Seven FTSE 100 boardrooms without a single woman

Cable: "Doing nothing is not an option anymore”

Vince Cable has warned the seven remaining FTSE 100 companies without a single woman in their boardrooms that “doing nothing was not an option anymore”.

 In a letter sent to the chairman and chief executive of each business, he made clear that he wanted a “significant female presence” on every board by 2015.

There were 21 FTSE 100 companies solely directed by men at the beginning of the Coalition government two and a half years ago, but mining specialists Xstrata, Glencore, Kazakhmys, Vedanta and Antofagasta, chemicals manufacturer Croda and Melrose, which specialises in performance improvement of businesses, are still to make changes in the way they’re managed.

The Business Secretary added that it was “not about equality, [but] good governance and good business”, and that “diverse boards [benefit] from fresh perspectives, opinions and new ideas which ultimately serve the company’s long term interests”.

This announcement came five days after the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, held a panel about women in economic decision-making, where Christine Lagarde, head of the IMF, called for greater gender equality in companies.

She accused companies of only giving jobs to women when they are “a basket case, a lost cause”, and that gender diversity and inclusiveness were important for humanity, as well as business.

Out of the 2500 people who attended the conference, 83 per cent were male, which accurately mirrors reality, as women currently make up only 16 per cent of all FTSE boards.

Companies were also criticised for overturning the gender imbalance by simply appointing female non-executive directors, who arguably have less power and influence on a day-today basis.

Only 20 per cent of boards have female executive directors, and Burberry and Imperial Tobacco are the sole two FTSE 100 UK companies to be run by women – respectively Angela Ahrendts and Alison Cooper.

The European Commission proposed to resolve this by making it mandatory for companies to have 40 per cent female directors on their boards, but several EU nations, including the UK, are opposed to the idea.

UK ministers want companies to have at least one female director for every three men by 2015 but do not back quotas, preferring to encourage a voluntary approach.

A study published by Randstad UK last December showed that this opinion was shared by women currently working in business, with 73 per cent of respondents saying that “self-doubt” was the main reason for women holding back, and only 6 per cent backing compulsory quotas.

Vince Cable wants every FTSE board to have a significant women presence by 2015

Marie le Conte is a freelance journalist.

Getty
Show Hide image

The Manchester attack will define this election: Broadcasters have a careful line to tread

It's right that the government should be given a chance to respond, but they must not be allowed to use it to campaign.

Every election campaign has its story, its place in the political history of this country. 2017 will forever be known for Manchester and the horror of the attack on Britain's young; and fighting terrorism will be a theme, overt or underlying, of what we see and hear between now and polling day.

The broadcasters have covered the events comprehensively yet sensitively. But they are aware that we're in an election campaign too; and when other news drives aside the carefully-balanced campaign formats, ministerial appearances give them a dilemma.

The fact is that what the Prime Minister and Home Secretary are doing in response to Manchester is newsworthy. It was Theresa May's duty to implement the recommendations of her security advisers on the elevation of the terror alert, and it would have been unthinkable for the news channels not to broadcast her various statements.

But it is also true that, if the bomb hadn't been detonated, Tuesday would have been a day in which the PM would have been under relentless damaging scrutiny for her u-turn on social care. All the opposition parties would have been in full cry across the airwaves. Yet in the tragic circumstances we found ourselves, nobody could argue that Downing Street appearances on the terror attack should prompt equal airtime for everyone from Labour to Plaid Cymru.

There are precedents for ministers needing to step out of their party roles during a campaign, and not be counted against the stopwatch balance of coverage. Irish terrorism was a factor in previous elections and the PM or Northern Ireland secretary were able to speak on behalf of the UK government. It applied to the foot and mouth epidemic that was occupying ministers' time in 2001. Prime ministers have gone to foreign meetings before, too. Mrs Thatcher went to an economic summit in photogenic Venice with her soulmate Ronald Reagan three days before the 1987 election, to the irritation of Neil Kinnock.

There are plenty of critics who will be vigilant about any quest for party advantage in the way that Theresa May and Amber Rudd now make their TV and radio appearances; and it’s inevitable that a party arguing that it offers strength and stability will not object to being judged against these criteria in extreme and distressing times.

So it's necessary for both broadcasters and politicians to be careful, and there are some fine judgements to be made. For instance, it was completely justifiable to interview Amber Rudd about the latest information from Manchester and her annoyance with American intelligence leaks. I was less comfortable with her being asked in the same interview about the Prevent strategy, and with her response that actions would follow "after June", which edges into party territory and would be a legitimate area to seek an opposition response.

When the campaigning resumes, these challenges become even greater. Deciding when the Prime Minister is speaking for the government and nation, or when she is leader of the Conservative Party, will never be black and white. But I would expect to see the broadcast bulletins trying to draw clearer lines about what is a political report and what is the latest from Manchester or from G7. They must also resist any efforts to time ministerial pronouncements with what's convenient for the party strategists' campaign grid.

There might also usefully be more effort to report straight what the parties are saying in the final days, with less spin and tactical analysis from the correspondents. The narrative of this election has been changed by tragedy, and the best response is to let the politicians and the public engage as directly as possible in deciding what direction the nation should now take.

Roger Mosey is the Master of Selwyn College, Cambridge. He was formerly editorial director and the director of London 2012 at the BBC.

0800 7318496