Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Employers’ complaints lead to data protection code changes

by Personnel Today 18 Feb 2003
by Personnel Today 18 Feb 2003

What form do the experts think the much criticised data protection codes
should take?  Paul Nelson asks them to
give us their views

Last week Personnel Today revealed that new Information Commissioner Richard
Thomas is to radically overhaul the design of all four of the data protection
codes of practice.

Thomas has taken on board criticism from employers that the codes, supposed
to help employers manage staff information without breaching the 1998 Data
Protection Act, are too long and too complex.

The commissioner, who took over from Elizabeth France in December, will
start by revamping the draft monitoring code – scheduled to have been published
months ago.

This code, now due for release this spring, is vital for employers because
it includes guidance on staff rights to privacy when using the e-mail and the
internet.

He will then switch his attention to the medical records code before
revisiting the recruitment and selection code and records management code,
published last year.

We have asked employers, employment law experts and the TUC, to outline how
they want the revised codes to look.

Susannah Haan, legal adviser at the CBI, called on the Information
Commission to significantly reduce the size and length of the code.

She would like to see the individual codes reduced to no more than a handful
of pages each, which clearly separate the legal requirements and best practice.

She recommended the Company Law Review – a document of four pages – as a
template for the revised Data Protection codes.

Haan said the ‘benchmark’ section in the current codes – which includes both
legal requirements and best practice advice – must be scrapped because it is
confusing for employers.

"The current codes go into too much detail. The big issue is the
separation of legal status and best practice – the codes must have clear
definitions.

"This will make it easy to understand and clarify the legal
standing," Haan said.

"The codes should state what employers need to know, how it should be
done and when."

Haan added that the language used in the existing codes also needs a review.
She feels it is too long-winded and complicated by legal jargon.

"The language must be simpler to understand – it is currently aimed at
lawyers. They have to sit down and interpret the codes’ meaning," she
said.

The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development’s lead adviser on
public policy, Diane Sinclair,
said the revised data protection codes
should provide a simple checklist of minimum legal standards that employers
need to comply with.

Sinclair supported the move to overhaul presentation of the codes, despite
its delaying their final publication further.

"A significantly redrafted code will be of much more value to HR
practitioners. It is currently too long and complicated," she said.

"It should offer a checklist of minimum legal standards that companies
must work to."

Sinclair would like the benchmark sections – which include best practice and
legal requirements – scrapped and replaced with clear separate sections so
employers can understand the code.

Paul Pagliari, HR director, Scottish Water. Pagliari urged the
commission to produce a code that is much shorter and simpler than the existing
version.

He said there are far too many ambiguities in the design of the current
codes and would like it changed to a shorter, bullet-point format with clear
headings.

Pagliari argued that the codes should include five clear sections; basic
data protection principles, employer responsibilities, staff’s course of appeal
and a practical question and answer paragraph.

"It does need updating. The code must be simple and clear, that way
companies will follow it. If employers are unable to do something then we must
be told so," he said.

"It must be accessible, not a tome that is pulled out at the end of the
day."

Paula Rome, HR, training and development solicitor at law firm Eversheds.
Rome backed the commissioner’s decision to overhaul the design of the data
protection codes.

She agreed the current codes are too complex and difficult for employers to
understand.

"The new codes must highlight the minimum legal guidance. That way
employers will be able to tick the boxes and say they have complied with the
law," said Rome.

She is concerned though, that the extra delay due to the revamp will place
organisations in "limbo", with little guidance on how to comply with
the 1998 Data Protection Act which came into force in October 2001.

The TUC’s employment rights officer Hannah Reed defended the existing
design of the data protection codes.

She argued that data protection is a complex piece of legislation and to
fully understand and comply, employers need prescriptive guidance.

"We disagree that the code should be shorter; it is complex legislation
and the existing code offers clear guidelines," said Reed.

"It is very helpful in its current state."

Reed supported the benchmark sections of the codes, which incorporate both
the legal requirements as well as best practice.

She said it is hard to differentiate between the two.

"The Information Commission’s office is required to advise employers on
best practice and law, and they should both be in the code," she said.

"In many situations involving data protection, it is very difficult to
squeeze out the difference between the two – best practice means that employers
are complying with the act," she said.

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Reed claimed employers are dragging out the consultation process to delay
the implementation of the codes.

www.dataprotection.gov.uk

Personnel Today

Personnel Today articles are written by an expert team of award-winning journalists who have been covering HR and L&D for many years. Some of our content is attributed to "Personnel Today" for a number of reasons, including: when numerous authors are associated with writing or editing a piece; or when the author is unknown (particularly for older articles).

previous post
Peugeot staff agree another strike over pay
next post
Union outrage as TV giant threatens jobs

You may also like

Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders receive 400% pay rise

4 Jul 2025

FCA to extend misconduct rules beyond banks

2 Jul 2025

‘Decisive action’ needed to boost workers’ pensions

2 Jul 2025

Business leaders’ drop in confidence impacts headcount

2 Jul 2025

Why we need to rethink soft skills in...

1 Jul 2025

Five misconceptions about hiring refugees

20 Jun 2025

Forward features list 2025 – submitting content to...

23 Nov 2024

Features list 2021 – submitting content to Personnel...

1 Sep 2020

Large firms have no plans to bring all...

26 Aug 2020

A typical work-from-home lunch: crisps

24 Aug 2020

  • Empowering working parents and productivity during the summer holidays SPONSORED | Businesses play a...Read more
  • AI is here. Your workforce should be ready. SPONSORED | From content creation...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+