Household Support Fund

Baroness Scott of Needham Market Excerpts

Tuesday 30th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My noble friend is right that we should continue to recognise the important role that unpaid carers play around the country. Our guidance asks that local authorities consider the needs of various households, including unpaid carers. The Government have increased carer’s allowance by around £1,200 per year since 2010-11.

[Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)]

Will this evaluation include full consultation and discussions with the charity and voluntary sector, which, after all, understands very well the impact that reducing or removing this fund would have? That sector will be at the front line of picking up the problems should it be removed.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

I will need to check, but I feel certain that that will be the case. I will write to the noble Baroness if I am wrong. It is a very good point.

Pensions

Baroness Scott of Needham Market Excerpts

Wednesday 13th December 2017 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Scott of Needham Market]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will further consider transitional arrangements for state pension provision for women born in the 1950s.

[Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)]

My Lords, I tabled this debate to bring the attention of the House to a major injustice which has been carried out against a large number of women in this country: some 3.8 million women who have been impacted by accelerated changes to the retirement age. In doing so, I pay tribute to the campaign being run by Women Against State Pension Inequality, which has so effectively highlighted this major injustice. I support the campaign but I am not a member of it. I am not affected and therefore have no personal interest, but I do believe that there is a point of principle here. It is not the principle of equalising the retirement age, for there is no argument about that, and the WASPI campaigners accept that. Nor is there an argument about retiring later, given the increased life expectancy nowadays. The principle is about the fair treatment by the state of those affected by the decisions it has made. In our democracy, it is right that Parliament makes changes but it is a basic role of government to ensure that those changes are implemented effectively, efficiently and in good time and are underpinned by principles of natural justice. And it is the basic role of Parliament—of this House—to hold the Government to account for the way they implement changes in legislation and policy.

Changes in legislation going as far back as 1995 were not acted upon, in some cases, for 14 years. For women born between April 1950 and April 1955, the Department for Work and Pensions began the task of writing to them in 2009. It completed the task in 2012. It is impossible to justify a delay of this length. I do not believe that Parliament would ever allow a private pension provider to behave in that way, but we seem to think it acceptable when the Government are doing it.

As far back as 2004, the department published a report about how the changes to pensions were being implemented. At that time, it indicated that only 43% of the women affected were aware of the impact on them. In other words, the Government knew about it but did not take any steps to address it with vigour.

Many women got to within 15 months of their retirement and at that point were told that they would have to work for up to another six years. During the summer, I met someone in exactly that position. She had retired what she thought was two years early to help her daughter with childcare and to assist with the care of her 90 year-old father. Having done so, and based her planning on a two-year wait until her pension would arrive, she was then told that she would have to wait an extra five years.

In this and other stories like it, the Government have failed a generation of women very badly indeed. This is a generation many of whom spent years at home looking after children and therefore have very poor pension provision to start with. Figures show that some 33% of men will rely solely on a state pension, while 53% of women will do so. This is a generation many of whom left school at 15 and worked all their lives with a significant gender pay gap; a generation who did not receive maternity leave and were not entitled to long-term sick pay until later on in their careers; a generation many of whom have caring responsibilities for parents in their 80s and 90s, and are helping their children with childcare duties.

Ministers have suggested that retraining and apprenticeships offer a way forward for those women, and sing the praises of jobcentres in helping to find new opportunities. Of course, if that is the route that someone wishes to take, I would not stand in their way, but the idea that this is a suitable option in the majority of cases is frankly risible. Jobcentres are closing all over the place. Good luck trying to find an employer who will take on a recently retrained 61 year-old. And what on earth happens to the elderly parent or child who is dependent on you for their care?

If all this was not bad enough, the whole issue continues to be handled very badly. Freedom of information requests have revealed that the DWP has received more than 4,500 complaints from WASPI women. Of these, six have been resolved. Three case workers have been assigned to this review. This is just adding insult to injury. We are recruiting thousands of civil servants to deal with Brexit, but cannot resource this task properly.

I am sure that other speakers will provide graphic illustrations of the impact these changes have had and the way the mishandling of this issue has affected individual women and their families, but there is one particular group that I would like to focus on this evening: women who have moved abroad to retire. Some have done so for health reasons, some to be closer to family, some because they worked abroad before they retired—in other cases, simply because they chose to move, as they are entitled to do. Many of these women made their decisions based on receiving the state pension at the age of 60. One woman told me that just after she moved, she discovered that her pension age was 63, not 60. She reorganised her finances to manage the three-year gap, only to be subsequently told that it would be 66.

These issues are common to all WASPI women, but those living abroad face particular challenges. For example, state pension age is also the point where these women would receive an S1 form giving them entitlement to reciprocal health care, so this is now an added financial burden. What the Government describe as mitigation—bus passes, apprenticeships and so on—are of absolutely no value if you live outside the country.

Another woman told me: “Before we left, my husband checked that we had enough years to qualify for a full pension and was assured we had, but I’ve now been widowed and I’ve been told I haven’t paid enough and that my rate will be reduced.” Of course, for women who have retired to EU countries, there is now the extra anxiety of not knowing what the ultimate agreement will be about their rights when, and if, we leave the EU.

I will not ask the Minister whether there has been an impact assessment on this, but I have one particular and specific question. Currently, pensions to those living outside the EU are frozen at the point of retirement, while those who live within the EU are treated the same as if they lived here. Post Brexit, will British pensioners in EU countries be treated as they are now, or will their pensions also be frozen? If British pensioners in the EU receive updated pensions, what plan do the Government have for those who have retired elsewhere?

We all agree that there is a crisis of trust in politics and politicians. Is it any wonder, when an issue of this importance is subject to ludicrous party-political bickering in the other place? The truth is that all political parties are in part culpable here, and we have a duty to work together to put it right with workable and fair transition arrangements.

This is impacting most seriously on poorer female pensioners. Research has shown that poverty levels among women aged 60 to 64 has risen by 6.2% as a result of these changes. Let us be clear: if these women are poor now, there is a likelihood that they will remain poor right the way through their retirement, and that these numbers will grow unless the Government act.

The Government should concede that the administration of these changes was fundamentally flawed and come up with proposals to put right this wrong. It is not about reversing the changes to pension age, but recognising that where implementation is flawed, the Government have a duty to come up with proposals to protect those impacted by those flaws. The Institute for Fiscal Studies report published in August estimates that the changes in women’s pension age have boosted government coffers by £5.1 billion. Surely to goodness, some transitional help is affordable and must be afforded.

Brexit: Disabled People

Baroness Scott of Needham Market Excerpts

Thursday 2nd February 2017 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Scott of Needham Market]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact on disabled people of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union.

[Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)]

My Lords, I am very pleased to have secured time for a debate this afternoon on the impact that leaving the EU will have on people with disabilities. During the referendum campaign, little was said about this matter and I have heard very little since. But the implications for millions of disabled people and their families could be profound. The choices that will be made by the Government over the next few years about how we leave and what they choose to prioritise will be of enormous significance. I am grateful to the Papworth Trust for its thorough and calm analysis in its publication of last autumn, Brexit: What Next for Disabled People?

I declare an interest as a member of the advisory board of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and as patron of a local charity, Ace Anglia, which provides support and services to people with learning disabilities.

This is not the place to introduce a debate on the impact of Brexit on our economy overall. Indeed, it may be years before we can make a full assessment of that. But, if it is anything like as bad as some of us fear, the consequent deterioration in public finances could significantly reduce the amount of money available for benefits to disabled people and to the public services on which they are often dependent. The charity Scope estimates that 400,000 working-age disabled people are dependent on social care. It also reports that disabled people spend an average of £550 extra a month as a result of their disability. Clearly, these people have much less financial resilience to withstand a downturn and are more dependent on public services.

Of immediate concern is the loss of grants from European structural funds. According to the Academic Network of European Disability Experts, 19% of all European social fund grants are spent on projects directly supporting disabled people. To put that into context, the Papworth Trust alone received £7 million from that source between 2007 and 2016. The future sources of funding beyond 2020 are completely unknown. A quick glance at the White Paper published earlier suggests that the Government will meet some of these commitments—but only until 2020. That is a very short-term planning horizon.

Supporters of Brexit have always argued that the UK itself should be responsible for this kind of spending, not the EU. That is fair enough, but then we should expect to see some allocation of funds from the savings, whatever they may be, of no longer being members. To assist charities and other bodies with their forward planning, the Government should begin to offer some clarity about the post-2020 scenario.

There is a much deeper concern that a rush to deregulation, as a matter of either political choice or economic necessity to improve competitiveness, will reduce the statutory protections available to disabled people, especially with regard to employment and access rights. Anti-discrimination laws, while enacted by this Parliament, have their roots in EU law and could be removed by this or a future Government should they choose. The Government have set out, in outline at least, that their approach to unravelling the past 40 years of lawmaking in a European context will be the rather misnamed great repeal Bill. It seems to me to be a sensible approach to keep hold of the legislation that we currently have and to review it over time. This must be with proper parliamentary scrutiny and not just delegated to Ministers—although I am not convinced that the Government fully understand yet what a massive task this is, and the amount of Civil Service and parliamentary resource that will be required to perform it.

I will give some examples of what I mean. The blue badge scheme for parking concessions for people with disabilities is standardised across the EU. There is a comprehensive package of rights for disabled travellers on air and rail services. The charity Guide Dogs has pointed out to me that we have EU-mandated disability awareness training for bus drivers, and rules that ensure that electric and hybrid vehicles are audible. These are important matters and we need to make sure that they are not accidentally or deliberately lost in a wholesale bonfire of EU law.

The employment equality framework directive is a major component of EU labour law and combats workplace discrimination on the grounds of disability, as well as gender, age, race and sexual orientation. It will be a matter of choice for the Government as to whether they wish to hold on to these protections and, crucially, to what extent they are prepared to work with the groups representing the interests of disabled people to make sure that their needs are fully understood.

We are all aware that there is a social care crisis in this country, which is completely interwoven with the serious problems facing the National Health Service. There is no time in this introduction to detail concerns about the loss of EU migrants to the health and social care sector, although other noble Lords may have more to say on this. An estimated 130,000 EU citizens are working in the health and social care sector, so this is a major issue. There is already evidence that a combination of uncertainty about future arrangements and the increased instances of racially motivated attacks is making it harder to recruit into this sector. The fall in the value of the pound is making the UK a much less attractive option. Given that there is already a vacancy rate of around 5% in the care sector because of the low pay and unsocial hours, any deterioration here is a matter for concern. The charity Sense estimates that currently 108,000 learning disabled people with moderate to severe needs receive no support whatever. It would be catastrophic if this were to get any worse.

Health is of course mainly a national competence and there has never been an attempt to provide uniform services across the EU 28. However, there are some rights that exist across the EU that may now come into question. Because disabled people are more likely to use healthcare services, they could be affected more. All EU citizens can access each other’s health services free of charge using the European health insurance card. Will a continuation of this scheme be a priority for the Government? The UN estimates that around 1.2 million British citizens live and work in the EU. If we restrict the rights of EU citizens to the NHS, of course the same will happen to ours.

What will happen to the large number of pensioners, some of whom are disabled, currently accessing health services in places such as Spain and Cyprus? If the scheme is not to be continued, the Government will need a massive campaign to make sure that British tourists have adequate health insurance when they travel. For people with disabilities, getting such insurance can be very difficult and costly, and the Government will need to take this up with the insurance industry.

I understand that there is an NHS Europe transition team. I would like the Minister to assure us that disabled people are being consulted and involved in the thinking about what the implications might be of the different outcomes and options being considered by the Government. There are many tricky issues to be considered and resolved, and some of them will be part of the terms of departure that we agree with the EU. Others, such as co-ordination rules for social security, can be done bilaterally and could, if we are not careful, result in a bureaucratic nightmare.

We will still be Europeans and it makes no sense to turn our back on everything. It is estimated that there are 70 million disabled people in Europe, and a well-established network of research and development projects in which UK organisations have been active. It is an absolute priority to remain within those networks and funding programmes if we are not to lose the very real progress that we have made in understanding and treating the disabilities themselves and, crucially, in helping disabled people to live more fulfilled lives.

Social Security (Maternity Allowance) (Participating Wife or Civil Partner of Self-employed Earner) Regulations 2014

Baroness Scott of Needham Market Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Bates (Con)]

My Lords, in order to make the best use of parliamentary time there are two instruments for debate today. I have agreed with my noble friend Lord Faulks also to present an instrument which falls within the remit of his department, the Ministry of Justice. I will speak also to the draft Legal Aid (Information about Financial Resources) (Amendment) Regulations 2014, which bring forward a measure that is consequential on my department’s regulations. Both regulations were laid before both Houses on 21 January 2014 and are intended to come into effect from 1 April 2014.

I am satisfied that the Social Security (Maternity Allowance) (Participating Wife or Civil Partner of Self-employed Earner) Regulations 2014 is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. Likewise, my noble friend Lord Faulks and I are satisfied that the Legal Aid (Information about Financial Resources) (Amendment) Regulations 2014 is also compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

First, the Social Security (Maternity Allowance) (Participating Wife or Civil Partner of Self-employed Earner) Regulations 2014 provide for a maternity allowance to be made available to women who are neither employed nor self-employed in their own right, although they regularly take part in activities related to the business of their self-employed spouse or civil partner. They must be neither a partner nor an employee of the business concerned.

These regulations are being introduced in order to fully comply with European directive 2010/41, which was adopted on 24 June 2010 following negotiation between member states. The directive assures equal treatment between men and woman who are self-employed. It protects self-employed women during pregnancy and motherhood, together with women who are not self-employed, who habitually participate in the activities of their self-employed spouse or civil partner’s business.

The UK already complies with most of the directive through existing equality legislation, primarily the Equality Act 2010. However, Article 8 of the directive legislates for a maternity allowance to be paid to self-employed women and spouses or civil partners who habitually participate in the activities of a self-employed worker. This is required to enable them to interrupt their activities as a result of pregnancy or motherhood. We already provide a maternity allowance to self-employed women.

Women who contribute to their spouse or civil partner’s business by regularly helping out in an unpaid capacity could bring themselves within coverage of the maternity allowance and other social protection by becoming partners in, or employees of, the business. There are strong business and social incentives for doing this, which include tax benefits for the business and greater social protection for the woman. However, for women who do not wish to take these steps we must bring forward these regulations to ensure that we fully comply with the directive. If we were not to bring these regulations forward, we would not be fully compliant with the directive, which would put the UK at significant risk of being subjected to infraction proceedings by the European Commission. This would attract an initial lump sum fine estimated at around €11 million with a daily accrual until we are fully compliant.

The regulations will provide a maternity allowance to women who are due to give birth on or after 27 July this year and regularly assist in the self-employed business of their spouse or civil partner but are neither employees nor business partners. For the first time, spouses or civil partners of the self-employed worker who help in the business and receive no income will be able to receive a maternity allowance enabling them to take a break in their activities as a result of pregnancy.

In line with the Government’s objective to avoid the gold-plating of EU legislation, we will not go beyond the minimum requirements of European directives. This means that benefit will be payable at the weekly rate of £27 for a maximum of 14 weeks. This reflects the lowest rate of maternity allowance that is currently payable to working mothers on a very low income to be paid for the minimum duration specified by the directive.

This rate is less beneficial than the standard rate of maternity allowance currently awarded for up to 39 weeks to women who are eligible because they are employed or self-employed in their own right—the standard rate from April 2014 being £138.18. The higher rate and longer payment period of maternity allowance is intended to provide a measure of earnings replacement to enable women to take a break in their occupation at the end of their pregnancy or soon after childbirth. It would not be right to make a corresponding award of maternity allowance to women who have no earnings to replace. A number of stakeholders have been notified of this forthcoming change: for example, Netmums, Mumsnet, and Maternity Action. Maternity Action has advised that it supports the change and will help us to raise awareness of it if it is passed by your Lordships’ House.

I trust that your Lordships will agree that the regulations will help women who are pregnant or have recently given birth where, prior to that, they have lent unpaid support to their spouse or civil partner in helping them to build and maintain a self-employed business.

I turn to the draft Legal Aid (Information about Financial Resources) (Amendment) Regulations 2014. Those draft regulations amend the Legal Aid (Information about Financial Resources) Regulations 2013 that came into force on 1 April 2013. They add the maternity allowance being introduced for participating spouses or civil partners of self-employed earners to the list of prescribed benefits in the schedule to the 2013 regulations.

If an individual is in receipt of a prescribed benefit, the director of legal aid casework in the Legal Aid Agency, in assessing an individual’s income for the purpose of the legal aid financial means test, may request information about the benefit from various other government departments, including the amount that the individual is receiving. Having accurate information about the financial resources of an individual who is applying for or in receipt of legal aid is an important part of ensuring that only those eligible for legal aid receive it, and that those who can afford to contribute to the cost of their legal representation are made to do so. I commend the instruments to the Committee.

[Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)]

My Lords, I support the social security regulation which we are debating today—not just because it avoids an €11 million fine. I think it is a good thing in its own right. For once, we have a welcome change to the benefits system in that it is beginning genuinely to reflect the diversity of people’s lives and the lives of women in the workforce. That is a very good thing indeed. It is bringing a new group of women, predominantly from the very small, micro-business sector, within the ambit of maternity benefit. I just wish that the gold-plating had been left in place just on this one occasion so that they could have had a benefit more in line with everyone else.

I want to ask two questions. The first is about disseminating information, because this is a very difficult group to reach. They do not tend to be members of chambers of commerce, and that sort of thing. I do not have a particular answer, but I wanted to put in the plea that all efforts are made to ensure that women who are likely to benefit actually know about it and are able to. We hope that the Government’s new enterprise allowance scheme will be successful, so we could have even more very small businesses starting up in the coming year or so, so we need to get on top of how we can ensure that women know that these benefits are available.

Secondly, I welcome the discussions on shared parental leave—I know that the Deputy Prime Minister has been very keen on this and it has some support within government. It would provide welcome flexibility, but I am curious as to how these arrangements might work if we have shared parental leave. With those questions, I welcome the instrument.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation and I look forward to hearing the answers to those two excellent questions. I do not propose to ask any questions about the second order, as I accept the Minister’s assurance that it is consequential upon the first. However, I should like to ask a few questions so as to understand better the implications of the first order, relating to maternity allowance.

The first question relates to the point that has just been made about the rate being so low. The standard rate of maternity allowance is £136 a week, or 90% of average weekly earnings, for up to 39 weeks. In this case, the Government decided to settle on £27 a week for 14 weeks. I think I heard the Minister say that the aim of the allowance was to enable women who regularly help in the business of a spouse or civil partner to take a break from their activities towards the end of a pregnancy or the start of motherhood. Have the Government made any assessment of whether the amount of money involved is such that it is likely to make taking that break possible when otherwise it would not have been?

Secondly, the Explanatory Note says that 1,300 women will be affected by the provisions at an estimated cost of £0.5 million. No impact assessment was carried out, so we do not know whether the Government considered other approaches. Clearly, there is quite a wide range between what the Government are doing and an allowance that is fully gold-plated. Did the Government consider bringing this in at an intermediate level and, if so, what kind of cost would have been implied?

Next, I should be interested in understanding what conditions a claimant would have to meet to qualify for maternity allowance under these circumstances. We have had a question about shared parental leave. I should also be interested in knowing what happens to someone who is adopting a child rather than giving birth, as the regulations are specifically about giving birth or having just given birth. Looking at the regulations, I do not think that someone in these circumstances would be entitled to statutory adoption pay, so would they be entitled to maternity allowance? Similarly, what happens if the child is stillborn or dies immediately after birth? Certainly, I think that SMP is payable if a child is stillborn after 24 weeks, but is there a read-across to this provision?

I was pleased to hear the question about communication because I was going to ask something similar. The Minister made the very good point that there may be strong reasons why women in these circumstances may be better off being paid by the business and being able to pay national insurance. I am very conscious that the Pensions Bill is going through the House at the moment. Of course, if a woman in these circumstances does not end up with 35 years of national insurance payments in her own right, she may find that when she comes to retire she is not entitled to the new single-tier pension, and in future she will not be able to claim on her husband’s contributions either. Therefore, when the Minister looks at the communications campaign, I wonder whether anything can be done to make sure that the opportunity is taken to communicate to those women so that they understand the consequences of not paying national insurance and of not coming within the national insurance and tax system.

Finally, I have a practical question. Can the Minister explain the tax and tax credits treatment of these benefits and say whether there is any passporting or link across to any other benefits as a result of receiving this maternity allowance?

Gender Balance among Non-Executive Directors (EUC Report)

Baroness Scott of Needham Market Excerpts

Thursday 10th January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone]

I am more sympathetic to the noble Baroness’s argument than I am to people who go excessively far in arguing for the financial returns. Frankly, enlightened businesses have gender-diverse boards, so it is very hard to tell what the variable is. However, there is evidence that where governance is weak, female directors exercise strong oversight. They are very good at managing and controlling risk. When you talk about women and cost control, there is not a household in the country where family members will not immediately nod their heads and say “Yes, it’s the women who are in charge of cost control”.

I am absolutely certain that the evidence about female directors enhancing board independence is valid. Females are more resilient and resistant to groupthink, and that has so often been the case in discussions and debate, whether in politics, in business or in many other enterprises. If part of the causes of our corporate disasters has been groupthink, then I have no doubt that women, with the competence and necessary skill, make a great addition. Their management style tends to be much more appropriate to the modern forms of management than the more didactic, autocratic patterns of the past.

The real issue, of course, is that he who pays the piper calls the tune—and by 2025 there will be more female than male millionaires in this country, and 60% of the private wealth will be managed by women. It is enlightened self-interest to take this topic seriously. Nobody doubts the Government’s commitment in this area. Since the report of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, 49% of non-executive appointments have been women. As I have said, the noble Lord has done a great job and we are all indebted to him, but there are so many architects and investors in this policy, and no one person can be thought to have achieved that change. However, being led by a man—regrettably—has probably been a factor in achieving the necessary results. We are now on target for women to constitute 40% of board membership by 2020.

This is, therefore, a success story, but it is important that it is not a passing fad. It needs the tenacity, the long-term approach and the monitoring. I congratulate my noble colleagues on determinedly resisting the idea that this is an area of EU competence. It will simply be counterproductive in our context. We endorse the importance of this principle and congratulate the Government on the progress to date, and I support my noble friend in his Motion.

[Baroness Scott of Needham Market]

My Lords, my support this evening for the Motion does not in any way detract from my absolute commitment to the need to have more women on boards, for a whole range of reasons which have already been given, but not least because not to have women on boards is an absolute waste of the talent and education in which the country has invested.

The question before us this evening is not about the merits of women on boards, and it is not even about the Commission’s proposals. This evening’s debate is about the question of subsidiarity, and I will focus my remarks on that. This is the second time in a month that the House has been asked for a reasoned opinion. Both requests have come from Sub-Committee B, and as a Member of both that Committee and the EU Select Committee, I can tell the House that we have spent a lot of time not only discussing the specific issues but the general nature of subsidiarity.

I thought that I had a pretty good idea about what was meant by subsidiarity. Indeed, the paper that we are looking at today defines it as acting at EU level where it genuinely adds value to do so and where objectives cannot be met without action at EU level. I think we would all understand, even if we do not agree with it, that there are times when the pursuit of EU objectives such as the single market or the free movement of people clearly requires legislation. However, I do not believe that the Commission’s proposals for gender quotas on boards have met these tests. No one, during the evidence that we took in our inquiry, argued that it was a single-market issue. It was portrayed as, and indeed is, a matter of gender equality, but we already have EU legislation that outlaws gender discrimination, and it seems that we should be looking to the Commission and to member states to take action on that front before bringing in new legislation. I even wonder, although I am not a lawyer, whether a statutory 40% quota would comply with the EU’s own gender equality legislation, since it would enshrine an imbalance.

EU Report: Women on Boards

Baroness Scott of Needham Market Excerpts

Tuesday 13th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Needham Market]

My Lords, I want to start by paying tribute to Commissioner Reding. We have seen the value of strong leadership when it is shown in this country, as it is here by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and Vince Cable. Article 2 of the EU treaty clearly gives a competence in equalities issues and the Commission is quite right to look at the question of women on boards in this regard. While the position of women in the boardroom in countries such the UK and Norway has undoubtedly improved, it is very poor elsewhere in the European Union. For me, one of the most persuasive parts of the evidence we heard was the reminder that the current situation is such a waste both of talent and of the public investment in the education of women if they find their way is barred. Our report therefore sets out some of the ways in which the EU can take action—for example, through monitoring, collection of data, exchange of best practice with the business sector and executive search firms—in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, has done here. I believe that naming and shaming companies who are laggards can be very powerful, particularly if shareholders exert their power.

While I am not against quotas per se, I have serious reservations about them for all the reasons we have just heard. If they were imposed at EU level, it would be difficult to find a quota which would reflect the very different rates of participation across the Union. If a quota were set too high, it would be impossible for some states to reach; if it were set too low, it could actually set women back in other countries. If Government lose that argument and EU quotas are the outcome, I would advise them to negotiate for percentage increases rather than a one-size-fits-all. For me, it is a matter of practical subsidiarity. Whether or not to have quotas and how they should be used is a matter for member states.