Appointment of new EHRC chair: revisited

Introduction

The Minister for Women and Equalities, Bridget Phillipson MP, last week confirmed Dr Mary Ann Stephenson as the next Chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC). Dr Stephenson will take up post on 1 December, after the current chair Baroness Falkner’s term ends on 30 November.

We previously reviewed Dr Stephenson’s pre-appointment hearing in front of the Women and Equalities Committee and the Joint Committee on Human Rights, after it was reported in the press that the committees had written to Bridget Phillipson to oppose Dr Stephenson’s appointment.

Below we revisit our earlier analysis, reviewing the content of the letter sent jointly by the two Committees, which was published on the Parliament’s website on 18 July.

Process

For each of the preceding chairs, David Isaac and Baroness Kishwer Falkner, the joint Committees published a formal report, with supporting papers, including the candidate’s full CV. These are available here and here.

The Committees have so far failed to do this for Dr Stephenson. It is not clear why. A formal report would need to state if the Committee members are unanimous or there are minority dissenting views, for example. Comment from one member suggests that the letter does not represent a unanimous position, although it does not explain this. A report has in the past also meant all the information provided to the Committee on the candidate’s CV was made available.

The Committee states at the end of the letter that it does not intend to publish it.  Although it now has, it is unclear what if anything members originally intended to publish about their attempt to prevent Stephenson’s appointment. The letters raising concerns about Isaac were published.

The Committee’s arguments

The letter’s content is similar to what was leaked and discussed in our earlier blog.  The Committee suggests its objection has three parts:

It is clear that Dr Stephenson has extensive academic credibility in the field of women’s rights and has an important contribution to make to public life.  However, it is with regret that we do not feel we can endorse her appointment to the role at this time. Our reasons relate to our concerns about vision and leadership, about breadth of expertise across the wide remit of the EHRC, and about rebuilding trust.

(The questions and answers from the scrutiny session can be read here.)

Leadership

The Committee says:

The role description calls for “the ability to lead and manage a major high-profile organisation, including chairing the board, providing effective challenge and support to the Executive.” Dr Stephenson did not provide sufficient evidence to convince us that she has yet acquired the skills and leadership experience necessary to carry out these functions.

The use of “academic” in its opening summary paragraph appears intended to imply a lack of practical experience. However, Stephenson currently runs an organisation with a turnover of £1m (a role she has occupied since 2017), as well as having chairing and other board experience. The Committee’s questioning did not explore that dimension of her experience at length. There was little indication that members had looked in detail at her CV. The UK Government press release announcing Stephenson’s appointment lists her experience:

• Director of the Women’s Budget Group
• Director of the Fawcett Society
• Tutor and visiting lecturer at University of Warwick Law School, including international human rights, UK employment law, UK equality law
• Visiting lecturer at University of Nottingham School of Law, London School of Economics and University of Wolverhampton
• Consultant to equalities and human rights projects including British Council, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Trade Union Congress, and Foreign and Commonwealth Office
• Chair of Early Education and Childcare Coalition
• Board member of Coventry Rape and Sexual Abuse Centre (CRASAC), Coventry Police and Crime Board, Just Fair, and Article 19
• Campaigns Officer at Liberty

In addition, it is not clear that Stephenson’s experience here leaves her any less experienced or qualified than any of the past four chairs, and arguably more than some. If the Committees had already concluded that there should now be a substantial change in what is expected of candidates, it is even more surprising that it did not explore her experience here more thoroughly.  

Breadth of expertise across protected characteristics

The Committees’ letter says:

The EHRC must enforce equality legislation on age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation. The role description calls for “a credible understanding of and demonstrable commitment to equality and human rights.” Dr Stephenson impressed with her record of advocating for women’s rights – on which she should be commended – and her knowledge of equalities legislation. While we accept that no candidate is likely to have in-depth knowledge of every single area, she did not demonstrate a suitable depth of understanding of enough issues facing groups with other protected characteristics including race and disability. As such, we have concerns over her ability to enforce the rights of everyone. 

The striking contrast here is with the treatment of David Isaac’s long association with Stonewall, which was seen as a simple positive. Whereas it would appear that the Committees regard Stephenson’s experience and expertise on women’s rights as too narrow to make her a suitable candidate.

As we noted in our earlier analysis, Committee members themselves chose to devote around one-third of the questioning to the relationship between the protected characteristics of gender reassignment and sex, the only specific protected characteristics highlighted in advance for questioning. The Committees’ decision to focus the session so heavily on sex and gender reassignment was unusual. Neither of the previous two hearings picked out a single characteristic for discussion in this way.

No committee member asked questions about age, sexual orientation (leaving aside a general reference to the LGBT community),  marriage and civil partnership, or pregnancy and maternity. Stephenson brought up the first and last of these in some responses.

There were some questions on disability. Dr Stephenson was the first person to raise this issue, and several of her attempts to bring it in in other answers were ignored. There was more questioning on race. Stephenson was, again, the first person in the session to raise it as an issue.  Religion and belief came up only in questions on Islam, and on whether board members’ beliefs could amount to a conflict of interest.

On race, religion, disability and belief Stephenson was able to draw on her own experience in responding. The Committees’ conclusions that these answers were not good enough is not backed up with any specific examples, but offered only at an impressionistic level.

Concerns that Dr Stephenson “did not demonstrate a suitable depth of understanding of enough issues facing groups with other protected characteristics including race and disability” were cited as part of the Committees’ rationale for opposing her appointment.

A cursory internet search demonstrates the breadth of analysis undertaken by the Women’s Budget Group under Dr Stephenson’s leadership on the disadvantage and discrimination experienced by women on the basis of race, as well as disability and social class.

It was also notable that the press release announcing Dr Stephenson’s appointment carried supportive quotes from Dr Zubaida Haque, former Deputy Director and Interim Director of the race equality charity, the Runnymede Trust, and Pragna Patel, founding member of Southall Black Sisters and Co-director of Project Resist.

Trust

Given it spent so much time on gender reassignment and sex, the Committees’ letter noticeably avoids discussing what it made of Dr Stephenson’s answers on that point. It limits itself to allusive comments, such as:

[The chair must be] able to advocate effectively on behalf of all protected groups, including some of the most vulnerable in society.

The role description calls for “outstanding relationship building and communication skills, with the ability to command respect, build networks quickly and work with and through others to achieve objectives.” The debate in Parliament, in the press and on social media, as well as the volume of correspondence received by both Committees, make clear that the EHRC has lost the trust of some communities. This is not the fault of the candidate, but it does mean that whoever is appointed must be able to tackle this challenge.

Despite our questioning, and although she is clearly a person of good will, Dr Stephenson did not persuade us that she will be able to rebuild trust in the organisation.

The letter avoids stating what was admitted in the hearing, that the letters sent to members protesting about Dr Stephenson relate to one perspective only, on one issue: the relationship between sex and gender reassignment. Again, the committee is not specific about what it found inadequate in the answers it received.

The letter concludes by offering general concern on the EHRC’s funding situation, from which it segues directly into “It is for this reason that we would like to invite you to reconsider your decision to appoint Dr Stephenson”.  Why the previous paragraph in particular is a reason to oppose Dr Stephenson’s appointment is not further explained.

Comment

As the leak suggested, and sight of the letter confirms, there is a substantial mismatch between how the Committees chose to use their opportunity to question the candidate, and members’ now-stated priorities for the role. Sight of the letter adds to the picture by revealing that the Committees did not explain how they drew the conclusions they did from the answers they received.

Standing back from the detail, there is a strong sense of the letter dancing round the majority of Committee members’ real objection to the candidate: their perception of her beliefs on one topic. The position in question – that sex is binary, immutable and sometime that matters – is the basis for the protected characteristic of sex in the Equality Act 2010, and also protected in law as a belief.