We’re doing our education papers in timewarped reverse this weekend, opening with the Adult, Further and Higher Education papers this morning, continuing with age 5-19 Education this afternoon and finishing with under-5s childcare tomorrow.
This paper has had a record number of amendments offered – 16, of which four have gone forward, three of which concern faith schools. The first calls for one critical provision to be removed from the policy paper, the provision which prevents the establishment of new schools which select on faith. Jonathan Davies speaking in support of the motion, stresses that he does not impose his faith on others – therefore he asks that others do not impose their secularism on him.
By contrast, amendment 2 strengthens the policy against faith schools. Nader Fekri, moving the amendment, talks of the inevitability of segregation – even apartheid – in a state system that allows faith schools, and minority faiths will inevitably suffer.
Amendment 3 is a compromise, to be summated by Tim Farron, which softens the policy’s requirement to phase out faith schools within five years into a cuddlier requirement that faith schools “demonstrate the inclusiveness of their intakes”.
Still, the highlight of the debate for me was the slightly wacky but inspiring speech against the main motion from some bloke whose name I didn’t catch (what am I? PICS?). He said the policy was not imaginative and experimental enough – it perpetuated a rigid, institutionalised system with limited teaching methodologies. He has a striking statistic, apparently children ask an average of 50 questions per day when young. They learn by constant testing and feedback. In school, of course, they can’t, so their natural learning avenue is cut off.
Meanwhile, yet another Lib Dem first: real-time lobbying on Twitter. Joe Otten, he of the Extra Bold blog, is twittering from the hall as I write – and lobbying other voting reps to vote for the motion unamended.
Vince Cable now speaking forcefully in favour of retaining faith schools. Why are we trying to pick a fight with these people? As a liberal he does not believe in imposing his views on others, and he is against top-down dictats, as we all are – so why are we imposing one here? His speech is very well-received – I suspect we may be seeing a victory for amendment 3, but it’s close. If I were voting, I’d be in something of a quandary about now.
In fact, well worth having a look at the #ldconf Twitter feed about now. Lots of good on-the-spot observations from the hall.
Evan Harris, speaking in favour of the original motion, gets a huge laugh from the LDV team for commenting on the unlikely contrast of Vince’s position against a party policy motion, and his own position in favour – “It’s a miracle!” He says the paper does respect the faiths of others, but also prevents discrimination.
A mini-debate on this issue is narrowly defeated.
Tim Farron, speaking for amendment 3, points out the local situation on the ground – faith schools are already a reality, certainly in his constituency. He echoes Vince’s theme of top-down interference.
David Laws summating for the motion. And now we’re on to the voting.
Amendment 1 defeated.
Amendment 2 defeated.
Amendment 3, part 1 (on selection) is close and has gone to a count. Part 1 would replace the requirement to phase out faith schools over five years with the requirement for faith schools to demonstrate their inclusiveness.
Still counting…
In the meantime, Duncan Brack calls the vote on unrelated amendment 4. Eek! It looks close! Another count? Nope, at the second showing, it was defeated.
The results are in. Amendment 3, part 1 narrowly carried 292 votes to 241.
Amendment 3, part 2 is defeated.
The motion as amended is clearly carried.
Phew.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Church Green video
Thinking of standing for election or re-election next year? Helpful questions to consider
The Joy of Six 1528
Endometriosis and acetylation
How Chancellor Reeves torpedoed the economy
Daniel Walker
David Raw
Kira Collins
22 Comments
What was the reference debate? Some lady was shuffling past me and I missed it.
Feeling a bit disenfranchised!
Some interesting views; will be voting unamended.
Forgive me for being totally confused. What is part 1 and 2 of amendment 3? And what in a clear and simple sentence is Lib Dem policy on faith schools?
As I read it, the “no new faith schools” policy fell in favour of “faith schools would have to prove they were inclusive”.
That sounds totally lame. I wouldn’t want a child of mine to attend a faith school of any stripe, so how can they possibly be inclusive towards me? You could argue that I have excluded myself, but it’s the same difference. Amendment 2 was more like it. What is the point . . . ?
No amendments allowed new faith schools, but couldn’t select pupils on faith.
Amendment 1 was leave faith schools alone, could still select on faith.
Amendment 2 was end to state funding for faith schools.
Amendment 3a was five years for faith schools to gather evidence they are inclusive or local authorities to push them to close.
Amendment 3b was to allow schools to select heads on faith grounds.
Amendment 4 was to have local referenda on closing grammar schools.
Whole motion passed amended with 3a – pupil premiums, more school freedoms on curriculum; faith schools remain open and free to teach, staff cannot be selected by faith, schools have five years to show they are inclusive of all irrespective of faith criteria for selection.
Clear?
Yes very clear, thanks . . . and completely useless. I can’t tell anyone that Lib Dems are going to phase out faith schools. Because we’re not.
I think that’s exactly the point of the amendment passing though isn’t it?
The point of the amendment means the BBC can declare that Lib Dems back state faith schools. It’s hard to see how I can really stay in the party. Which is great news for everyone who has been asking me to leave over the last year or so.
Your wacky-but-inspiring chap was Dave Rickard, whom I always enjoy listening to even when I can’t figure out what on earth he’s on about 😉
Laurence, don’t let the buggers grind you down, obviously more support for our position on this in the party
Laurence, I totally disagree with your views on religion and faith schools however I hope you stay in the party.
Which Party you going to join then, Laurence? Given your intolerence, I could see you with the Tories.
Great shame.
I haven’t been a member of the Lib Dems since last year, but until today I never really doubted that I would vote Lib Dem.
There was never any likelihood that Conference would end faith schools. As David Laws pointed out in his speech, there have been (at least) two previous attempts to secure this objective, and Conference has rejected the idea every time. Even Evan Harris didn’t support it on this occasion.
Note, however, Conference just came very close to banning selection on the basis of faith, something that several of the speakers obviously considered tantamount to banning faith schools anyway.
Thanks for the plug Alix.
I don’t think the arguments for amendment 3 were entirely honest. Selection by faith is not something every faith school does and therefore cannot be intrinsic to the ethos. And the right to discriminate against a head of physics or head of history for having a crisis of faith or a boyfriend is just an outrage against human rights.
However many speakers repeated the lobbying there has obviously been on this point, from representatives of the more exclusive wings of each of the faiths, and I can’t blame delegates for believing half of it.
The original substantive was correct, and very astute to allow faith schools as a choice, but to hold faith schools to some of the same high standards as other schools, and to respect the human rights of individual pupils. The issue is not who runs schools – we should not prejudge believers as unsuitable any than we should so prejudge unbelievers. The issues are tolerance, discrimination, choice, and selection by the back door.
Well said, Joe.
While I am sad the amendment passed, I don’t see this as a backwards step, IainM. We have previously failed to engage seriously with the issue.
I prefer a policy I disagree with to a fudge.
It was a great shame the Chair decided not to take any speeches on amendment 4 on grammar schools, which was narrowly rejected. It is a fundamental issue in many areas, and cards were submitted, but not debated. I hope COnference Committee will look favourably on attempts to bring this issue back for debate in the future.
While I am sad the amendment passed, I don’t see this as a backwards step, IainM. We have previously failed to engage seriously with the issue.
I prefer a policy I disagree with to a fudge.
I don’t. It’s still a fudge. People don’t vote Lib Dem to see Lib Dem policies realised, because everyone knows that is never going to happen. People vote Lib Dem because they want to make a statement of principle of some kind. For me, the Lib Dems semi-ambiguous stance on faith schools was still distinctive from and potentially better than the other two parties’ unambiguously pro-faith-schools position, and so potentially still a reason to vote for them. But this actual policy really isn’t better than or distinctive from their positions. Oh sure, as with all the other detailed policies the Lib Dems put out in their endless quest for electoral invisibility, it might in minute detail be marginally better than the status quo if enacted, but, as with all the other detailed policies the Lib Dems put out in their endless quest for electoral invisibility, that is of no consequence whatsoever because it stands not a chance in hell of ever being enacted.
I, personally, care only that as an issue it can no longer contribute to any statement of principles I might want to make, and therefore I have one fewer reason to vote Lib Dem.
And, really, that was easily the biggest of the few that remained.
Back to Andrew Tennant’s first question, I put in the reference back request because it seemed to me a debate about sweeping new education policy had been hijacked by the one issue.
Mine was one of the 11 amendments that were not called. It was about the role of elected parent governors because the policy paper has no place for them at all. (It talks of selection “solely” by skills).
Because the debate was very narrowly focused we did not know what was in the amendments that were not called. And nor were any speakers called to tell us.
One simple solution for the conference committee: publish ALL amendments that are submitted in the daily news and certainly on-line. Why not ballot as we do for emergency motions? We seem to be stuck in the TUC-style dark ages!
It’s pretty clear that the powers that be decided to use the debate to settle the conflict over faith schools. A real shame when both Nick and David Laws have made reform of schools a key theme.
On balance I’m pleased with this. We’re catching the mood and we have avoided some very divisive possibilities.
More here.
“Which Party you going to join then, Laurence? Given your intolerance, I could see you with the Tories.”
I’m not going to join any other party. Will probably stick with the Lib Dems. Would never vote Conservative. Might vote Labour though. At least Gordon Brown gave a clear lead over stem cells.
Iainm is exactly right. The agreed policy is a hopeless fudge which will be completely lost in the noise. We should be giving out clear signals of intent, not ambiguous and vague policy which is never going to be accurately reported anyway.
And then we complain that we lack a distinctive narrative. Well it’s there on a plate, just begging for someone to take it on.
Tried to comment here a few days back but the site kept crashing, so I wrote a post on the subject instead.
Laurence, and Iain—like you, I’d like to see faith schools removed, but I don’t think the population is ready for that yet. This policy, giving as it does a clear method for LAs to remove funding, allows us to move opinion in that direction.
I do like the way that an amendment designed to help protect faith schools by its proponents actually gives us the facility to shut the damn things down.