1 Sickness absence has declined but remains
high
1. Following the Committee's earlier examination
of the management of sickness absence in the Prison Service in
1999, the Prison Service undertook to tackle the culture of absenteeism
and reduce its average sickness absence rate from around 15.9
days in 1997-98 to 9 days by 2002-03. By 2003-04, sickness absenteeism
had fallen to 13.3 days, and for the first two months of 2004-05,
to 12.5 days. The Prison Service recognised that its target of
9 days was overly optimistic. Sickness absence had declined over
the past five years but there was still some way to go to achieve
the nine days target, which was unlikely to be attained in the
foreseeable future.[3]
2. Ten prisons each lost an average of 20 or more
days sickness absence per member of staff per year in 2002-03.
Liverpool and Hindley had average rates in excess of 20 days at
April 2004 (Figure 1), together with Haslar, which had
previously reported average sickness absence of less than 20 days.
Sickness absence at the other eight establishments with sickness
absence rates in excess of 20 days in 2002-03 had reduced, in
part due to the redeployment by the Prison Service of some of
its better Governors to manage establishments struggling with
the highest levels of sickness absence.[4]
Figure 1:
Three establishments had average rates of sickness absence in
excess of twenty staff days per staff member as at April 20041
| Prison2
| April 04
|
| Haslar
| 24.44
|
| Liverpool
| 22.20
|
| Hindley
| 21.46
|
| Brixton
| 19.60 |
| Holloway
| 15.39 |
| Edmunds Hill
| 15.27 |
| Eastwood Park
| 13.19 |
| Onley |
12.67 |
| Risley |
11.81 |
| Kingston
| 10.71 |
| Rochester
| 7.90 |
Notes:
1. The sickness absence rate for the month of April
was multiplied by 12 to give an annual rate.
2. Of the eleven establishments shown in this table,
all except Haslar reported average sickness absences of 20 days
per person in 2003 (C&AG's Report, Figure 12 and footnote
18).
Source: Prison Service data (Ev 15)
3. Around one third of Prison Service staff took
no sick leave in 2003-04 (Figure 2), a further third took
up to 5 days sick leave and the remaining third took more than
5 days. The Prison Service said that 3,020 current staff members
had exceeded the period for sick pay at full salary, having had
more than 6 months sickness absence in the past four years. Overall,
2,700 of the Prison Service's 45,400 staff accounted for half
of all sickness absence taken in 2003-04.[5]
Figure 2:
Around 13% of prison staff took more than 20 days sick leave during
2003-04
Source: Prison Service data (Ev 18)
4. The Prison Service will need to deal with cases
of longer term sickness and recurring absenteeism if it is to
achieve further reductions in the number of working days lost
through sickness. These cases can be complex, time consuming and
resource intensive to manage as they may arise from the demands
of a stressful and physically demanding job. Some cases had been
resolved by phasing the employee's return to normal duties. The
Prison Service had implemented the Committee's previous recommendation,
albeit belatedly, to manage more rigorously those whose attendance
record was poor, including using dismissal rather than offering
medical retirement.[6]
5. Terminating an individual's contract on the grounds
of medical inefficiency was quicker than seeking a medical retirement
and was also more cost effective. There were however significant
costs attached to terminating contracts which attracted average
compensation payments to staff of around £17,000 in recognition
of their illness and for the loss of their career. Compensation
of up to two years' salary might be payable for staff with long
service, although the rate could be reduced where there had been
negligence or non co-operation by the employee with medical treatment
and rehabilitation (Figure 3). The Prison Service had calculated
that dismissal had saved £22 million in pensions, but at
a cost to the Prison Service of £5 million. In all, the Prison
Service dismissed 294 people on long term sick leave in 2003-04
for medical inefficiency.[7]Figure
3: Dismissals for medical inefficiency increased in 2003-04
| Dismissals on grounds of medical inefficiency
| 2001-02
| 2002-03
| 2003-04
|
| Without compensation
| 51 |
58 | 91
|
| With compensation
| 100 |
141 | 203
|
| Total
| 151
| 199
| 294
|
Source: Prison Service data (Ev 18)
6. The tighter regime introduced by the Prison Service
had resulted in its sickness absence rates moving closer to those
for the Scottish and Irish Prison Services and private prisons.
The average rate[8] in
the Scottish Prison Service for 2002-03 was the equivalent of
12.9 working days and in the Irish Prison Service 14.5 working
days, compared to 12.5 days per employee in privately managed
prisons. The Prison Service's own rates continued to be higher,
in part because of the different age profiles of staff in the
Prison Service and private prisons, and differences in entitlement
to paid sick leave, in particular that some private prisons do
not pay staff for their first 3 days' sick leave. The Prison
Service was considering possible changes to its regulations covering
terms and conditions of service. It was also considering the scope
to improve its assessment of potential employees' suitability
for employment, based upon the applicant's previous employment
history. The Prison Service recognised, however, that any major
changes to its sick leave entitlement policies would be controversial.[9]
3 Qq 4-5, 83-84 Back
4
Q 12 Back
5
Q 47; Ev 18 Back
6
Q 41 Back
7
Qq 62-63; Ev 18 Back
8
The rate for England and Wales is based on working days lost,
whereas the Prison Service in Ireland and Scotland records calendar
days. To obtain an approximate measure on a comparable basis,
the rates for the Irish and Scottish Prison Services were divided
by 7 and multiplied by 5 to provide an approximate measure on
a comparable basis. Back
9
Q 2 Back
| 
