2 The reasons for high levels of sickness
absence
6. The C&AG's Report examined procedures for
the management of sickness absence in both Water Service and Roads
Service and found that while these complied for the most part
with best practice, they were not applied effectively.[11]
Since the C&AG's Report, both Agencies have taken action to
apply the procedures more rigorously. This has resulted in measurable
reductions in absence and would strongly suggest that the failure
of management to apply procedures has been the major cause of
high levels of absence.[12]
7. The Accounting Officer suggested that the workforce
in Northern Ireland is less healthy than in other parts of the
United Kingdom and that this is a factor in higher levels of absence.
We are not convinced by this argument and there appear to be conflicting
statistics available. However, even if this were the case, it
would not explain the extent of the difference between Northern
Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom.[13]
Similarly, it would appear that the security situation in Northern
Ireland has not contributed significantly to sickness absence
in Roads Service and Water Service.[14]
8. In the absence of any convincing mitigating factors
we would conclude that the high levels of sickness absence in
these organisations are attributable simply to a failure to manage
the problem. Clearly if procedures had been properly applied from
the start, or if senior management had acted earlier to address
the problem, high levels of absence could have been avoided.[15]
It is also likely that this lack of management action over a long
period has created a perception within the workforce, that the
abuse of sickness absence provision is acceptable and may have
created a culture of absenteeism which will be difficult to reverse.[16]
9. The Department had implemented all 26 of the C&AG's
recommendations between publication of his report and appearing
before this Committee.[17]
We welcome this positive response. However, we are concerned that
there was no effective internal mechanism to generate action in
this area and we are left with the impression that had the C&AG
not reported, no action would have been taken.[18]
We note the Accounting Officer's assurance that some work was
going on to address the problem of absence prior to the publication
of the C&AG's Report, but we would state clearly that it is
not good enough for departments to take action to protect value
for money only when they become the subject of an investigation
by the C&AG. Accounting Officers have a responsibility to
ensure the efficient and effective use of resources under their
control and should assure themselves that systems and procedures
put in place to achieve this are working effectively.
10. In this case, good policies and procedures were
in place, but all levels of management from the top down had ignored
them. This is very worrying and in an organisation where established
policies and procedures can be ignored to this degree in one area,
there may be equally serious problems in other areas of management.
Our concerns on this point were not lessened by the fact that
the Accounting Officer could give no explanation for the widespread
failure to apply procedures and had not considered the possibility
of a wider systemic failure or a cultural problem within the management
system.[19] We recommend
therefore, that DRD, Roads Service and Water Service review the
operation of polices and procedures in other key areas of management
to assure themselves that these are being fully and effectively
applied.
11 C&AG's Report, paras 3.8, 4.1, 4.32; Q 3 Back
12
Qq 15-16, 26-28, 143-145; Ev 16 Back
13
Qq 3-4, 8-9, 71; Ev 16 Back
14
Qq 37-39 Back
15
Qq 63-67 Back
16
Qq 40-43, 77-78, 81-83 Back
17
Ev 16 Back
18
Qq 15, 35-36, 76 Back
19
Qq 124-129 Back
|
