THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY FOR
WALES
AUDIT COMMITTEE
Report (2) 05-05 presented to the National Assembly for Wales on Wednesday 2 November 2005 in accordance with section 102(1) of the Government of Wales Act 1998
The management of sickness absence by
further education institutions in Wales
Contents Paragraphs
Summary and recommendations
The level and cost of sickness absence 1 – 6
Management procedures in place to tackle sickness absence
• Management information 7 – 10
• Senior support and staff awareness 11 – 14
• Policies and procedures 15 – 20
• Role of the National Council 21 – 22
ANNEXES
Annex A – Relevant proceedings of the Committee – Minutes of evidence (Thursday 19 May 2005)
1
-Summary
Its staff are the further education sector’s key asset. The function of further education institutions is to educate learners, and this is largely achieved through its teaching staff. The 25 institutions in Wales employ over 15,000 people, more than half on a part-time basis. In the academic year 2003-04, total salary costs were nearly £238 million, 67 per cent of total institution expenditure. Against this background, it is essential that staff are fit and able to undertake their duties at work; staff absence can have an immediate detrimental effect on the student learning. The need to minimise staff sickness absence across the whole of the Welsh public sector also figured in the Assembly Government’s Making the Connections proposals in October 2004.
On the basis of a report by the Auditor General for Wales1, we took evidence from representatives of the ELWa – the National Council for Education and Training for Wales (the Council), and from two further education institutions: Pembrokeshire College and Coleg Morgannwg. This report examines levels of sickness absence and the associated cost in the further education sector, and the management procedures in place in institutions to address the issue. We conclude that:
a. levels of absence vary across the sector but generally compare favourably with other areas of the public sector, although the data in the further education sector is not robust;
b. nonetheless, while the quality of management practices also varies, there is widespread scope for further improvements at all levels, from the priority accorded to the issue throughout organisations to the particular procedures in place on the ground; and
c. there is scope for the Council to do more to facilitate the dissemination of best practice, as it is planning to do.
Levels of absence generally compare favourably
Across the sector, the average level of sickness absence in the academic year 2002-03 was 8.9 days for each full-time equivalent member of staff. This is about the same as teachers in maintained schools in Wales and lower than a range of other public sector comparators, although it is higher than the private sector. Absence levels within the sector ranged from 4.8 days to 16 days. Based on the experiences of the two institutions from which we took evidence, factors affecting levels of absence included the degree to which a culture of proactive sickness absence management had been embedded in the organisation as well as the environment where it was based – although the latter is more tenuous.
1
The management of sickness absence in further education institutions in Wales, presented by the Auditor General for Wales (AGW) to the National Assembly on 13 May 2005
2
-Stress is becoming an increasingly large contributor to absence. It is difficult to determine to what extent stress is caused by work as opposed to other factors, such as domestic problems. And it is equally difficult to link what does take place at work to incidents of stress: a workload which might contribute to stress for one employee might be an enjoyable challenge for another. While every case of stress is likely to be different and needs to be managed on its merits, this is an area where the Council could take the lead in facilitating the dissemination of best practice.
The absence of teaching staff, particularly where they cannot be replaced at short notice, has a direct impact on students’ ability to learn. And purely in financial costs of sickness absence, even where levels are not excessive, can be considerable. The value of staff time lost to sickness absence across the sector was some £8 million, with more money going on replacement cover for absent staff and the provision of occupational health services.
Management practices need to be improved
The effective management of sickness absence requires a range of factors to be in place: the availability of robust, up to date data that permits analysis; visible commitment to tackling the issue from governing bodies and senior management teams; sufficient awareness of the issue among all staff, but particularly among line managers who have had the training necessary to fulfil their responsibilities; and sound procedures for addressing sickness absence, that are complied with. Although it is not always
straightforward to generalise across 25 different institutions, most institutions need to improve across most of these areas. In particular:
a. Institutions in Wales are hampered by the different ways they measure levels of absence, which makes it impossible for them to compare their performance with each other. We also have reservations about the accuracy of some of the figures that institutions were reporting. And the analysis of trends in absence is an area where even the better-performing institutions could improve.
b. The management of sickness absence needs to be done with sensitivity in all cases, and appropriate forcefulness in some. Line managers, those closest to the issue, are best placed to take the lead in managing sickness absence, with appropriate guidance and support from the human resources staff. In too many institutions, however, sickness absence management is left to the central human resources function.
c. There are weaknesses in many of the policies and procedures in place in institutions. What is more worrying is the very low level of compliance with some of the most important and basic procedures, such as proper certificates of absence and conducting return to work interviews. Many institutions also experience difficulties in finding a suitable occupational health provider.
3
-We recognise that the Council does not directly oversee the operations of institutions, which are autonomous bodies. We welcome the range of action that it is now taking to promote the better
management of sickness absence by institutions, as previously it had done little in this regard. The Council is particularly well-placed to facilitate the dissemination of best practice.
Recommendations
1. It is not possible to manage sickness absence in the absence of the necessary information. Since 11 of the 25 institutions do not routinely measure absence levels, it seems likely to us that the relatively good performance of the sector is a matter of luck, rather than design. We
recommend that each institution measure sickness absence, using the same definition to facilitate benchmarking.
2. The role of boards of governors is strategic leadership. But where sickness absence is a real problem in an institution – where it is clearly affecting its core business – these matters should be raised at the level of the board of governors. In order to ensure that sickness absence
management retains a sufficiently high profile, we recommend that boards of governors – or an appropriate sub-committee - should receive at least yearly reports on the levels of sickness absence and the costs. We also recommend that senior management teams, whose function is more
operational, receive at least quarterly reports.
3. Stress has become a significant factor in sickness absence, contributing a considerable
proportion of cases of long term absence. In many cases, it is difficult to determine the precise cause of stress and whether it is work-related. Since this issue affects most institutions but can be very complex, we recommend that the Council, along with Fforwm, should disseminate best practice on how to collect the necessary data on absence through stress and how to manage it.
4. While there is the risk that setting targets for reducing sickness absence may lead to perverse incentives, there is merit in their application, not least as a way of signalling the importance attached to the issue. There is no reason why institutions should not set themselves targets for carrying out the basic procedures properly, such as obtaining self- and medical certificates for absence, and for conducting return to work interviews, as this has been an area of weakness. When institutions have a reliable and robust set of sickness absence data in place, and when they consider that better management would effect a reduction in absence levels, we recommend that they should set targets for reducing sickness absence. We also recommend that institutions set themselves targets for complying with their own procedures if that is an area where they need to improve
performance.
5. More sophisticated – and hence more effective – management of sickness absence requires good management information on trends. The analysis of patterns of absence on certain days
4
-of the week, the causes -of absence and length -of absence is critical in determining where policy initiatives and management action should be directed. We recommend that institutions develop the necessary information systems to capture the necessary data and carry out the detailed analysis that will enable fully-informed decisions to be taken in managing sickness absence.
6. Sickness absence cases can be difficult and sensitive to handle, and potentially a legal
minefield. But these factors should not be used to absolve line managers from responsibility for managing the sickness absence of their staff, as they are closest to the issue and therefore best placed to resolve it. We therefore recommend that line managers take on responsibility for managing sickness absence and receive the necessary specialist training to enable them to do this confidently, consistently and sensitively.
7. The role of occupational health is essential in managing sickness absence, not only in facilitating return to work but also potentially in other ways, such as putting preventative measures in place. In light of the dissatisfaction expressed by a number of institutions on the quality of the service received, we recommend that the Council take the lead in addressing this issue by bringing institutions together and formulating an action plan for improvement, including the possibility of institutions sharing suppliers.
5
-The management of sickness absence by further education
institutions in Wales
Levels and cost of sickness absence
1. Based on figures reported to the Wales Audit Office by the 22 institutions which were able to do so, average sickness absence in the academic year 2002-03 was 8.9 working days per full-time
equivalent member of staff. This is equivalent to some 370 staff.2 Mrs Raikes, Chief Executive of the Council reported to us that the equivalent figure for the following year, 2003-04, was very similar, at 9.2 days. This level of absence is about the same as the best available comparator, teachers in maintained schools in Wales, and compares favourably with other areas of the public sector, in both Wales and the UK – see Figure 1.
Figure 1: Sickness absence levels in the UK
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 NHS in Wales Local Government in Wales National Assembly for Wales
UK Civil Service Teaching in LEA maintained schools in Wales Further Education Institutions in Wales UK private sector Sector A v er ag e n u m b e r o f w o rk in g d ays l o st p e r ft e
Source: AGW report, Figure 3
2. We retain some concerns, however, at the quality of the underlying data. For example, although data on sickness absence should be relatively straightforward to generate, the Auditor General reported that data from earlier years was extremely limited and of insufficient quality to make comparisons.3 And although both Pembrokeshire College and Coleg Morgannwg were confident about the capacity of their own systems to record all absence, the Auditor General found that an unquantifiable amount
2
AGW report, paragraph 1.7 3 AGW report, paragraph 1.7
6
-of absence remained unrecorded. Indeed, Mrs Raikes acknowledged that under-recording was also probably in issue within the Council.
3. In the context of difficulties with the data, we were surprised to hear Mr Knight, the Principal of Coleg Morgannwg, tell us that the level of sickness absence at his institution was not the 16 days reported by the Auditor General, but 11.7 days. He explained that this was owing to confusion about methodology and had come to light in the seven days since he had received the report. We have since received a letter from the Auditor General which sets out what happened.4 The precise level of absence at one institution does not affect the thrust of our investigation, and we agree with the Auditor General's conclusion that this discrepancy is symptomatic of the problems that can arise with multiple possible definitions of sickness absence, and where information systems are weak. We return to the general issue of data on sickness absence later in this report.
4. Despite the uncertainty surrounding the figure for Coleg Morgannwg, there was a fair degree of variation in absence levels within the sector, from 4.8 days at Deeside College to Coleg Morgannwg itself5. Some variation is inevitable, of course: staff sickness, by its nature, is unpredictable and likely to vary. The two institutions that gave evidence to us suggested that, in addition to the establishment of sound policies and procedures, other factors that affected their levels of absence were:
a. the extent to which a culture of managing absence had been embedded in their organisations. This had largely been achieved at Pembrokeshire College, which had a relatively low level of absence (6.6 days), whereas Coleg Morgannwg had only started on the process on Mr Knight’s arrival as Principal in 2001. As the witnesses pointed out, changing culture is not something that can be achieved overnight; and
b. the institution’s environment. Pembrokeshire College was reported as being situated in a very pleasant environment, while Coleg Morgannwg may be affected by some of the well-known socio-economic problems faced by the Rhondda Cynon Taf area. However, we agree with Mr Knight’s view that this presents a challenge for the organisation, not an excuse.
5. Both institutions highlighted stress as an increasingly significant factor in absence. At Coleg Morgannwg in particular, in 2003-04 there had been 21 cases of long-term absence owing to stress, 18 of which could have been related to work. Mr Knight confirmed that there were no specific factors at his college which might lead to higher levels of work-related stress than elsewhere. This is a difficult area; we agree with the points made by witnesses, that it is not simply a matter of
excessive workload and that developing sensible staff procedures that recognise the need for
appropriate work-life balance can only help. However, we also welcome the assurance given by Mr
4
7
-Thomas from the Council that stress was definitely something that the Council, in conjunction with the colleges’ representative organisation, Fforwm, would need to look at with a view to supporting institutions tackle it.
6. The costs of sickness absence – even where they compare favourably – are substantial. Mrs Raikes rightly drew attention to the potential impact that absent teachers have on learners. This is clearly very difficult to quantify, although Mr Jones referred to student questionnaires which always point to the key relationship for students being the teacher in the classroom. However, Mrs Raikes also acknowledged that the financial cost of absence was directly linked to the impact on the learner. The total value of staff time lost to sickness absence in 2002-03 was around £8 million, with the cost of replacement staff around £1.5 million. In addition, institutions incur costs on occupational health services and administering absence.6 And Mrs Raikes made the point that, in the long term, one of the biggest costs of prolonged sickness absence arose through early retirements. The potential benefits from reducing absence are therefore considerable.
Management procedures in place to address sickness absence
Management information
7. As with other areas of organisational activity, it is not possible to manage sickness absence effectively without good quality management information. This is an area where the further education sector needs to improve. The Auditor General reported that only 14 of the 25 institutions routinely measure the level of sickness absence, and that they did so using a variety of definitions. It is only due to the work of his staff in recalculating their figures for absence on a common basis that institutions were able to compare themselves with their peers.7 As Mr Knight observed, without this ability to benchmark, he had no way of knowing whether the levels of absence in his college were good or bad.
8. All witnesses agreed that an essential element in improving sickness absence management across the sector was the availability of consistent information – Mr Thomas described as the Council’s “first priority”. We therefore welcome the steps that the Council and Fforwm intend to take on this. We also suggest that the drive for consistency should be extended throughout the whole of the Welsh public sector; this is a matter which might usefully be considered by those involved in taking forward the Assembly Government’s Making the Connections initiative.
9. The Auditor General made the point that very few institutions set themselves targets for levels of sickness absence – although this is partly owing to the widespread lack of data.8 Witnesses
5 AGW report, paragraph 1.10 and Figure 4
6
AGW report, paragraphs 1.11 – 1.13 7
AGW report, paragraphs 1.6 – 1.7
8
-expressed caution about the crude use of targets in this area: they could lead to perverse incentives and, given that absence will never reduce to zero, it is not clear what does constitute an acceptable level. These are sensible points but we are of the view that there is a place for targets to be used with sensitivity, particularly as a tool for raising the priority accorded to sickness absence in institutions. 10. The Auditor General also reported that analysis of trends in sickness absence – over time, by days of
the week, cause and length of absence etc. – were an essential means of ensuring that management activity was targeted properly, but that this was relatively undeveloped at institutions. His report offered a striking example of the benefits of this: one day absences on a Monday were found to account for 31 per cent of all such absences; and Mrs Raikes provided an example from within the Council.9 Although their two institutions were at different stages in terms of developing their management of sickness absence, both Mr Jones and Mr Knight agreed that analysis of this sort was critical. Indeed, they both referred to it in describing the highest priority issues that they needed to address. We agree.
Senior support for managing sickness absence
11. We have already referred to the importance of establishing an appropriate culture within institutions for tackling sickness absence. This will only happen if it is driven from the top. The Auditor General reported that sickness absence did not always command a high profile with institutions’ boards of governors and senior management teams.10 The Principals of Pembrokeshire College and Coleg Morgannwg reported that the both enjoyed the support of their governors, which is reassuring. Witnesses agreed that governors had a role to play in the management of sickness absence, although they pointed to the need to distinguish governance and management: governors did not need the same level of detail as managers. We welcome the action being taken by the Council to raise awareness at the governors’ level, through an address to a conference of the clerks of governing bodies and its intention to engage institutions’ audit committees.
Staff awareness and training
12. While it is clearly important that senior managers play a part in the organisation’s approach to managing sickness absence, this does not mean that they should undertake the function in individual cases of absence. The Auditor General reported that only half of staff with staff management responsibilities said that they had responsibility for managing sickness absence.11 Both Principals made the point that, in an increasingly litigious society, line staff might be wary of overstepping the mark in what can be a legal minefield, and thus might prefer to rely on the expertise of human resources staff. This is a legitimate concern, but we note that at Pembrokeshire College this
9
AGW report, paragraphs 3.8 – 3.19 10
AGW report, paragraph 3.4 and Figure 11 11 AGW report, paragraph 2.29
9
-responsibility does rest with line managers, and the strong view from Coleg Morgannwg that it is “absolutely the case” that line managers should take on wholeheartedly the responsibility for managing absence. We concur with that sentiment – provided line managers are able to access appropriate support and guidance from both their senior managers and human resources functions – since sickness absence should always be managed by those with the most knowledge of the
individual case. As the witnesses noted, good management can have a positive, therapeutic effect. 13. For all line managers routinely to take on responsibility for managing sickness absence, of course,
they need to be aware of the policies and procedures in place and appropriately trained. The Auditor General reported that, across the sector, levels of awareness and the extent to which training in sickness absence management had been provided were relatively low.12 Both Pembrokeshire College and Coleg Morgannwg agreed with the importance of training and told us that they had provided training in sickness absence management to their staff. Mr Knight made the point that he preferred to incorporate it as part of generic management training for staff. While this approach has its advantages, we consider that the complexity of sickness absence, particularly the legal
framework, makes it suitable for dedicated, specialist training.
14. In terms of the best way of increasing awareness of the importance of sickness absence as an issue, both Principals pointed to induction training. It was good to hear that both made a point of
personally attending induction sessions for new staff. The key, though, in instilling the necessary culture in organisations is to follow this through and ensure that sickness absence is not an issue that is mentioned on the first day of employment but never again.
Sickness absence policies and procedures
15. The Auditor General helpfully sets out in his report the minimum basic procedures, tools and information that should be contained in a good sickness absence policy.13 His audit of the policies and procedures in place in institutions found that they were lacking in a number of ways.14 In our investigation, we focused on three, set out in the following paragraphs.
16. Certification of absence, through either employee self-certification or medical certification, is central to management processes. The Auditor General reported that compliance with this most basic requirement was lower than 80 per cent, although both Pembrokeshire College and Coleg Morgannwg assured us that their level of compliance was near 100 per cent.
17. On the same theme, return to work interviews are regarded by the human resources profession the single most powerful tool in managing absence. Best practice is to conduct them after every incident
12
AGW report, paragraphs 2.30 – 2.32 13
AGW report, paragraph 2.2 and Appendices 2 and 3 14 AGW report, paragraphs 2.3 – 2.27
10
-of absence, even only a single or half day, as Pembrokeshire College does. Yet the Auditor General reported that at the nine institutions, including Pembrokeshire College, which comply with best practice, only 16 per cent of their staff had received a return to work interview following their most recent period of absence (although it is possible that in some case the interview had not been recognised as such). Witnesses agreed that return to work interviews were a vital tool, but were unable to shed any further light on the low levels of compliance.
18. There is no excuse for not following basic procedures. We agree with the comment of Mrs Raikes that, for both certificates of illness and return to work interviews, there is scope for the Council, with Fforwm, to help institutions get a grip on their data. We also agree that compliance rates are
appropriate areas to figure in institutions’ “balanced scorecards” of performance measurement. 19. Referral to occupational health is part of the modern armoury in addressing sickness absence. Mr
Jones explained that the benefits of his in-house practitioner were wide-ranging, such as their involvement in measures to prevent staff becoming sick in the first place. The Auditor General reported, however, that, for various reasons, the majority of institutions expressed dissatisfaction with the occupational health service that they were receiving, with institutions in the west of Wales looking to England for a suitable service.15
20. Mrs Raikes recognised that this was a problem that needed addressing. She pointed to the particular difficulties faced by the smaller institutions whose size would not justify their own occupational health practitioner. She put forward the sensible view that there was scope for the Council to work with the sector, perhaps in federating groups of colleges on this matter rather than addressing it alone. Mr Knight added that the Auditor General’s report was particularly useful on a sector level – for example, in terms of consistent service level questions. Mrs Raikes also said that an all-Wales arrangement might even offer advantages of consistency and economies of scale, although both she and Mr Jones observed that each institution would need to satisfy itself that it would benefit. The role of the Council
21. We have referred a number of times in this report to the role of the Council in working with institutions to tackle sickness absence. We do not think that its previous position – of leaving the matter almost entirely to the institutions – was tenable; we therefore welcome the action that Mr Thomas explained the Council is taking:
a. writing to all Principals highlighting the main issues in the Auditor General’s report, referring particularly to examples of good practice and areas of weakness;
15 AGW report, paragraphs 2.23 – 2.24
11
-b. asking all institutions to assess their own position against the Auditor General’s recommendations, and reporting the results to their audit committees;
c. presenting the findings of the report to a conference of the clerks of boards of governors; d. expanding the work of the Council’s audit service to examining the implementation and
application of policies and procedures; and
e. discussing with Fforwm the possibility of funding assistance to establish a database on sickness absence, on the grounds that a robust set of consistent data is a prerequisite for effective action. 22. We welcome these moves. We recognise that institutions are autonomous and that sickness absence
is, in the first instance, a matter for local management. But there are many gains from sharing experiences with ones’ peers and the Council is well-placed to facilitate the dissemination of best practice in this way. We also welcome the Council’s intentions to grapple on behalf of the whole sector with what Mrs Raikes termed the “wicked issues”, such as the problems thrown up by home working, where modern technology might have a greater role. Providing the lead for institutions in this way is exactly the role that the Council should be adopting.
Annex A
Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru
Y Pwyllgor Archwilio
The National Assembly for Wales
The Audit Committee
Dydd Iau, 19 Mai 2005
Thursday, 19 May 2005
19/05/2005
2
Aelodau o’r Cynulliad yn bresennol: Janet Davies (Cadeirydd), Leighton Andrews, Mick Bates, Jocelyn Davies, Mark Isherwood, Irene James, Denise Idris Jones, Catherine Thomas. Swyddogion yn bresennol: Jeremy Colman, Archwilydd Cyffredinol Cymru; James Verity, Swyddfa Archwilio Cymru; Jeremy Morgan, Swyddfa Archwilio Cymru; Ian Gibson, Swyddog Cydymffurfiaeth, Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru.
Eraill yn bresennol: Elizabeth Raikes, Prif Weithredwr, Dysgu ac Addysgu Cymru—Cyngor Cenedlaethol Cymru dros Addysg a Hyfforddiant; Arwel Thomas, Pennaeth Swyddfa’r Cadeirydd a’r Prif Weithredwr, ELWa—Cyngor Cenedlaethol Cymru dros Addysg a Hyfforddiant; Glyn Jones, Pennaeth, Coleg Penfro; Kathryn Robson, Rheolwr Personél, Coleg Penfro; Jan Knight, Pennaeth, Coleg Morgannwg; Julie Rees, Rheolwr Personél Dros Dro, Coleg Morgannwg.
Gwasanaeth Pwyllgor: Kathryn Jenkins, Clerc; Liz Wilkinson, Dirprwy Glerc.
Assembly Members in attendance: Janet Davies (Chair), Leighton Andrews, Mick Bates, Jocelyn Davies, Mark Isherwood, Irene James, Denise Idris Jones, Catherine Thomas. Officials in attendance: Jeremy Colman, Auditor General for Wales; James Verity, Wales Audit Office; Jeremy Morgan, Wales Audit Office; Ian Gibson, Compliance Officer, National Assembly for Wales.
Others in attendance: Elizabeth Raikes, Chief Executive, Education and Learning Wales— National Council for Education and Training for Wales; Arwel Thomas, Head of Office of the Chairman and Chief Executive, ELWa— National Council for Education and Training for Wales; Glyn Jones, Principal, Pembrokeshire College; Kathryn Robson, Personnel Manager, Pembrokeshire College; Jan Knight, Principal, Coleg Morgannwg; Julie Rees, Acting Personnel Manager, Coleg Morgannwg.
Committee Service: Kathryn Jenkins, Clerk; Liz Wilkinson, Deputy Clerk. Dechreuodd y cyfarfod am 9.32 a.m.
The meeting began at 9.32 a.m.
Cyflwyniad, Ymddiheuriadau, Dirprwyon a Datgan Buddiannau
Introduction, Apologies, Substitutions and Declarations of Interest
Janet Davies: Good morning. I welcome committee members, witnesses and members of the public. I will ask witnesses to introduce themselves later.
As you all know, the committee operates bilingually and if you need to listen to the translation, please use the headsets. If there are any problems with them, one of the staff will help you. The headsets can also help you to hear the proceedings more clearly, particularly if you are sitting behind someone else and the acoustics are not good.
As you know, a verbatim record will be produced of all proceedings, not just the evidence-taking session, as was previously the case. The draft transcript will be circulated among Members, Wales Audit Office officials and witnesses next Tuesday so that you can correct any factual inaccuracies. Amendments must be sent to committee secretariat by the following Monday.
19/05/2005
3 any interests to declare?
Denise Idris Jones: I am a member of the council of University of Wales, Bangor. Janet Davies: Thank you.
9.34 a.m.
Rheoli Absenoldeb oherwydd Salwch mewn Sefydliadau Addysg Bellach
yng Nghymru
The Management of Sickness Absence in Further Education Institutions
in Wales
Janet Davies: I am pleased that the committee has the opportunity again to discuss the management of sickness absence. We have already discussed it with regard to the national health service.
At the heart of what we are discussing today is the health and wellbeing of further education staff, which, as the Auditor General’s report points out, has a direct effect on the quality of service provided by further education institutes in Wales. Sickness absence costs the sector a considerable amount of money, so it is important that we examine whether it is being effectively managed, and the role played by ELWa—National Council.
I am pleased to see that the level of sickness absence is the same, or lower, than in other areas of the public sector in Wales, for which institutions deserve credit. However, the Auditor General’s report leaves us in little doubt that there is scope for further improvements in managing sickness absence, especially in those institutions with high levels of sickness absence. More work needs to be done by all parties.
Before we start taking evidence, I ask the witnesses to introduce themselves.
Mr Thomas: I am Arwel Thomas, head of the office of the chairman and chief executive of the national council.
Ms Raikes: I am Elizabeth Raikes, chief executive of ELWa. Mr Jones: I am Glyn Jones, principal of Pembrokeshire College.
Ms Robson: I am Kathryn Robson, personnel manager of Pembrokeshire College. Mr Knight: I am Jan Knight, principal of Coleg Morgannwg.
Ms Rees: I am Julie Rees, acting personnel manager of Coleg Morgannwg.
Janet Davies: Thank you. Before I go on, do you have any interests to declare on this issue, Mick?
Mick Bates: No.
Janet Davies: That is fine; I was just checking. We will go straight into the evidence session. I will address a question referring to paragraph 1.7 to Elizabeth Raikes and Arwel Thomas. The work of the Wales Audit Office has been very helpful in providing a baseline level of sickness absence for the further education sector for the first time. Do you have any more recent comparable figures to help us gauge the trend?
19/05/2005
4
Ms Raikes: Yes, we do. The national council welcomes the focus on improvements in this report. The examples of best practice highlighted will provide a further stimulus to improvements in our FE colleges. As you stated, the report shows that sickness absence levels are at 8.9 days per full-time equivalent staff, which is a favourable comparison. The work that we have done on updating the information shows that the figure is 9.2 days for the following year, which is a small increase, but is in line with increases in other work undertaken by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. While 8.9 days is a good figure, it does mask considerable differences throughout the sector, and within individual institutions. The report contains what I would call ‘headline-grabbing’ figures about the amount of savings made from reducing sickness absence. I would caution against using these figures; in many ways, they are extrapolated from a small sample. While we at ELWa are concerned about obtaining value for money, we are more concerned about the impact on the learner. The report highlights the difficulties in many ways, but in terms of the data difficulties and the way in which they are managed, the report misses opportunities in many ways.
The report highlights the issues on cover and the disruption to learning as a consequence of missing staff. While there is a proper focus on the process, we need more evidence of the impact on learners’ outputs in terms of evidence of the distance travelled. Where the distance travelled is not good enough, we need to find the reasons behind that. Some of the approaches to looking at cover seem very traditional, and ELWa can work with the sector, through Fforwm, to look at ways in which we might use more innovative, possibly e-learning, approaches and special packages for unforeseen absences.
The other area where the recommendations could be stronger is occupational health. The report highlights that this is common across the public sector. From my experience at the Monmouthshire local authority, there were similar problems with occupational health, and I would like to explore further with the WAO its possible role in looking at the role of occupational health. The impact for learners of long-term absences, and the impact on public funds through early retirements, are well-documented. We could adopt a more imaginative approach from the sector on the way in which we manage occupational health.
The statistics are very helpful, but this is a reminder that we are dealing with people, not statistics. The real key to success is not in setting targets and looking at data systems and policies, but having good management and leadership in place. As the report highlights, it is ownership by line managers, and not human resources managers, which will make the real difference.
I have taken rather a liberty with the your first question, but we are committed to working with the sector through Fforwm and, as we go forward, we will pick up some of the issues that have been and will be raised today, and some of the issues that I have just highlighted. 9.40 a.m.
Janet Davies: Some of these topics will obviously be picked up by other members of the committee this morning. It seems a little disappointing that there has been an increase in the number of days lost. You mentioned the issue of covering for staff who are absent, which, based on the report, seems like a big issue. Is there data available to enable that to be handled more effectively?
Ms Raikes: I am not aware of the data at the moment. This is something that I would like to examine in more detail, and to research its impact. Undoubtedly, there will be examples of good practice in the sector, where cover is used differently and more imaginatively. I think that it is not just a problem for further education, because it will be a problem that schools
19/05/2005
5
face, particularly because of the teachers’ workload agreement. I think that it is a sector-wide issue that would merit more research.
Jocelyn Davies: I will refer to page 15 of the report, and figure 4. Mr Knight and Miss Rees, you will see that your college has the highest level of absence. Are you at all concerned by these figures?
Mr Knight: Yes. There are two reasons why I am concerned about the figures. To take the first matter, I suppose you would call it a statistical evaluation of the figures from our point of view. When we received the report, about seven days ago, we were obviously keen to look at the methodology we had used in producing our figure for the National Audit Office, and to compare that methodology with that used in other institutions. I note that, in the highlighted section at the bottom of page 13, the report makes the comment about itself that
‘there are a number of different ways of determining the days available for work, depending on how annual leave, bank holidays and weekends are treated’.
Then there is what is for me the critical phrase: ‘These differences make comparisons problematic’.
Naturally, as a matter of self-interest, we were interested in finding out what sort of range of methodology was used by different institutions to produce their figure. We have good relations with other institutions and got in touch with one, and replicated its methodology on our raw data. I do not know how much detail you want. There were two key things that they had done that we had not. I will refer to those in response to any follow-up questions, if you want, but I will not go into them now.
When we calculated our figures on exactly the same basis as this college had done, our figure came out not as 16 as in the report or 15.2 as in our original figures, but as 11.7. In other words, by a slight change in methodology, the figure reduces by nearly a third. So, I have a concern in that respect. I do not want—nor do I have the power to do so—to lead the committee up the path of discussing the validity of the statistics or the methodology, because there are far more useful things that we can do. However, you asked me whether I had a concern and that is one of them.
My other concern is a long-standing one. When I arrived at Coleg Morgannwg, or Pontypridd College as it was then, in April 2001, there simply were no central records of absence. There were none at all. I do not know how much you want me to describe but, ironically, I feel that, especially since September 2002, we have taken all sorts of progressive and useful steps forward in dealing with the management of sickness absence. As we talk, I am sure that I can illuminate and share some of those with the committee.
Jocelyn Davies: So, the point there is that this is not a perfect, like-with-like comparison. Is that what you are saying? This figure could be a little artificially high, and you were recently in the position of having no data on which to base a strategy. However, are you concerned about the sickness absence in your college, rather than the exact figures in this report?
Mr Knight: Okay. Thank you for the question. From September 2002, we adopted a very orderly approach to building our capacity to manage sickness absence. To put it in schematic terms, the first thing that we had to do was to develop a system for reporting absence so that we had, step 2, the information. We then had the potential to make management intervention on a rational basis.
19/05/2005
6
statistics, which are now in good order in the college, could be split into operational management and strategic management of the issue. I think that we are strong on the operational management of sickness absence, but we have a lot of work to do on taking a broad, long-term view of the matter in terms of strategic issues like trends; we have not been up and running long enough to do that.
Bearing in mind what I mentioned earlier about how we count these things, I am not particularly concerned—which is not to say that I am not concerned at all—about the volume, frequency or patterns of short-term absence in the institution. The contribution that long-term sickness absence is making to our figure is characteristically very high. There are several reasons why we have a characteristic profile that leans in that direction. Would you like me to say something about our approach to that?
Jocelyn Davies: What are those characteristics?
Mr Knight: The report, if I recall correctly, indicates that 59 per cent of absence in the sector is short-term absence. In our case, it is around 48 per cent, so the characteristic is that our short-term absence is 10 per cent lower, and there is a corresponding increase in long-term absence. That may be partly for environmental and local reasons, in terms of the nature of Rhondda Cynon Taf. It is certainly to do with the fact that we have a backlog of people in the figures, who do not necessarily receive remuneration but who are in the figures, who have been absent for a long time.
Jocelyn Davies: You have a number of members of staff who are on very long-term sickness absence?
Mr Knight: We have.
Jocelyn Davies: You mentioned local factors and the nature of Rhondda Cynon Taf, but Coleg Gwent, which is close to you, does not share the same factors, does it? It does not share the same level of sickness absence.
Mr Knight: It depends; the levels are close if you use the same methodology. I cannot comment on the socio-economic environment in Gwent. It might be useful for the committee if I say something about Rhondda Cynon Taf in those terms.
Jocelyn Davies: Briefly, yes.
Mr Knight: It is probably best to start with economic inactivity in the area. In Rhondda Cynon Taf, 30 per cent of those who are economically inactive are economically inactive because of long-term sickness. The all-Wales figure is 22 per cent. I know that we are not comparing exactly the same things here, because, in the Rhondda Cynon Taf economic inactivity figure that I gave you, there are people who are off work, presumably, for ever. It nevertheless shows that Rhondda Cynon Taf has a regional issue with long-term sickness that one would expect, to some degree, to show up in some of the major institutions.
My approach has to be that this cannot be an excuse for the institution. We cannot just sit back and accept that we are in an environment characterised by long-term sickness. That presents us with a further challenge, and a challenge to our energy and proactivity in trying to ensure that that has as little an impact as possible on the institution. It would be foolish, however, to pretend that it was not a factor.
9.50 a.m.
19/05/2005
7
people who work in your sector do not suffer from, and the fact that people have worked in heavy industry or might be unskilled—again, factors that do not apply to people who work in your institution.
Mr Knight: Well, 39 per cent of people working at my college are not in teaching positions; they are in an enormous variety of positions, from manual to clerical to administrative positions. However, I must emphasise that I am not using that as an excuse; I am giving you some of the environmental factors.
Jocelyn Davies: I can see your argument, but I do not think that it is a particularly strong argument in terms of long-term sickness in that area. We have a representative here of the Rhondda constituency who would say that the level of deprivation in that area probably does not apply heavily to your workforce.
Mr Knight: No, I would accept that.
Jocelyn Davies: Also, is there the kind of— [Interruption.] Sorry? Leighton Andrews: I will speak for myself.
Jocelyn Davies: Yes.
With regard to the long-term sick that you talk about, why are your staff ill, and why is there this long-term sickness?
Mr Knight: The best way for me to answer that is to refer back to the 2003-04 figures. I recently looked through the register, as it were, of people on what we would define as long-term sick for that year. There 45 people on that register, and, of those 45, some 24 had the sort of physical maladies that you would expect to find, such as cancer and stroke. I do not need to go on—they are the sorts of maladies that people do suffer from and that we have suffered or will suffer ourselves. Some 21 of those on the register had maladies, illnesses or indispositions, which I would loosely classify as emotional, psychological or whatever. Of that 21, some 18 were defined in the register as cases of stress or illness following on from stress, which could be related to work. The question of what is, and what is not, work related in that category is very complicated. Three were certainly not work related, but were related to family bereavement that led to absence classified by the doctor as stress related.
Jocelyn Davies: They are factors, for that small number, that can affect anyone at any time and are completely unconnected with the work environment, are they not? However, 18 are registered as long-term sick due to stress, which may or may not be work related. Are there any specific factors related to your college that would mean that people there are more stressed than they would be if they worked in another college or industry?
Mr Knight: No.
Jocelyn Davies: Okay. I also want to ask ELWa what action has been taken so far to assist in bringing down the rate of sickness absence?
Mr Thomas: We have taken several measures to assist the sector with regard to better management of sickness absence, raising awareness and so on. Perhaps I could briefly go through the actions that we have taken and some further actions that we propose to take. The first thing that we have done, on the back of the publication of the report, is to write to all college principals highlighting the major headline issues in the report. We have referred to the good practice highlighted in the report, and we have also highlighted the weaknesses and shortcomings that are reported. In that letter, we asked all colleges to assess their own
19/05/2005
8
position against each of the recommendations that the Wales Audit Office made, and, in doing that, to report that to their audit committees and come up with an action plan to deal with each of the shortcomings that they identify. Another action that we have taken is to deliver a presentation on the report to a conference of the clerks of the governing bodies, so that we are looking to raise the awareness of senior managers and the governors of each institution. For some time, our audit service has been active in ensuring that there are policies in place. In fact, the report states that every college has a sickness absence policy.
We have now increased the programme of work of the audit service to go behind the policies and look at the implementation and the application of the policy and the procedures. Therefore, it is very much taking it forward so that implementation is more effective, and is about more than just having the policy itself.
We had some initial discussions with the colleges with regard to what we want to do as a matter of priority. Our first priority is, in fact, to have a common understanding and agreement on the methodology of recording sickness absence. We see this as essential so that we have confidence in a robust set of data. We can then use that properly to analyse and so on. We have also had discussions through Fforwm, the representative organisation of the colleges, with regard to initiatives that we can take to spread good practice. Good practice is highlighted in the report and we are keen for that to be spread throughout the sector. We have also said to Fforwm that, as a national council, we are quite happy to consider some funding assistance to establish the database for the sector on sickness absence to enable it to benchmark and to enable initiatives that spread good practice to be taken forward.
Jocelyn Davies: So how high a priority is this for you?
Mr Thomas: It is a high priority from the point of view of the actions that I have highlighted. Jocelyn Davies: Mr Glyn Jones, looking at figure 4, your college has a low rate of sickness absence. Can you give us some idea of how you have managed to achieve that?
Mr Jones: I am not sure whether ‘managed to achieve’ is the right phrase. I sympathise with my colleague, Jan, in terms of the impact of long-term sickness on anyone’s statistics. Perhaps I will illustrate that point a little later.
These results probably owe a great deal to the very pleasant environment in which the college is located, and to the lifestyle associated with that, but, also, I would hope that the positive approach that we have taken to human resource policies and strategies has had an impact. We have a very robust set of policies in terms of personnel practice, ranging from work-life balance, flexible working, staff development, stress policy and so forth. The effect of those is exemplified in the staff surveys that we undertake, where staff perception of management practices and so on, and the support that they receive, is very positive. In a recent stress survey, 97 per cent of the staff was able to say that they cope with the pressures of their work very well and that they feel supported in that.
On the other side of things, we work very hard on preventative practice, particularly in occupational health. We have a full-time occupational health practitioner, and we conduct health assessments, MOTs, and health awareness exercises, we allow access to various therapies, and a range of non-pay perks of which staff are able to avail themselves. Alongside that, we also have a fairly robust approach to managing absence. We routinely interview all staff on their return from ill health, whether that is for a day or for several days. We have a trigger point in terms of managing long-term absence, which is 15 days. Then, we try to monitor why people are off and so on, helping in terms of referrals, if we can, and bringing in organisations such as the Shaw Trust where there are disability or benefit issues, or accommodation problems, or matters involving caring for other members of the family. We
19/05/2005
9
then report routinely through our senior management team, on a monthly basis, on absence rates, by department. We are also in the process of bringing that forward as a routine board report system. That probably summarises the approach in terms of policy and practice.
10.00 a.m.
However, we recently did an exercise in terms of long-term sickness, and extracted from our data three members of staff, each of whom had had over 30 days of absence. The impact of that exercise on our data, which is already quite strong, was remarkable. I would suggest that if the same exercise was conducted with the 45 staff to which my colleague referred earlier you would see a dramatic impact on the statistics. We all struggle with long-term sickness from time to time—it has a real impact on the work of other staff and other teams, and on students in the college, but it is also difficult to do anything about it. It is hard to do something positive about the kinds of examples that were brought to bear earlier on, other than replace and bear the cost.
Jocelyn Davies: No-one is suggesting that you can eradicate sickness absence, because we all become sick from time to time, and anyone can fall victim to a chronic disease. You say that you have developed good practice—that is over several years, I should imagine.
Mr Jones: Yes.
Jocelyn Davies: This is not something that you can do quickly, is it?
Mr Jones: It needs to be part of the culture of the organisation. We start from the premise that learners are the most important people, but you cannot do anything to those learners unless you have a very committed, enthusiastic and healthy team of staff. We prioritise staff wellbeing in our planning and strategy.
Jocelyn Davies: How could that good practice be spread elsewhere—would it be via ELWa? Mr Jones: First of all, I would not take credit for all that good practice; we gather that from elsewhere in large parts, and we adapt it for our own use. There is a lot of good practice in the sector, and the personnel manager’s network is a very effective vehicle for sharing that practice. For instance, we have not made up our policies—we have garnered and harvested good practice from all over the UK. There is huge potential for working together more effectively, assisted by ELWa, on this front.
Leighton Andrews: I turn to paragraph 1.6. I do not want to labour the issues about the FE sector, when it clearly has better sickness absence levels than the UK civil service and the National Assembly for Wales. However, we are interested in improving practice and, ultimately, in value for money. What does ELWa see as its role in trying to ensure that we make progress when, at the moment, only 14 of the 25 FE institutions routinely measure the level of sickness absence?
Ms Raikes: One thing that we can do is work with Fforwm and pump-prime an initiative that gets agreement across the sector to a common baseline of measuring the data so that you can get a benchmark, and also having the data systems in place that will gather that information easily. The other thing that ELWa can do to spread best practice is, again, to look at working with Fforwm and pick up some of the good practice examples in this report and spreading those. We are working, as Arwel described, through our audit service, and expanding what I would call the quality assurance aspects of working with our providers. From the autumn, we are conducting a full quality assessment of all providers across the sectors. That will consider issues such as leadership and management, which is particularly relevant to this, as well as learning provision, to ensure that we have a picture across the board of how we can work with
19/05/2005
10 the sector to make improvements.
Leighton Andrews: Does ELWa keep figures on its own sickness absence?
Ms Raikes: Yes. ELWa’s sickness absence is 7.6, on average, at the moment. I suspect, if I was honest, that there is probably an element of underrecording at ELWa, and I suspect that that is true across the sector. Ironically, as you get better at capturing data, and you have a common methodology, initially, the levels of sickness absence go up, because you are recording sickness better.
There are real issues here of how we work in the future as well. If we are working to more flexible working patterns, particularly among non-teaching staff, and with more types of home-working, sickness becomes more flexible, and there is the question of how to manage that. We have not started to look at grasping the issues for the future. Our first priority will be to get the baseline right now, and then to work with the sector in looking at these fairly wicked issues about moving forward.
Leighton Andrews: Before the National Audit Office started looking at this issue, had ELWa engaged in any measures to address sickness absence in the further education sector?
Ms Raikes: We ensured that there were policies in place through the audit service. We were developing the quality measures that I have just described, and which will be kicking off in the autumn. We are starting to look at our own internal examples of best practice to make sure that we are leading by example. As I mentioned earlier, we do not just consider the headline rate. ELWa has five offices, and I asked for reports to be brought forward to our executive team. I noticed that, even though our headline rate was low, there were high levels in some offices. So, you look behind the statistics and ask, ‘Why is this happening?’. So, once we begin to understand how it happens in ELWa, we are much better placed to work with the sector on improving that.
The answer to your question is that we probably have not done enough so far, but we will be working with the sector to improve this in the future.
Alun Cairns: To build on Mr Andrews’s question, he did commend the further education sector for its lower level of sickness in comparison with other public sector organisations, which I think is fair. However, paragraph 1.8 of the report shows that sickness levels may well be higher than those recorded. I think that we can make a similar assumption for other public-sector organisations, but this is evidence from the Wales Audit Office survey that they may well be higher. So, who knows? It may well be that your figures are as high as those of NHS Wales, according to that graph. We do not know, do we?
Therefore, I will ask each principal, starting with Mr Jones, what they are doing to ensure that your reporting systems enable the accurate reporting of sickness absence levels.
Mr Jones:, We are pretty confident that the figures that we presented are an accurate representation of our sickness levels; they are borne of a management culture that is about monitoring key data—from student performance data to financial information. We have prioritised, knowing the crucial control data, and making sure that our managers—at senior, middle and at course team level—are also aware of those figures and of the impact of their practice on those figures.
So, in answer to the specific question of what we are doing to ensure their accuracy, it is the culture of monitoring key indicators that affects the core business of the college, and the presence of staff in classrooms is crucial to us being able to fulfil our ambitions in terms of students’ performance. So, we monitor that closely. Every manager receives a monthly report
19/05/2005
11
on sickness absence among his or her staff, and is asked to confirm its accuracy. We are also now building that kind of profile for governors so that they will receive it through a resources sub-committee every term. It is then elevated as an annual round-up report to the governing body.
Alun Cairns: That was helpful. I ask the same question to the principal of Coleg Morgannwg.
Mr Knight: I will pick up something that was said earlier on to start my answer. We fully implemented our present absence-monitoring system in September 2002. It entails a weekly sickness profile report from each line manager on the people within their span of control. I do it for those whom I directly line manage. That goes to the personnel department, and I believe that it provides us with extremely good and accurate data on the current position. I am very confident of this year’s data, and those for 2003-04. We have conducted a complete review of our policies in this area, and I will tell you more about that if you wish. We have also established a set of three very clear triggers for intervention, so that it is quite obvious when a proactive approach needs to be taken by the personnel office, the line manager, or, most frequently, by an internal partnership between the two. I will not go through the triggers unless you ask me to do so.
10.10 a.m.
I mentioned earlier on that I felt that we were pretty good now. In historic terms, at a fairly early stage—we are two years into it, which is not long—I think that we are pretty good at the operational reporting and management of sickness absence. Where we are weak and where I would say our next line of development will be is in terms of the overall strategic control, awareness and reporting of trends and so on. To take the first but very important step in that direction, we have recently, in January of this year, purchased an IT-based personnel system, which builds on the payroll system that we bought in January 2003. So, we have a good integrated IT approach, which will allow us to make good and sound reports at whatever level of detail we need to different management groups concerned with overseeing trends and activities in managing sickness absence.
We also, around 18 months ago, changed the organisation providing occupational health advice, which, again, may be something that the committee may wish to come back to. I believe that that is fairly common in colleges. There has been dissatisfaction with the kind of service that we received. We get a much better service now, in terms of the timeliness of reports and the ancillary activities that the new organisation provides for us, such health checks and so on. So, I feel that we are doing pretty well in terms of moving forward.
Alun Cairns: Each organisation has highlighted the proactive approach that it is taking. However, when has a particular focus come on this? Coleg Morgannwg just highlighted what it has done over the last 18 months, in terms of the new computer system and so on. Can I ask you, Mr Jones, has this always been a cultural issue that has been managed proactively, or has it just become the latest sexy move over the last six months or so?
Mr Jones: No. I think that I need to quote from our strategic plan, which has as one of its main goals:
‘to pursue a management and working culture which is committed to valuing and investing in staff and in achieving quality and efficiency in a safe working environment’.
That has been a plank in our institutional planning over the last eight years.
19/05/2005
12
recent issue? I know that you have highlighted the computer upgrades, which happened 18 months ago, and in January of this year. Can you tell me about the cultural focus that you have on this sort of proactive management? Is it a recent innovation, or has it been around for some time?
Mr Knight: Is it in order for me to ask for a little clarification? Janet Davies: Yes.
Mr Knight: By recent, do you mean precipitated by the work surrounding this WAO report? Alun Cairns: Absolutely. Obviously, it is nice to hear about progress being made as a result of the WAO report, but we are trying to get to grips with what were the root causes that did not happened before that have led to these awful figures for some organisations?
Mr Knight: Right. Well, you cannot manage an institution on the basis of reactive kerfuffles in relation to reports. There are millions of reports coming out every day about everything that you can possibly imagine. Ensuring a cultural change in how an institution deals with anything—and the management of absence is quite an interesting and difficult cultural change—cannot be done with a short-term fix. I mentioned earlier on in the evidence that I was giving that there was no central record of absence statistics when I first came across the college in April 2001. The work began at that point to make what is quite a big ship start to turn around and go in a different direction. The answer to the question and the subtext in the question, which you clarified, is an emphatic and absolute ‘no’. It is not a knee-jerk reaction to this report; it is a historical and well managed process of development, going back three years.
Alun Cairns: Thank you for that. I would like to ask a question of Mrs Raikes. I was quite surprised at your opening comment to the Cadeirydd, when you said—I am paraphrasing slightly, so you may want to correct me—that you were not so worried about saving money or the cost implications, but were more worried about the impact on the learner. However, do not both go hand in hand? Paragraph 1.16 shows the difficulties that colleges go through, particularly those that need to provide bilingual services, so there is quite obviously a financial cost, and I am surprised that you are not as worried about that. Do you want to reconcile those statements?
Ms Raikes: I said that I was concerned about obtaining value for public money, but I was more concerned about the impact on the learner. They are inter-linked. ‘Making the Connections’ is about efficiency savings and if we can save money through efficiency savings in reducing sickness absence, which is desirable, and that money could be reploughed into the learner, that would be wonderful. The impact on learners in terms of learners leaving concerns me, because that has an impact on the college. ELWa claws back money from the college when there are reducing rolls during the year. The two things go hand in hand, but I think that the report concentrates more on process rather than the impact of the sickness absence at the front line, and for the learner. That is where my comments were coming from. Alun Cairns: However, in your opening comments, you also suggested some reluctance with regard to targets in terms of managing sickness absence, when we are talking in financial terms. Why is that the case when that could be something tangible for the Wales Audit Office and this committee to come back to?
Ms Raikes: I might hold rather a controversial view on targets. However, I think that we are already target bound. We have a whole industry of people chasing and measuring targets and we employ administrative staff to deal with targets. Targets are very difficult. In the first place, we do not have a target for what anybody thinks is a normal rate of sickness absence.
19/05/2005
13
We do not yet have a benchmark in Wales, or anywhere else as far as I know, showing where you can even start to measure your target.
Targets can produce perverse incentives—you only have to look at the targets set in the NHS to see that; I told you that I would be controversial. We have seen the Royal Mail offering cars to its staff for 100 per cent attendance. I do not want sick people at work. I think that that is a perverse incentive to encourage people to come to work. Having said that, it is good management practice to reduce sickness absence. In terms of costs, one of the biggest costs of long-term sickness absence is to the pension funds, through early retirements. It is up to institutions to manage long-term sickness. There have been a number of reports on this; in fact, the Audit Commission did a good report in the early 1990s on managing early retirement. Following that, the pensions industry has commissioned a lot of work on the impact of occupational health in contributing to early retirements. It is those sorts of issues that we need to be picking up in terms of looking at the cost effectiveness of sickness, and then measuring to get more evidence on the impact on the learner.
Alun Cairns: Let me test what you have said. I agree with much of what you said, but let me play devil’s advocate for a moment. How do we ensure efficient management within some of the organisations, particularly those that did not even keep sickness records? We have heard the history behind Coleg Morgannwg—it did not record sickness absences. Without some sort of target or monitoring, how are we going to deliver on this?
Ms Raikes: I think that the first thing we need to achieve is common agreement—and I do not think that this will be too difficult to achieve across the sector—about what we are measuring and how we measure it. We have heard from Glyn and Jan that it is possible to be more certain about our statistics through good practice and good dissemination of what the policies are in respect of recording sickness absence. We have not examined how we might be able to use e-technology to help us here because part of good sickness absence management starts with the person ringing in sick and reporting it to his or her line manager. The line manager then has to report it to human resources and there is then a form to fill in. I think that we could smooth that out and make it a much quicker process so that it is not seen as an additional burden or something that is forgotten when somebody comes back in. So, there are the very simple, basic, good-practice guidelines that we can put in place so that we can be confident that we are comparing like with like and that we have a good system of measurement in place.
10.20 a.m.
Denise Idris Jones: I will move on to sickness absence policies and compliance with them, and I will ask these questions of Mr Jones and Mr Knight. If you are absent, and we have just heard Mrs Raikes saying this, you would normally ring up the school or college and say that you were ill and that you would not be in. If that absence went on for longer than seven days, a certificate of absence would be required. You would have to have that from your doctor, it would be signed and it would have on it how many days you were going to be absent for. So, that could be seven days, 14 days, or possibly 28 days, and the principal would then have some idea as to how much supply cover he or she would need. That could also have some effect on the pay of the member of staff. Following that, it would be expected for the member of staff who is ill to go to see a local education authority medical officer and have a counselling session, at which the officer would decide whether that member of staff was ill and whether he or she had a serious illness or whether it was stress related. If it was stress related, the member of staff would possibly see a counsellor. The medical officer would then write a report and send it back to the college so that the principal would have some evidence of the reason for the member of staff’s illness. I will refer to paragraphs 2.8 and 2.9 on page 21. Paragraph 2.9 says,
