A policeman's job is not always a happy one. It can be dangerous, even life-threatening. So it is not entirely surprising that the average police officer is off sick more often than the average private sector worker: for 8.4 days a year compared with 7.2 days. But it is worrying that more police officers are going absent for long periods, pushing up the costs of long-term sick leave by a staggering 20 per cent in five years. And it is truly alarming that other parts of the public sector seem to pull a sickie so routinely. The average public sector worker is off sick for 9.8 days a year, and few have to tackle muggers or brave fires.

In Gordon Brown's Britain, one in five of all workers is employed by the State. Their salaries and pensions are paid by the rest. As recession starts to bite, many taxpayers are asking why they should pay for public sector employees to have guaranteed retirement incomes when they have seen their own pensions plummet in value, if they have any provision at all. They should also ask why the public sector seems to suffer unduly from stress, anxiety and backache.

Stress is cited as the leading cause of short-term absence in three quarters of all public sector cases, but fewer than half of all private sector ones. It seems unlikely that public sector work is inherently more stressful. The highest absences are in central government departments and health, where health workers seem to be even more unhealthy, racking up an average of 11.7 sick days a year.

The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) surveys absence every year. It finds that public sector workers record higher levels of absence than private sector peers although the public sector offers more training for managers in how to handle these issues. More than 80 per cent of public sector employers provide occupational health and flexible working hours for those who have been off sick, compared with 48 per cent of business employers. What, then, explains the difference in outcomes? The CIPD research suggests that the State is a soft touch. Public sector staff are less likely to be disciplined or dismissed for reasons of absence than those working in business. The State is less likely to restrict sick pay, and its occupational sick pay schemes tend to pay out for longer.

The State is in a double bind. It is spending more on preventing absence than the private sector, creating a whole machinery for “rehabilitation”. Yet it suffers disproportionately from absence. It is ironic that the jump in long-term sickness in the police has come despite a concerted drive by individual forces to reduce absence levels.

Genuine cases should be treated with the sympathy they deserve. But abuses have to stop. The brutal truth is that businesses cannot afford to be so generous - or so inefficient; nor can the Government, with the economy stalling and the public finances under enormous strain. It is time for the Chancellor to take a good hard look at the productivity of the public sector, not only its sick leave but the whole package, including actual hours worked and holiday entitlements. A survey by Income Data Services last month found that the average holiday entitlement in the public sector is 26.3 days a year, compared with an average of 21.5 days in the private sector.

These are more than minor discrepancies: they add up to a cushy number that Britain cannot afford. An economic downturn should mean that the game is up for anyone who was thinking of taking a duvet day from the office. That principle should apply equally, whether staff are in manufacturing or midwifery. Getting ill is no joke: but neither is pulling a sickie at someone else's expense.