to detract in any way from Mr Beggs’s key point, which is that we wish to achieve the best possible outcome.

180. Mr Baker: We have looked at private-sector policies, actions, activities and processes. Again, there does not seem to be a silver bullet that we have not already adopted. However, the levels of sickness absence are much lower in the private sector, whatever sort of statistical base we use, and we must aspire to those levels.

181. Mr Beggs: Is the difference that management policies are adopted in the private sector because firms need them to survive?

182. Mr B Robinson: The competitive position in which the private sector finds itself is bound to be an influence.

183. Mr Mallon: One thing that the Northern Ireland Civil Service has done that is different from other big employers is that it has invested heavily in gathering lots of management information and employing statisticians such as me to analyse it. When we seek comparative data elsewhere, we find that people do not have the management information systems in place or the analyses undertaken that would enable us to compare data on a like-with-like basis. It would be nice to ask what we are doing that is different from other employers. However, we have found that, despite substantial research, we have yet to meet employers who can provide us with the answers that we need in order to better understand our work. Therefore, we have invested heavily in developing good management information, which is difficult to find outside.

184. Mr Beggs: We have the information; we must apply the policies.

185. Paragraph 2.3 indicates that absence is highest in the Department for Social Development because of the higher numbers of low-paid and female staff. DFP does not have that excuse, so why is absence so high there? Looking back over several years, the absence rate for DFP has consistently averaged 12-14 days.

186. Mr B Robinson: DFP is a large Department, with almost 3,000 staff —

187. Mr Beggs: The size of the Department does not matter, because we are talking about an average.

188. Mr B Robinson: Yes, but we have one significant agency, Land and Property Services, which has a staff of almost 800. The characteristics of the agency’s work are similar to that of other major agencies in being citizen-facing and delivered at junior grades.

189. Mr Beggs: If you were running a private business that consistently had those absentee levels, would you tolerate them or take action?

190. Mr B Robinson: We have taken action.

191. Mr Beggs: Belatedly.

192. Mr B Robinson: No, not at all. DFP’s performance has improved every year for the past four years. That is not belated improvement.

193. Mr Beggs: I am referring to the figures back to 2000.

194. Mr B Robinson: The figures from 2004 onwards have improved every year for four years.

195. Mr Beggs: But from 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 — it took some time for something to happen.

196. Paragraph 2.4 and figure 4 clearly show that absence levels in Northern Ireland are much higher than in GB. Is something different happening in the private sector compared to the public sector? Are you aware of any difference in absence levels between the Northern Ireland and GB private sectors?

197. Mr B Robinson: Not particularly. The general view is that average absenteeism is about six days.

198. Mr Beggs: I welcome the fact that you accept the figure of six days. What is special about civil servants, and why should absence levels differ when someone in Northern Ireland starts to work for the public sector? Is their health worse; is the management poor; are their working conditions unacceptable; is there a bad management style that causes stress? What is wrong?

199. Mr B Robinson: We have set out a plan to improve matters. We have indicated the areas that it is crucial for us to improve. These include senior management commitment, and areas such as training and compliance. We have made that perfectly clear, and I have already said as much to the Chairman. We entirely accept that there is a challenge for all of us to remedy this matter.

200. Mr Beggs: Figure 5b makes clear that there has been an improvement in absence levels in most Departments in 2007-08, reversing the trend of the previous year. Why had all the Departments let this problem become so entrenched over many years?

201. Mr B Robinson: I cannot speak for every Department on this issue. However, we recognised in 2004-05 that it was important to improve this situation, which was, and remains, unacceptable. I made that absolutely clear. There has been a 20% improvement. Our objective was to produce a 40% improvement by now, but we have not achieved that. However, we have regained the momentum, and I believe that we will hit the targets, if not quite in the period of time that we originally set out to achieve, then certainly within a year of it.

202. Mr Beggs: I refer you now to paragraph 2.7 and figure 7. Northern Ireland civil servants are not off sick any more often than GB civil servants, but they are off for much longer periods. Is that not an obvious issue that needs to be addressed? What is the reason for that, and why have you not been getting those people back to work quicker?

203. Mr B Robinson: The work that has been done to date suggests that we need to refer people to OHS much sooner, and progress is being made in that area. People must be supported when off work through continued contact with line managers, and encouraged to come back. Part and parcel of that approach is offering people the opportunity to return under special work arrangements so that they are encouraged to come back gradually.

204. We accept entirely that there is a great deal of work for us to do on that issue. The duration and frequency of long-term sickness absence are the key problems for us. As Derek Baker said, the task force recommendations will be available in the next couple of weeks, and we will implement those recommendations as a way of producing even better results than we have achieved to date.

205. Mr Beggs: The Civil Service has a significant sickness payment scheme, as most large organisations do. Six months on full pay followed by six months on half pay is more generous than most employees in small companies in the private sector in Northern Ireland would receive. Does that have any influence on sickness levels?

206. Mr B Robinson: That is something that the task force is examining as part of its work. There is anecdotal evidence to suggest that it does have an influence. At the moment we feel that the most important intervention to make is at an even earlier stage, at the point when the individual has been off for eight or 10 days and has the potential to move into long-term absence in the first place. That is our priority.

207. Mr Baker: As you quite rightly say, the occupational sick pay arrangements in the Northern Ireland Civil Service are pretty similar to those that are in place in many public-sector organisations across the United Kingdom. One piece of analysis that we have carried out over the past few months revealed an interesting statistic, and might point to something that we can do in future. New recruits to the Civil Service serve a probationary year, which means that they under more intense scrutiny. Their sickness absence levels are typically quite low in that first year. A piece of analysis that followed cohorts through successive years showed that their sickness levels rose after two, three or four years. That is disappointing, but it suggests that we might have to introduce some kind of accrued right to occupational sick pay, rather than giving people the right to full occupational sick pay from day one. That would only affect new recruits. We have not examined the impact of reducing the overall attractiveness of the scheme.

208. Mr Beggs: What happens to people who return to work after five, six or seven months, up to at least 13 months? I would be interested to know whether management has or has not been managing the issue, or if it is the case that people are only deciding to come back to work when their sickness payments are affected. Can you provide us with figures?

209. Mr Baker: We will try to do that, of course. The issue would kick in after six months, because that is when the individual goes on to half pay. After a further six months, the individual goes on to either no pay or the pensionable rate of pay.

210. Mr Beggs: I look forward to receiving that information.

211. Mr Lunn: I am glad that someone has finally pointed towards the private sector by way of comparison. You are slightly dismissive of the figures for the private sector, at roughly six days’ absence per annum as opposed to 13·7 days in the public sector. We have all had varying degrees of experience in the private and public sectors. Do you not think that the question is about work ethic? Roy Beggs has touched on that. It is so easy, under the terms of the Northern Ireland Civil Service employment scheme, to take time off. There must be a major temptation to do just that.

212. Nobody has mentioned the phrase “swinging the lead” yet, but I am going to. I cannot quantify it, but I have looked at the figures, and there must be an element of people chancing their arm and taking time off because it is so easy to do when 53 days can pass before an individual is referred to the Occupational Health Service, and seven days can be self-certified. The average sickness absence is 13·7 days, and for half of that time one does not even need a doctor’s line. I cannot help thinking that you should be paying a bit more attention to drawing evidence and information from the bigger private-sector employers, whose data could be reliable. Do you have any thoughts about that?

213. Mr B Robinson: My reference to the private sector was not dismissive. I was suggesting that we face a substantial challenge if we are to achieve GB averages.

214. I understand your point about whether sickness is genuine. On the other hand, as I said at the beginning, 40% of our staff have had no sickness absences and 32% have had only one absence per annum. That is a significant proportion — almost three quarters — of our people, and it does not suggest a culture in which it is dead easy to take a lot of time off. Those absence patterns are perfectly normal. There is no question that we have a problem with long-term absence. However, it is not easy to extrapolate from that that it is therefore easy to take time off.

215. Mr Mallon: An additional point is that 84% of absences are certified. I would not refer to that as people swinging the lead. It is a small proportion of the workforce that gives rise to the high level of absence — 12·3% of staff account for 70% of absences. Therefore, we must focus on the small group that causes that problem.

216. Furthermore, our sick pay scheme does not seem to be the problem. The rest of the UK has the same scheme, but does not have a sickness-absence problem. Therefore, it is not the sick pay scheme per se.

217. Mr Lunn: I should like, as Mr Dallat did, to speak up for the 40% of people who never take time off. I am not being critical of the entire service, but one can conduct surveys and reviews until one is blue in the face. Until we acknowledge that people are taking time off because they need time off and not just because they are sick, the problem cannot be entirely solved. The whole regime appears to be too sympathetic and benign, and that is the difference with the private sector, in which people need their jobs.

218. Mr McLaughlin: On a different tack, as a four-term councillor, I have been concerned with general absenteeism in the public sector. Indeed, in my experience of local government, it affected quite senior management levels. People were off work for significant periods, which is something that is way beyond my experience as a working person, when one could not have survived being off work for so long. Have the relative staff numbers at senior, intermediate and basic management levels been studied — even as part of the review of public administration — and compared with other regions in Britain?

219. Could one of the explanations that we are seeking be that we are over-governed? Are there too many people in the system? On any working day, in effect, the organisation can absorb the absence of the equivalent of the entire staff of one Department. Our system has so many people that it can absorb such absence levels and, perhaps, so many managers that they get in each other’s way when it comes to dealing with the problem. Have we drawn those comparisons with other regions?

220. Mr Mallon: Our grades experience the same patterns of absence — it is lowest among people in senior grades and highest among people in junior grades, and that is consistent throughout the public sector here and in the rest of GB. As for the idea that —

221. Mr McLaughlin: What about staffing levels?

222. Mr Mallon: I do not think that the staffing levels are terribly different. I have no information to suggest that we are overstaffed, compared to Departments in GB.

223. Another issue is that when people go off sick they put their work colleagues under pressure and that can lead to a vicious cycle. We asked civil servants about the main source of pressure or stress in their work, and, universally, at all grade levels, the reply was being required to work too quickly. Work pressure features prominently in the list of causes of stress. People in the NICS are under substantial work pressure and are having to work too quickly, and that is why I suggest that it is not overstaffed. People are working under pressure, which, in some instances, has given rise to some people leaving work due to workplace stress.

224. Mr Wells: In my previous incarnation, before I was an Assembly Member, I was in charge of 28 staff, split evenly between full-time, monthly-paid, and hourly-paid staff. If the hourly-paid staff did not come in, they did not get paid. The sickness levels were 14 times higher in the monthly-paid staff than the hourly-paid staff, which was quite interesting, considering that they were doing the same job. Are there any hourly-paid or contract staff in the Civil Service with which to make a comparison, or is everyone paid monthly? It would be very interesting to see whether the sickness level is impacted by the fact that, if one does not come in to work, one does not get paid.

225. Mr Mallon: I am not quite sure about that; I would need to find out and come back to the Committee on it.

226. Mr Baker: The vast majority of Civil Service staff are classified as non-industrial staff, and are paid on a monthly basis. There are a number of industrial staff in the Civil Service, working typically in Mr Priestly’s Department and in the Department for Agriculture and Rural Development. There are about 1,500 such staff, who are paid on a weekly basis. However, they are not paid by the hour.

227. Mr Wells: It is an interesting statistic. How can someone who is paid monthly be 14 times more likely to be ill than someone who does not get paid if they do not come in to work? It strikes me that there may be more motivation to come in and work in that situation.

228. Mr Baker: I think that that is the obvious answer. It is the motivation aspect; if you do not come in, you do not get paid. I think that you have intuitively hit the nail on the head.

229. The Chairperson: Are there comparisons with agency staff as well? If they do not come in, I do not think they get paid either. Can a comparison be made between agency staff and civil servants?

230. Mr Baker: I do not have that information to hand.

231. Mr B Robinson: Are we talking about Civil Service agencies, or about staff who are employed through agencies?

232. The Chairperson: Staff who are employed by private agencies.

233. Mr Mallon: I will try to obtain that information. I do not have it readily accessible, but I will see whether it is obtainable.

234. The Chairperson: That would be great.

235. If the Committee is happy, we will move on to consider the report of the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee on industrial sickness absence in Northern Ireland in December 2004. The report made recommendations to improve the management of industrial sickness absence in DRD, and towards the end of last year this Committee requested an update on action taken to implement the actions agreed in the memorandum of response. There are some questions that we would like to put to you at this stage.

236. I refer you to Mr David Sterling’s letter, dated 23 November 2007, of which you have been given a copy. In the letter, Mr Sterling explains that, from April 2007, NI Water is no longer bound by NICS terms and conditions. That seems to suggest that, from April 2007, DRD sees itself as having no accountability for the efficiency of NI Water. Is that correct, and, if so, will you expand on that?

237. Mr Priestly: I will try to explain how the governance now works. The legal framework for the delivery of water and sewerage services was set out in a piece of legislation called the Water and Sewerage Services (Northern Ireland) Order 2006. Under that legislation, Northern Ireland Water, the new Government-owned company, was appointed, from 1 April 2007, as the sole water and sewerage undertaker for Northern Ireland. DRD no longer has responsibility for the delivery of water and sewerage services. Northern Ireland Water was set up as a limited company, wholly owned by the Government, with DRD as the 100% shareholder. Northern Ireland Water was constituted, and operates, under company law.

238. The Government’s aim in establishing the company in that way was to provide it with the commercial and operational freedom required to deliver its business, balanced by quite a robust monitoring framework. Ministers have given the board of Northern Ireland Water responsibility and accountability for the operation of the company, for delivering the objectives of the strategic business plan, and for compliance with the regulatory framework.

239. The intention behind those governance arrangements is that DRD will not interfere in the day-to-day operations and management of the business. I would not go so far as to say that that completely absolves me, as accounting officer, of responsibilities for Northern Ireland Water and how it spends public money. The company continues to receive large amounts of public subvention, running into hundreds of millions of pounds per annum. However, it does rather change the situation. I do not consider myself to be accountable for the delivery of sick-absence targets in Northern Ireland Water. That has to be a matter for the board of Northern Ireland Water and its executive directors.

240. On the other hand, I consider myself to have a responsibility as both a representative of my Minister and of the shareholder interest in Northern Ireland Water to ensure that it is delivering against its objectives. Moreover, while Northern Ireland Water is receiving significant amounts of public money, I, as accounting officer, consider it my responsibility to receive assurances from the company’s board and executive management that they are delivering value for money and spending that money properly and wisely. I hope that that helps to explain the situation.

241. The Chairperson: From the point of view of value for money, would it not be more efficient if there were more accountability from you?

242. Mr Priestly: The company has now entered an interim period, wherein it continues to receive large amounts of public money. During that period, I have taken steps to reinforce my role as the departmental accounting officer and to seek further assurances from the company that it is spending public money wisely and that it has in place proper systems of internal control and risk management.

243. I do not want to give the impression that the company has walked away from its duty to manage sickness absenteeism. The management of Northern Ireland Water has put in place proper arrangements for managing attendance, as it calls it, and that includes the setting of targets. It no longer needs to adhere to the regime that DFP has set for the Northern Ireland Civil Service. For example, it no longer distinguishes between industrial staff and non-industrial staff. It has introduced a programme called the One Programme, the aim of which is for Northern Ireland Water to be seen as one organisation. Targets have been set for attendance, and the company runs a bonus scheme that is based on the delivery of a number of key performance indicators, one of which is attendance targets. Thus, Northern Ireland Water is taking action to manage attendance; it is not as if it has completely walked away from the matter. However, I do not think that I can be held accountable for the management of sickness absenteeism within Northern Ireland Water in the same way that I can for DRD and Roads Service.

244. The Chairperson: I want to explore that point a little further. The PAC report shows that Water Service had an absence rate of 15·5 days per employee. That is one of the highest rates in the public sector. What is being done about that?

245. Mr Priestly: I should like to update the Committee on how we are performing against the targets for industrial sick absence in both Roads Service and Water Service, up to the point when it became Northern Ireland Water. In Roads Service, sickness absence has improved by 40%, from 22·5 days to 12 days, between 2001 and 2007. In Water Service, it improved by 30%, from 17·6 days to 12·3 days, between the same dates. I would be the first to say that those figures are still disappointingly and unacceptably high. Nevertheless, they show that considerable improvements have been made.

246. As I said, Northern Ireland Water set a key performance indicator, which is to achieve attendance levels of 95·7% by March this year. The performance is currently being validated, so I cannot tell you what it is.

247. Attendance in the company is monitored monthly by the executive team and heads of functions. Northern Ireland Water has adopted the same sickness-absence policies and procedures as the Department. Therefore, it has not walked away from the matter. It has, however, begun recently to develop its own attendance policy, and it is currently consulting its trade union side on that.

248. In autumn 2007, Northern Ireland Water launched its health and well-being strategy, which sets out the assistance programmes that are available to all staff when they are at work and which helps those who are off work with illness to return. Therefore, it has adopted the same approach as the Department of setting targets and balancing that with support for staff who are at work and for those who want to get back to work after illness. Its HR unit and line managers maintain contact with staff who are off work on sick absence. Line managers meet their staff to discuss how they might be able to facilitate their return to work through reasonable adjustments in the workplace if appropriate.

249. I mentioned that in June 2007, the company launched its corporate bonus scheme for staff. The achievement of that bonus depends partly on the achievement of the key performance indicator on sickness absence. I also mentioned that it has removed the distinction between industrial staff and non-industrial staff because it wants to be seen as one organisation.

250. The Chairperson: Thank you. The PAC’s third conclusion states that DRD decided not to set any reduction targets for retirements that are due to ill health. However, the Comptroller and Auditor General tells us that medical retirements are still three times higher than the GB average and cost DRD around £1·4 million each year. How do you justify the high rate of medical retirements?

251. Mr Priestly: I assure the Committee that we are currently examining the use of inefficiency procedures as well as medical retirement as a means of managing people out of both Roads Service and Water Service. The Occupational Health Service gives us professional medical advice and opinion on medical retirements. We are not in a position to second-guess that advice and opinion when it declares that an individual should be offered medical retirement. We have a responsibility to accept that and to try to facilitate it.

252. The Chairperson: The matter must be taken seriously, because it costs the Department £1·4 million a year. It is, obviously, hard to distinguish exactly when it goes wrong and people are medically retired as a result. Is research being done on that? Can any other details be brought to the table? The issue must be examined seriously.

253. Mr Priestly: Can you give me the reference to the £1·4 million that you mentioned?

254. The Chairperson: That is what it costs DRD every year for people who have retired due to ill health. We can get those details. The Comptroller and Auditor General provides that figure in his report.

255. Mr John Dowdall CB (Comptroller and Auditor General): The basis of that figure is information that has been provided by the permanent secretaries. It is the figure at which we arrived and that we included in the brief. However, if, for the purposes of your response, Mr Priestly, you consider it broadly correct in order of magnitude, we will show you the basis of the calculation.

256. Mr Priestly: I recognise the figure of £1·4 million as the cost of sickness absenteeism in the entire Department during 2006-07. I do not believe that it is the cost of medical retirements, although I may be mistaken.

257. The Chairperson: That can be investigated. Obviously, we can all do the necessary research.

258. Mr Dowdall CB: Better still is to follow that up with correspondence, Chairman. We will write and explain the figure, and Mr Priestly can provide a written response to the question.

259. The Chairperson: We may have to return to that matter at a later date.

Appendix 3

Correspondence

Chairperson’s letter of 30 May 2008
to Mr Bruce Robinson

Public Accounts Committee
Parliament Buildings
Room 371
Stormont Estate
BELFAST
BT4 3XX

Tel: (028) 9052 1208
Fax: (028) 9052 0366
Email: jim.beatty@niassembly.gov.uk

Date: 30 May 2008

Mr Bruce Robinson
Accounting Officer
Department of Finance and Personnel
Room S5
Rathgael House
Balloo Road
Bangor
BT19 7NA

Dear Bruce

Re: Public Accounts Committee Evidence Session 29 May 2008

Further to the evidence session at the Public Accounts Committee yesterday, please provide the following additional information which members requested at the meeting:

1. Please forward a copy of the action plans detailing how departments intend to achieve their absence reduction targets, and indicate which of the issues are still to be completed.

2. You agreed to provide a copy of the Annual Report due to be published in September 2008, to the Public Accounts Committee and also to the Finance and Personnel Committee.

3. The Committee asked for the current average number of days before staff on sick leave are referred to Occupational Health Service.

4. Please provide a copy of the Taskforce report.

5. The Committee wishes to have details of the numbers of staff on sick leave returning to work after 5 months, after 6 months, after 7 months, etc, up to a return to work after 13 months’ sick leave.

6. Please provide a comparison of the sickness absence of staff employed through recruitment agencies with the permanent staff in NICS.

7. The Committee has asked for the updated figures spent on consultancy by departments for the year 2007-08.

I would be grateful if we could have your response by Friday, 13 June 2008.

Yours sincerely

Paul Maskey

Chairperson

Public Accounts Committee

Correspondence of 16 June 2008 from
Mr Bruce Robinson

FROM THE PERMANENT SECRETARY
Bruce Robinson

Rathgael House
Balloo Road
BANGOR, BT19 7NA

Tel No: 028 9185 8001
Fax No: 028 9185 8184
E-mail: bruce.robinson@dfpni.gov.uk

Mr Paul Maskey MLA
Chairperson
Public Accounts Committee
Room 371
Parliament Buildings
BELFAST
BT4 3XX

16 June 2008

Public Accounts Committee Evidence Session 29 May 2008

Thank you for your letter of 30 May 2008, which helpfully sets out the additional information requested by members. I will address the issues raised in the order set out in your letter.

I have attached at Appendix 1 a copy of the consolidated Action Plan, which I touched upon on a couple of occasions during the evidence session. This is an important document and places specific responsibility on all Northern Ireland Departments to address each of the actions listed. Importantly, my Department will be closely monitoring the progress of implementation across Departments on a quarterly basis and any areas of concern will be highlighted as required. The Action Plan was issued to Permanent Secretaries in March and it will therefore be the end of July before the first round of monitoring is complete.

I will ensure that the PAC will receive a copy of the 2007/2008 Annual Report on Sickness Absence produced by the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA). I would expect this report to be published around September 2008. I will also ensure that the report is copied to the Finance and Personnel Committee, as was the case last year.

Details on the number of days before staff on sick absence are referred to the Occupational Health Service is attached at Appendix 2.

The Taskforce report is still subject to some final internal consideration. We are currently assessing the recommendations emerging from the NIAO report and how these might impact on the work of the Taskforce and its report. I will ensure that the report is copied to you as early as possible.

Details of the number of staff returning to work after a period of sickness absence (5 months, 6 months and up to 13 months) are set out in the table at Appendix 3.

The NICS currently has no information on the comparisons between those employed through recruitment agencies and permanent NICS staff. Recruitment agency staff are not employees of the NICS and their personnel records, including sickness records, are maintained and managed by the employing recruitment agency.

I understand that it has been agreed with the Clerk that the response on consultancy expenditure in 2007/08 will follow separately from David Thomson.

I hope you find this helpful.

Yours sincerely

Bruce Robinson

Appendix 1

Sickness Absence in The Northern Ireland Civil Service
Consolidated NICS Action Plan (March 2008)

1. Top Management Commitment

• Permanent Secretaries and Agency Chief Executives to receive monthly reports from Personnel Directors on sickness absence levels within their respective departments/agencies.
• Managing attendance to be a standing item at Departmental/Agency Board meetings.
• Permanent Secretaries to provide quarterly updates to their respective Ministers on performance against targets.
• Central Personnel Group (CPG) to brief the DFP Minister on the performance of the NICS on a quarterly basis.
• Managing attendance to be considered on a quarterly basis by the Permanent Secretaries Group (PSG).
• Managing attendance to be a standing item on Personnel Directors Group (PDG) and Establishment Officers Meetings (EOM) agendas.
• Performance on managing attendance to feature in departments’/agencies’ corporate governance arrangements and corporate/business plans.
• CPG to ensure that an annual report is submitted to the Executive on NICS progress against sickness absence targets.

2. Roles and Responsibilities

• Departments/Agencies to consider and clearly define, in accordance with their business needs, the respective roles and responsibilities of their line managers and HR Divisions in managing sickness absence.
• HR Divisions to work in close partnership with line managers in managing sickness absence.
• Departments/Agencies to ensure that line managers are empowered to deal with day to day managing attendance issues within their level of competence.
• HR Divisions to be responsible for monitoring sickness absence across departments/agencies. HR Divisions will consult with line managers when a trigger point has been reached with a view to agreeing the approach to be taken. Where there is a difference of opinion, HR Divisions will have the authority to make the final decision.
• HR Divisions to retain responsibility for Occupational Health Service referrals, issuing written warnings and dismissal procedures.
• CPG to review and ensure the provision of training on managing sickness absence in preparation for the further roll-out of HRConnect services.

3. Training and Awareness

• Departments/Agencies to ensure that all staff are aware of their responsibilities in relation to managing attendance.
• Departments/Agencies to ensure that all line managers receive a level of training on managing attendance procedures, commensurate with their experience, grade and discipline.
• Departments/Agencies to raise the awareness of staff on managing attendance issues through regular communication of information, covering such issues as procedures, performance, good practice and statistics on warnings, dismissal and medical retirements.

4. Performance Management

• Departments/Agencies to ensure that all line managers have their managing attendance responsibilities written into their personal performance agreements.

5. Case Management

• Departments/Agencies to adopt a case management approach to the management of long term sickness cases and ensure the robust application of managing attendance procedures, including inefficiency.
• Departments/Agencies formally to review all sickness absence cases extending beyond six months and to focus on preventing short term absences from become long term by taking timely and appropriate action.
• Departments/Agencies to ensure immediate referral of cases involving psychiatric/psychological illnesses, including stress, to the Occupational Health Service.
• Departments/Agencies to ensure that adequate support measures are in place for those on long term sickness absence and that early interventions from, for example, the Welfare Service or the Employee Assistance Programme are provided.

6. Local Strategies

• Departments/Agencies to analyse patterns of sickness absence within their organisations with a view to highlighting any trends or “hotspots” requiring particular attention.
• Departments/Agencies to use information generated by Staff Attitude Surveys and Workplace Health Surveys to identify the need for specific actions to address workplace health issues.
• Where particular problems are highlighted, departments/agencies to consider environmental factors which may require a focus on management practices and the application of specific measures such as, for example, the Health & Safety Executive Stress Management Standards.
• Departments/Agencies to consider job design techniques, where appropriate, to improve job interest and involvement.

7. Workplace Health

• Departments/Agencies to continue to promote and encourage work/life balance policies.
• Departments/Agencies to promote the health of their staff through, for example, the NICS Workplace Health Improvement Programme, the NICS Sports Association’s Healthworks Programme and the OHS Lifestyle and Physical Activity Assessment Programme.
• Departments/Agencies to implement the NICS Dignity at Work policy to minimise sickness absence arising from bullying or harassment cases.
• Departments/Agencies to implement rigorous health and safety policies for assessing risks, recording and reporting injuries and dealing with accidents at work, and take any necessary preventative measures.

8. Compliance

• Departments/Agencies to put in place arrangements, for example using Internal Audit, to ensure compliance with managing attendance procedures.
• Departments/Agencies to consider using stewardship statements to obtain assurance of compliance with managing attendance procedures.
• Departments/Agencies to report performance against targets in Annual Reports and Accounts.
• NICS Taskforce on Long Term Sickness Absence, chaired by CPG, to assume the role of monitoring Departments’/Agencies’ compliance with corporate NICS policies and Action Plans.

9. Policy Development and Evaluation

• CPG to review arrangements for Occupational Maternity Leave.
• CPG to review arrangements for Occupational Sick Pay.
• CPG to consider, in the context of the work of the NICS Taskforce on Long Term Sickness Absence, the wider application of pilot initiatives to address long term sickness absence in such areas of physiotherapy and maternity related illnesses.
• CPG to work with DHSSPS and OHS to consider the scope for closer collaboration with health professionals in assessing the fitness of staff for work.
• CPG to review OHS processes to ensure that they meet departments’/agencies’ business needs.
• CPG to review NICS inefficiency procedures.
• CPG, in conjunction with NISRA and Departments/Agencies, to put in place measures to evaluate the effectiveness of all new measures before implementation.

Appendix 2

Referrals to the Occupational Health Service
1 April 2007 – 31 March 2008

Department / Agency	Average Number of Days for referral
CSA	29
DARD	34
DCAL	32
DE	46
DEL	38
DETI	22
DFP	28
DHSSPS	29
DOE	20
DRD	20
SSA (inc DSD core)	33
OFMDFM	40
Overall NICS Average	31

Appendix 3

Return to Work Analysis 2006/2007

Table 1: 11 NI Departments Overall -
Number of Staff Returning to Work by Duration of Absence

	Number of Staff Returning from Sickness Absence
After 5 months and up to 6 months	240
After 6 months and up to 7 months	156
After 7 months and up to 8 months	146
After 8 months and up to 9 months	135
After 9 months and up to 10 months	112
After 10 months and up to 11 months	106
After 11 months and up to 12 months	64
After 12 months and up to 13 months	84

Clerk’s letter of 30 May 2008
to Mr Paul Priestley

Public Accounts Committee
Parliament Buildings
Room 371
Stormont Estate
BELFAST
BT4 3XX

Tel: (028) 9052 1208
Fax: (028) 9052 0366
Email: jim.beatty@niassembly.gov.uk

Date: 30 May 2008

Mr Paul Priestly
Accounting Officer
Department for Regional Development
Clarence Court
10-18 Adelaide Street
Belfast
BT2 8GB

Dear Paul

Re: Memorandum of Response: The Management of Industrial Sickness Absence

During yesterday’s further evidence session on the above MoR, the figure of £1.4m was raised in relation to the costs of medical retirements. You were unable to identify the source of this figure but agreed to correspond with the NIAO.

It would be appreciated if you inform me of the outcome of the correspondence and whether this figure has been agreed or amended.

Yours sincerely

Jim Beatty

Clerk to the Public Accounts Committee

Correspondence of 12 June 2008
from Mr Paul Priestley

 

 

 

Appendix 4

List of Witnesses Who Gave Oral Evidence to the Committee

1. Mr Bruce Robinson, Accounting Officer, Department of Finance and Personnel.

2. Mr Paul Priestley, Accounting Officer, Department for Regional Development.

3. Mr Derek Baker, Director of Personnel in the NICS, Department of Finance and Personnel.

4. Mr John Mallon, Head of Human Resources Consultancy Division in Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency, Department of Finance and Personnel.

5. Mr David Thomson, Treasury Officer of Accounts, Department of Finance and Personnel.

6. Mr John Dowdall CB, Comptroller and Auditor General, Northern Ireland Audit Office.