Published by The i paper (4th August, 2025)
Mary-Ann Stephenson, the head of a feminist think-tank, was grilled last month in Parliament over her proposed appointment as head of the equalities watchdog. She was questioned by 17 members from both houses on race, disability, Islamophobia, and transgender rights. These are among the most complex, divisive, and important issues facing our country, as we see almost daily in the headlines – and clearly the academic failed to impress in her job pitch. The next day, the chairs of the two committees that interrogated her at Westminster wrote to the Government opposing her selection, saying she “did not provide sufficient evidence to convince us that she has yet acquired the skills and leadership experience necessary” for such a role.
This is an unusual step. The letter – signed by Sarah Owen, an elected Labour woman of Chinese descent, and David Alton, a male ex-Liberal Democrat peer – said Dr Stephenson lacked “suitable depth of understanding” of core issues such as race and disability. Those involved included Baroness Lawrence, the mother of murdered teenager Stephen Lawrence, and the respected human rights lawyer Baroness Kennedy; some were stunned by the banal answers they heard. One told me it was like interviewing a middle manager rather than someone with the stature and vision to steer a path through difficult issues tormenting the country. “This job needs a strong person with clear leadership and values when there’s so much divisiveness,” said another.
Bridget Phillipson, the Education and Equalities minister, ignored their objections to appoint Stephenson last week with “utmost confidence” as chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Her decision made few waves, although this is an influential statutory body with strong enforcement powers over citizens, firms, and institutions. Yet it raises important issues extending far beyond the arrogance of an ambitious minister. For what is the point of a state watchdog if it simply serves as a government poodle? And why continue with an equality quango if it ignores some of the most marginalised groups in society while driving open toxic divisions?
The appointment exposes the extent to which the pushback against transgender rights has come to overshadow the entire equalities debate. And it exposes Labour’s tremulous appeasement of the hard right as it observes the rise of Reform UK in terror. The key reason Stephenson was handed this high-profile job seems to be that she played an active role for a decade supporting “gender-critical” views, signing letters accusing trans activists of seeking to silence cis women and aligning herself with prominent figures on one side of a brutal debate. No wonder those MPs expressed alarm in their letter over this academic’s ability to restore trust after hearing her evasive responses, even to questions such as whether or not trans people should be harassed by bullies who film them using the toilet and then post the footage on social media.
Sadly, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has come to be seen as a partisan in this battle. Its chair, Kishwer Falkner, took a tough line in response to the Supreme Court’s April ruling that the legal definition of a woman refers only to biological sex, furthering the fissures on this issue. She insisted this meant trans women could not participate in women’s sport, use female changing facilities or be treated on single-sex wards – although former Supreme Court judge Jonathan Sumption is among many arguing that it is a misreading of the ruling to suggest trans women must be excluded from single-sex spaces. Now the EHRC is drawing up guidance for public bodies after a surprisingly short consultation of just six weeks.
Bear in mind that Baroness Falkner was chosen by the now-discredited Liz Truss during her stint as minister for women and equalities, when she sought to shift this agenda in line with her own views. Other commissioners picked included a prominent anti-migration campaigner and an entrepreneur who claimed feminism was “obsessed with female victimhood”. This all provoked Falkner’s predecessor to complain that a supposedly independent regulator was being manipulated by the Government to support its ideology. Labour’s decision to extend her tenure by 12 months sparked dismay among many staff members.
The EHRC is meant to fight for equality, not become embroiled in culture wars. Yet it has a disturbing history of failing to stand up effectively for people with disabilities, especially the 1.5 million citizens with learning disabilities who remain largely excluded from mainstream society, with often tragic consequences. Several years ago, I saw how it threatened – but then was bottled under political pressure – to use its powers to stop the locking of people with autism and learning disabilities in secure psychiatric units. So this shameful human rights abuse continues in the heart of our health service, yet it is widely accepted as medically and morally wrong.
Earlier this year, I sent a freedom of information request for Falkner’s statements and speeches on autism, disability, and learning disability since her appointment in December 2020. The results showed the body’s insouciance towards a community that often faces profound struggles, from accessing transport to obtaining jobs and state support. Incredibly, the EHRC chair made no mention of people with disabilities for her first year – amid a pandemic that exposed the extent of bigotry towards such citizens. Then there were only 14 direct references to disability in all her statements, one of autism, and nothing about learning disabilities over more than five years of tenure.
What a strange contrast to the speed and vigour with which Falkner delivered her zealous interpretation of the Supreme Court ruling on trans rights, proclaiming a victory for common sense. Now we see her successor is someone who seems set to follow a similar path.
Perhaps it is time to break up this floundering institution, returning to separate bodies for racial equality and disabled rights rather than seeing crucial concerns shunted aside amid culture wars. Certainly, we need regulators that are genuinely independent, not this sham. At a time when abuse, bigotry, and racism are so rampant and societal divisions so pervasive, the dismal Equality and Human Rights Commission needs to start living up to its name – or shut up shop.