The report concluded – rightly, in my view, on the basis of the work we have done with our members to understand this issue – that there is no evidence of any kind of systemic discrimination against those of us with XX chromosomes who want to take out a mortgage (or, indeed, a business loan). Good.

As it happens, though, I also have huge amounts of sympathy with the position of lenders caught on the horns of the dilemma between what might be interpreted as discrimination, or alternatively as affordable, responsible lending.

The most obvious example is in lending decisions relating to pregnant women and those on maternity leave (I’ve been on maternity leave, twice; I know having children and taking time out has a massive effect on income, and of course some women swear that they are going back to work but then, for whatever reason, don’t). Gender isn’t the issue here; it’s our old credit risk friend “foreseeable circumstances”.

As the report highlights, at the CML we will be working with other trade bodies to try to breathe life into a sensible narrative, under which lenders can successfully navigate through the regulatory requirements of responsible lending – that takes account (as it must) of foreseeable changes in circumstances – while ensuring that it is not discriminatory.

But the report also highlighted a need to address the perception of discrimination that exists, even where discrimination itself doesn’t.

That struck a chord and got me thinking. Sometimes the perception of an issue is the issue itself.

My mother Olive, now nearly 80, was in the 1980s and 1990s the chief executive of a building society. That was back in the days when building society bosses were called Secretaries, and Secretaries (with the exception of my mother) were men. Many Secretaries had secretaries, but secretaries were women, if you get my drift. So my mother was fairly routinely assumed to be the secretary to a Clive Anderson, Esq; ever the pragmatist, she simply had her job title changed to chief executive. No-one really meant to patronise her; but that didn’t mean it wasn’t patronising, even though we laughed about it.

Personally, I’ve never been conscious of any kind of gender-driven bias as a financial services consumer. And in over 20 years I’ve never encountered it among my CML staff colleagues either. But in the course of doing my job I can think of numerous examples of low-grade, casual sexism from wider contacts. Mostly this has been completely unintentional; to take offence would be churlish.

But more perniciously, at times there has been a certain taint in the air – those infamous Mortgage Expo pole dancers; that Edeus advert; both, happily, firmly lodged in the dim and distant past, where I am sure such anecdotes will now remain.

Equalities legislation probably isn’t one of those subjects that’s going to get lenders’ or brokers’ pulses racing. Yet sometimes the challenge in mortgage lending is not just about doing the right thing, but also about reassuring customers and stakeholders that the right thing is being done. We look forward to helping achieve this goal, so that no-one is left in any doubt that women are on an equal footing with men when it comes to mortgage borrowing.