§ Mr. Peter BottomleyTo ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to institute an occupational health assessment of the sickness at Companies House.
§ Mr. HeseltineAs this is an operational matter for Companies House executive agency, I have asked David Durham, the chief executive, to respond directly to the hon. Member.
553WLetter from David Durham to Mr. Peter Bottomley, dated 14 February 1995:
You recently tabled a Parliamentary Question about assessment of sickness at Companies House. The President has informed you that I have been asked to reply as Chief Executive of the Agency as this is an operational matter for Companies House.
Measurement of sickness absence poses a number of statistical problems, and comparisons between different kinds of organisation should be treated with caution, particularly if there are wide differences in, for example, the proportion of part time staff. The figures for the Department as a whole published in the recent Parliamentary Answer given to Mr. David Chidgey MP (Question 187) use a standard, civil service wide definition. We do not use this definition for management purposes at Companies House (CH) because we find it produces anomalous results when applied to part time staff.
CH employs an unusually large number of part time staff (333, or 29 per cent. of our workforce). We count absence for management control purposes in line with normal practice in the private sector. This takes account of the very different working patterns that may occur in production environments such as that predominating at CH. Under this definition, CH has had a sickness absence rate for 1994–95 which for 9 month period to the end of December stood at 4.8 per cent. We understand that this is comparable to that achieved by other similar organisations.
In the light of this, I do not believe that any special assessment of sickness absence is necessary.