I will begin with chapter 5.1 if this suits the committee. Over the years, I have paid particular attention to the level of sick leave in our prisons in view of the fact that it has been far in excess of that experienced in the rest of the public sector and private sector and because of its significant financial impact. Historically, it has also been greater than in the prisons in the UK, particularly Scotland. Sometimes it is hard to make a direct link because of the different ways of computing sick leave.
While the nature of prison work is a contributory factor to the high level, the most important factor appears to be the link between the taking of sick leave and the use of the overtime system to cover for the absences. This link had long been recognised by the Department to be at the heart of the matter. After protracted negotiations, new arrangements were introduced in all institutions by February 2006 whereby overtime working was replaced by an additional hours attendance system.
While the new system seems to have had the desired effect in fixing the annual quantum of expenditure for extra hours, its impact on the rate of sick leave has been less than expected. The targeted reduction was 33% but in 2006, sick days per capita remained around the same level. However, there was an improvement in 2007 when sick days per capita fell from an average of 26.2 days in 2006 to 21.64 days. That is a drop of 17% or so, which is a significant achievement in itself but is perhaps an indication that other factors contributing to still high levels of sick leave need to be addressed as a matter of urgency. These include using more sophisticated and integrated IT systems, better monitoring of patterns of absence and research into the underlying causes of sick leave and absenteeism in the Irish prison environment.
In respect of the collection of fines and the follow-up section of my special report on improving performance published last year, I revisited my earlier report on the collection of fines to establish what action had been taken in the meantime to overcome the shortcomings identified. One of the features of the fine system is that responsibility for its management is shared between the Courts Service and the Garda Síochána, with the Department having an overarching role. This was referred to by the Accounting Officer when he introduced the officials with him. This characteristic makes good co-ordination essential to the effective operation of the system. That was not evident at the time of the original report seven years ago.
A high-level group set up to examine the matter in response to the report's findings recommended the establishment of an executive office to carry out the fines management function but this recommendation was not proceeded with. An alternative approach was adopted which, on the collection side, involved the outsourcing of the work to a credit management agency on a pilot testing basis. I understand the outcome of that exercise was that some 22% of the cases referred, representing the collection of some €455,000 in overdue fines, were resolved. So in that sense, it was somewhat successful.
There have also been some positive moves in the administration of the fines collection system which should lead to an improved performance, including the implementation of IT systems in the courts which should go some way towards providing the type of information to support better management of this area of activity. The extension of the fixed penalty charges to a large number of traffic offences also has the potential to reduce the demands on the courts and, by extension, the fines collection system.
However, other proposals like the payment of fines by instalment, the identification of persistent defaulters and reducing the time from summons application to appearance in court have been much more difficult to progress. I am sure the Accounting Officer will be able to explain why.
Turning briefly to the two Votes, the main areas of the €340 million net expenditure under Vote 19 in 2006 were €140 million for dealing with asylum seekers, €64 million in legal aid and €45 million for administration. A total of €13.5 million went on commissions and tribunals. The details of those are in note 15 of the appropriation accounts of Vote 19.
In respect of Vote 21- prisons, the bulk of the €410 million expenditure here -€230 million - goes on pay, while €111 million goes on buildings and equipment. This latter expenditure was facilitated by a Supplementary Estimate which provided an extra €76 million for the prisons capital programme.
Members might wish to note that the property portfolio comprising 16 prisons and places of detention is not included in the statement of capital assets as the comprehensive valuation exercise commissioned was not completed when the Appropriation Account for the year was presented. The only property included in the statement is the Thornton Hall site at its purchase price of €29.9 million.