One of the attractions for me of Saturday’s Lib Dem Manifesto Group One-Day Conference was the opportunity to informally debate a range of issues and their implications for policy. It is a rare opportunity and one that I think we should consider using more, both at party conferences and beyond.

So, in the morning I attended the session on Community Cohesion, organised by the perhaps unlikely bedfellows of the Liberal Democrat Christian Forum (LDCF), Ethnic Minority Liberal Democrats (EMLD), and Liberal Democrat Humanists and Secularists (LDHS).

The session kicked off with three short speeches from Paul Holmes, Meral Ece and Simon Hughes.

Paul, representing LDHS, focused on education, calling for an end to selection and questioning who might be the “suitable bodies” to run schools. He referred to the fact that most people consider that religion does more harm than good, and raised some of the key concerns he had about faith schools. For example, Catholic schools that teach sex is only permissible in marriage, that exclude particular books and will not support charities that go against fundamental Catholic beliefs, (eg, not participating in Red Nose Day). He was concerned about other examples, like the Exclusive Brethren Church, who dismissed a female head because of their belief that a woman should not be in a position of authority. He had concerns that we were in danger of creating a “mini-America” and needed to consider carefully before handing over control to some of these bodies.

Meral expressed her view that we needed to debate the issues. She referred to the commission on community cohesion, chaired by Ted Cantell, and the importance of recognising that faith is a social network. There was no commonality of understanding about what it means to be a citizen in our multi-faith, multi-racial society. The inequalities that existed had lead to some young people turning to their background for some value, but that sometimes those values had been hijacked by a few individuals. She questioned the notion of enforced secularism, and referred to Turkey, a wholly secular system, where faith and state are completely separate.

Simon started by saying he was an Evangelical Christian, and referred to the fact that at the last census 75% of the population had a faith. He expressed frustration that the statistics were hopeless, and what we needed was an annual count and 5-yearly census. He was in favour of disestablishment of the Church of England, and was pleased that the Prime Minister would no longer have a say in appointing bishops. On faith schools, he said that if we were starting from here we would not have them; but we are where we are, and can’t realistically abolish them. He was against selection and believed that teaching about faith should take place outside school. He also felt people should be allowed to wear signs of their faith. He was in favour of the repeal of the blasphemy law, and paid tribute to Evan Harris for the work he had done on this. Finally, he referred to the importance of housing policy, and the use of the voluntary sector to support families and communities.

Subsequently we went into three groups, facilitated by the three speakers. I had been allocated as scribe to Simon’s session on Free Speech. (I wonder if this is because it is difficult to contribute whilst crouched on the floor trying to remember how to spell words like ‘proselytising’ ?!). It has to be said conditions were not ideal, with three groups squeezed into one room, and a heated, loud debate going on in the Faith Schools group. However, there were a lot of interesting contributions.

Free Speech

In our group there was a good deal of consensus (well, we were all liberals and we were debating free speech!), incitement to violence being the benchmark, as opposed to incitement to hatred. People had to be free to offend. We shouldn’t just tolerate difference, we should respect it. It should only be illegal to incite illegal action. We also need to recognise that some groups feel that they are more under attack than others. There was some debate about the Internet being the new guardian of free speech, but concern was expressed that Internet debate/content is often ill-informed, and is no guarantor of free speech. My personal favourite quote was “free speech is not carefree speech” closely followed by “people take offence, they are not given it”.

There was also a consensus that as a party we should beware of proposing legislation to get votes – that would tend to pander to the bigger or more vocal minorities. The less legislation (and the less wordy legislation is) the better. (Amen to that!) Simon’s suggestions that we should extend citizenship ceremonies to all young people when they reach 18 was well received.

Faith schools

Paul Holmes facilitated this group, and as I have noted, following what seemed at times to be a heated debate (!) the consensus was that we have to start from where we are – we are not starting from scratch. It’s a human rights issues – we can’t just say “no”. There was a need for moderation and pluralism, and schools should be allowed to teach religion, but it was important that this included all religions and included representations of the secularist position. Ultimately it should be recognised that faith schools do offer real benefits.

Role of faith groups in the delivery of services

Meral’s group considered the importance of the private and voluntary sector in delivery of services, and recognised that faith groups are already playing an important role – much caring is done within faith communities. However, whilst people should not be denied the right to communicate their faith there should be some conditions:
* No discrimination against staff;
* No discrimination against users;
* No proselytising during service delivery (problem of defining this);
* Measure the outcomes, not the rationale of the providers.

General discussion

Following the issues raised by Meral about dress the feeling was that people should be allowed to wear what ever they want. We shouldn’t fear difference, and we need a genuine dialogue within our communities about how to move forward in the long-term: we can’t expect changes overnight. We should re-affirmed the Party’s commitment to disestablishment, and recognise that community is not just about race, religion etc, but also age. We should also consider how we can build social capital between communities.

I for one left feeling that nice little inner glow one gets when having spent time with fellow Lib Dems, and feeling there is so much more that unites us than divides us ………… whether I would have felt the same had they included workshops on The Orange Book, or Marketisation ……….. hmmmm, a debate for another day methinks!

* Linda Jack is a member of the Lib Dems’ Federal Policy Committee, and blogs at Lindyloo’s Muze.