Rob Shorrock

As civil servants in government seem to be doing their best to help the Tories by constantly cocking things up it makes you wonder what ever happened to the traditional Inland Revenue pride in keeping taxpayers data completely confidential. The Inland Revenue used to have a database to envy and was the most detailed and developed in the UK. The Police regularly used to ask for access to it and were regularly refused - because even criminals should be paying their taxes which was unlikely to happen if they we were nicked before an Inland Revenue investigation!

There are 3 key problems in all of this:

1) The idea that a junior civil servant can download the entire national child benefit database onto a disk without anyone noticing is quite astonishing. But this is what happened. The issue only became an issue when the National Audit Office said they hadn't received the disk posted and the courier said it had no record of it at all. Why on earth does the system allow anyone to download this quantity of data anyway, and raise no security warning on the system when this happens? HMRC have just had a massively overpriced system put in with all the usual teething problems - but what consideration was given to ensuring data security in the final system?

2) Why is data collected for one purpose being shared with the National Audit Office for its own surevy. The NAO is quick to point out that it did not want all the data, just names and NI numbers I believe. Yet as the government watchdog it must have realised that the request and process of delivery may have risks in terms of the Data Protection Act.

3) Why is so much data being stored in hard drives on laptops etc, which have a moderate risk of being lost or stolen and usually have weak login passwords that can be found in minutes with freeware? Why not virtual drives that require complex login authentications - (like on-line banking), and would allow limitations on access and information depending on user levels. Therefore, the NAO could have got access to the data they needed through a temporary log-in.

In the end, the story is one of bad IT commissioning, poor training and a failure to develop a system that is secure. It is clear that the public sector needs to develop its own IT intelligence through a development and support centre, which could include some of the brightest and the best in the industry that can provide as well as commission intelligently. The problem we have at the moment is that while massive IT procurement projects have been essential to the modernisation of public service, the delivery from contractors has been generally deplorable. If there is one thing the Government should do it is to develop a Centre for Information that has the expertise, vision and will to develop or secure the best information systems in the world.

In the Queen's Speech the PM announced the right to request flexible working was to be extended as a right to all parents with children up to the age of 17. Currently, it is only available if you have children up to the age of 5, which was always a strange cut-off point. Apparently, when children start school the notion of working flexibly is less of an issue (?!)

 It is good to see the Telegraph reacting so swiftly with the headline 'Gordon Browns Flexible Working Plan attacked' In fact, there were some comments from the IoD and the FSB about regulation etc, but this is what they are designed to do whether it is on this issue of the minimum wage or this,  they will always express concern about government regulation interfereing with the employer\employee contract, unless of course, it is Tory government regulating trade unions out of the equation.

Anyway, my favourite line in the Telegraph article was the following:

Under the rules, businesses must take any request seriously and demonstrate sound reasons for denying any such request. The vast majority of requests are therefore granted.

Read it again and it becomes clear: if the reasons are sound then the request will be granted. Put it another way: If someone makes a request for flexible working they have to put together a business case for the way it will work and the employer has to give it proper consideration to see if this suits the business needs of the company. This is the way it works under the current legislation and on the whole works pretty well. Cases that have gone to tribunal tend to focus on the failure of an employer to give proper consideration; the knee-jerk managers who say no to anything that their pea-brains are unable to contemplate.

The concept of mutual work design has to be at the heart of a developing a modern business that recognises that employees are valuable. It also underpins the psychological contract between employer and employee. The notion of flexibility has to go both ways based on adult to adult relationship. In my view the right to request flexible working should be extended to all employees. People should be encouraged to think about ways in which they could do their jobs better. Sometimes that is about working from home or working less hours. It is about looking at business impact, benfits and direct and indirect costs. Not letting an employee reduce their hours could cost a firm thousands if that employee decides to leave.

The real challenge is to educate managers in seeing this as great opportunity to think about the ways we do work and how we can improve them.