A month ago, members of some Federal Committees were sent an email telling them that Ed Davey and Josh Babarinde were setting up an “Inclusion and Faith Review”. The text is below:
Dear all,
The preamble to our Federal party Constitution makes clear that, as a party, we reject all discrimination and prejudice based on religion or belief and that we respect the right to freedom of conscience.
As your Party leader and President we are determined to ensure that our party always lives up to these ideals – and all of those set out in our Constitution. Our rules and processes must not hinder us in achieving our aims and instead should encourage inclusivity for all in our party.
To that end, today we are pleased to announce the launch of our Inclusion and Faith Review.
This Review has been commissioned to listen to members and establish how we, as a Federalised party, can ensure that at every level of the organisation we are true to our Constitution and to our members.
We are delighted that Lord Newby has agreed to Chair this important Review. I hope you will agree with us that Dick brings vast experience to this Review and we have every confidence he will steer it well.
The Review will explore three main areas: the party’s current candidate approval, selection and deselection processes; whether they are inclusive of different faiths; and the pastoral support offered to candidates. It will examine the current complaints and disciplinary processes: whether they are fair, timely, consistent, and protect those who raise concerns. Finally, it will also look into the current training and guidance for local party officers: whether it promotes accessibility and inclusivity, including on matters of conscience at party meetings, events and via party processes that local party officers administer.
We look forward to receiving the final report, along with the practical recommendations it sets out.
The panel will be encouraged to ensure members of all faiths and none are able to contribute to the Review through wide consultation with candidates, AOs, responsible committees, volunteers and members.
We will be announcing the other members of the panel on the Review shortly and our aim is that the Review will conclude by the start of next year.
We will ensure that the Review team has your contact details as a key consultee in this process. In the meantime, if you have any questions, secretariat support for this Review is being provided by [redacted] and she can be reached via [redacted]
We are grateful for your cooperation as we undertake this important piece of work.
With best wishes,
Ed Davey MP, Josh Babarinde MP
This was covered in the Guardian.
I assume (though I have not seen it confirmed) that this is a result of the party admitting it discriminated against David Campanale (there is a court hearing next January to determine damages).
There are all sorts of questions about the Review. It has not been discussed, let alone approved, by the Federal Board, yet the Review should not access HQ data and systems without Board approval. In particular, it should not have access to data from the complaints system without that approval.
Equally important is the scope. It would seem relatively straightforward to ask members, candidates and others whether they feel they have been discriminated against because of their faith (or lack of faith), but this goes much further. What does “It will examine the current complaints and disciplinary processes: whether they are fair, timely, consistent, and protect those who raise concerns” mean? As written, that is a review of the whole complaints system, not just how it treats people of faith.
Also, on scope, there is the reference to “matters of conscience”, which goes further than religion. Does it, for example, include people with gender-critical views? That would open up a whole new area, and I would be surprised if it were intended to be covered.
There is also the question of timing. The note from Ed and Josh says the other members of the Review panel will be announced “shortly” and that the work will conclude by the start of next year. I wonder whether the intention is to be able to tell the media, when the Campanale damages hearing is reported in January, that the Review found no general problem of discrimination against Christians.
It’s all very odd, and some clarity from Ed and Josh would be helpful on the following points :
- It is intended that the Board will need to approve the Review ?
- What are the terms of reference and scope ?
- Who are the Panel Members
- What data will it be given access to?
- Given the delay do you still expect the Review to be completed by the beginning of 2027 ?
* Simon McGrath is a councillor in the London Borough of Merton, a member of the Federal Policy Committee, and serves on the Board of Liberal Britain (formerly Liberal Reform).
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Joy of Six 1602
Democracy on fire
Fresh woods and pastures new?
Jenny Shorten
Margot Wilson
Judy Abel
Tristan Ward
Michael Cole
13 Comments
There is another key issue that still needs to be resolved, namely how the party and indeed the legal system, deal with the intersection of protected characteristics where one characteristic is used as a defence for an attack on another.
“ our Federal party Constitution makes clear that, as a party, we reject all discrimination and prejudice based on religion or belief and that we respect the right to freedom of conscience.”
Nice in theory but, sadly, far from the reality. Yes, our MPs do get to exercise Free Votes on issues such as abortion – so, due to this, aspiring Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidates will be questioned on their faith to ensure that anyone who may not vote in the ‘expected’ way in any Free Vote does not get picked as a candidate.
I welcome the announcement of this Review, particularly its proposed examination of the fairness, timeliness and consistency of the Party’s complaints and disciplinary processes.
Having personal experience of the Party’s membership and appeals procedures, I believe the Review needs to look beyond questions of faith and candidate selection to the wider issues of natural justice, accountability and the independence of decision-making.
One particular concern is what happens when different parts of the Party each regard important aspects of a complaint or appeal as outside their jurisdiction, leaving individuals without an effective remedy.
The Campanale Project, launched in 2024, identified many of these problems and proposed practical reforms, including independent mediation, fairer complaints procedures and greater accountability. It would be encouraging to see those proposals given serious consideration.
I hope the Review will be genuinely independent, invite evidence from members who have experienced these processes, and lead to meaningful action rather than simply another report.
Our commitment to being an open, tolerant and united Party must be reflected in how we treat our own members, including those with whom we disagree.
@Jana. I have been a parliamentary candidate on 5 occasions. On no selection panels was I ever asked about my religion. I was of course asked the usual question about any areas where I disagreed with party policy. I was never not selected an account of my pacifism and opposition to nuclear weapons, which quite frankly of much more importance than any faith I might have. My quaker faith is a factor in my pacifism, but I have never been questioned about that, nor indeed about any aspect of my faith at all.
The problem lies, I think, with those of faith, who want to converty us all to their way of thinking and claim anyone who doesn’t like it is anti faith.
I have long accepted that my views do not on a few occasions coincide with LibDem policies, but I have never thought this was because of my faith and I don’t now.
It is inherently nonsensical for a blanket prohibition on discrimination on the grounds of belief to apply to political parties which are founded on the basis of being groups of people with the same beliefs.
Can the Tories not exclude people who are committed Marxists, or the SNP people who are trenchant unionists? Both seem to meet the Grainger test.
There was IIRC a party which campaigned to make abortion illegal. Much as I think that is a terrible idea it seems reasonable they could exclude people from membership who were in favour of legal abortion.
I’m also not sure you can be consistent with the Equality Act and have a different framework for discrimination of the grounds of faith to non-faith beliefs (which are also protected characteristics)
@ Jana There was a time, of course, when the Liberal Party in its good old riding high days, was the party of the nonconformist conscience …………………. but surely it’s highly illiberal to discriminate against people because they have a religious faith. I’m sure if the party discriminated against Muslims, Sikhs and a variety of other faiths there would be an outcry.
@Hywel
“ It is inherently nonsensical for a blanket prohibition on discrimination on the grounds of belief to apply to political parties which are founded on the basis of being groups of people with the same beliefs”
Be careful what you wish for. I believe it would be outrageous if ReformUK decided that Muslims were not allowed to join their Party as Muslim beliefs ran counter to the Party’s beliefs. Your argument would appear to support them if they chose to do this.
@Jana – hence the word ‘blanket’
As it stands a political party cannot discriminate against someone for a belief ‘worthy of respect in a democratic society, not be incompatible with human dignity, and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others’ (with some other criteria).
There are a huge range of such beliefs that clash with the beliefs and values of differing political parties. Without being able to do so it renders the idea of a political party a bit irrelevant. The Lib Dems preamble ends “The Liberal Democrats consist of women and men working together for the achievement of these aims.” Which pretty much implies you can exclude people who don’t want to achieve those aims.
(Also TBH your point is a bit of a ludicrous one given that Reform have a party chairman who describes himself as Muslim)
I would have expected that you just need to ask Ed and Josh. I am assuming you have and not got a reponse. In that case it is alarming that you had to post here instead.
Of course we should be a party that welcomes people of faith. We are the party of Bright, Cobden and Gladstone after all, and in more recent times, Charles Kennedy, Shirley Williams and Ed Davey.
@Hywel
I don’t think we fundamentally disagree, though I would sum my position up as this: opposing someone as a potential parliamentary candidate due to specific policy positions they may hold is valid (and not discriminatory), but opposing someone as a potential parliamentary candidate due to the fact that they self-describe as a Christian and attend an evangelical church is direct discrimination and utterly unacceptable. It may be that some committed Christians hold positions that may go against Party policy but that does not make opposing all Christians…just in case…a valid approach. (The same applies to committed members of other faith groups or non-faith groups.)
@Jana, you hit the nail on the head about not opposing someone just because they self-describe as Christian (even perhaps theologically conservative); the key is views on party policy, and reasons for or against any particular policies. I would add the need to be assured they agree key aims of the party is important. I am extremely concerned about the way David’s situation was handled. I am sure as a Christian I would disagree with David in a number of ways but both the local party and the national party did not behave well towards him. The result is that publicity around it has caused harm to the image of both the party and Christianity. Hence a review is necessary (for the party of course) though Simon is right to demand greater clarity on what it will do.
I’d say our parties treatment of Ayoub Khan is a great deal more concerning than our treatment of David Campanale. Indeed despite the fact that this cost us parliamentary seat and what would have been our first Muslim MP theres not been any explanation from the party.
I suspect if we had told a Christian or Jewish candidate that they had to obtain the party’s prior approval every time they want to say anything about an issue that was of massive concern to members of their respective faiths, it would cause a massive outcry that the party would be forced to answer to.
Something tells me that this review also will ignore that case entirely, and will instead obsess over the concerns of a certain type of Christian member.
Pete Roberts
The legal system has resolved how you address many of these situations but the LibDems just decided the law didn’t apply to them. That seems a priority, a political party who just decides to ignore the law because they don’t like certain religious beliefs needs to get back in compliance with the law.