He says: “If you just think about it in terms of WFH, then you’re only talking to that proportion of the population who have jobs which permit working from home. You are then potentially denying broader notions of flexibility, which is far more valuable to far more people, and probably people who need it even more. If you only talk about working from home, it has the capacity to magnify existing inequalities in the labour force.”

The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has issued guidance on hybrid working, encouraging managers to monitor “boundaries” on employee working, and avoid the “flexibility stigma” of favouring workers they see everyday.

But Jane Gratton, head of people policy of the British Chambers of Commerce, also picks up Clancy’s point. She argues that a narrow focus on WFH could create tensions within companies between office and shop-floor workers.

“Employers need to look at not just hybrid work, but all forms of flexible working – it could be that you’re allowing people to do a job share or work part-time, or it could be changing the start and finish time of shifts that actually works for everybody,” she says.

Employees have had the right to ask for flexible working since 2003, but in the 2019 election manifesto, the Conservatives pledged to “encourage” the practice and consult on it becoming the default option.

The Department for Business Enterprise and Industrial Strategy’s consultation on the topic, which closed this month, acknowledged the points raised by Prospect and the BCC, stating a need “to consider the inequalities that have been exposed by Covid-19, perhaps in part highlighted by the lack of availability of homeworking”. Under the current system, workers have to be in a job for 26 weeks before requesting flexible working, while employers can take a further three months to decide.

A day-one right to flexibility is a widely supported option put forward in the consultation, although securing government time for potential legislation is the next challenge. Departmental sources are “hopeful” this will change in 2022.

Prospect’s Clancy says a Bill is needed rather than “exhortations to good employers”. He adds: “I don’t think the Government can avoid codifying and expressing the learning from the pandemic for much longer.”

But as flexible working grows up, the bigger challenge for ministers will be avoiding unintended consequences – and leaving women behind.