The Curious Case of the Composited Questions

Twice a year at Lib Dem Conference, ordinary members get to hold those in positions of power to account through the ability to posit questions to Federal Committees, the Parliamentary Parties and the Leader. Some of those questions are  taken live during the conference itself, with the questioner being offered the chance to ask a live follow-up question. For the rest,  a couple of months later the questions receive a written reply which is published online. 

At Spring Conference 2023 there was a 25-word limit placed on questions. Liberal Voice for Women Chair Zoe Hollowood posed the following question to Mark Pack, in has capacity as President of Federal Board (FB):

Will Federal Board dissociate the Party from incendiary assertions by a Party committee that gender-critical beliefs are “equivalent to...white supremacist or anti-semitic views”?

Answer by Dr Mark Pack

To the best of my knowledge, that’s not a quote made by any Board member or at a Board meeting and as the source, context and other such information about the quote hasn’t been provided, it doesn’t seem productive to comment further.

Mark Pack is correct that this is not a quote by a Board member, that wasn’t the question asked. The word limit prevented expansion on the source but the Party Committee in question was the English Council Executive (ECE); ECE does not hold a Q&A session at Conference and so cannot be held to account in this way. No discussion of the ECE motion was permitted at the full English Council meeting hence to date this particular motion with its misrepresentation of gender critical views remains unchallenged outside the ECE. 

Mark Pack was sent the ECE motion in 2022 following publication of the new Definition of Transphobia so unless several Party Committees have passed such motions it is interesting to note how he phrases his response in a way that gives the impression he is unfamiliar with the details ‘the source, context and other such information about the quote hasn’t been provided.’

Following publication of Mark Pack’s response, Zoe wrote to Mark Pack to make clear the ‘source and context’ of the motion so there could be no future misunderstanding.

At Autumn Conference the 25-word limit on questions was relaxed and so Chair of LGB Liberal Forum, Toby Keynes, submitted the following detailed question to Mark Pack:

Will Federal Board take steps to dissociate the Party from the incendiary assertion, in a motion formally adopted by the English Council Executive, that allowing party members to hold and express gender critical beliefs is “equivalent to allowing the holding and expressing of white supremacist or anti-Semitic views”?  Does FB accept that this comparison is not only grossly offensive to gender critical members but also fosters a hostile and potentially dangerous environment for them within the party?  Will FB consult with gender critical members, who were the direct targets of that motion, on appropriate steps to create a more tolerant and respectful environment within the party?

In a move rarely seen, this question was composited with two other questions removing most of the pertinent detail. The composited question read:

Does the Federal Board agree that people with gender critical beliefs are welcome in the Liberal Democrat Party and their speech is permitted and protected as per the code of conduct? Is the revised Definition now fully implemented in the party’s disciplinary processes? And will it consult with members on appropriate steps to create a more tolerant and respectful environment within the party?

All reference to the ECE and the substance of the incendiary and dishonest motion was removed during this process of ‘compositing.’ In addition Toby’s reference to creating a hostile environment was removed.

‘Compositing’ was once more used when Zoe submitted the following question regarding the degrading abuse people with gender critical beliefs have been subjected to in the Party:

Does the Board agree that dehumanising other members, for example by likening women with gender critical beliefs to pubic lice, runs contrary to our code of conduct and to our liberal values of disagreeing well? Do you agree party officers who have participated in such dehumanising language would benefit from additional training on the code of conduct and the Equality Act 2010?

On compositing with another question this became: 

Do you agree that party officers could benefit from additional training on the code of conduct and the Equality Act 2010? What training around the Equality Act has been provided to Federal Board & Federal Committees and are there plans for local parties to be offered training also? 

This time through compositing, all mention of the degrading abuse faced by members who hold gender critical views had been removed and the question was diluted beyond recognition. What do the Conference Standing Orders say about questions put to reports? 

The Committee shall publish in advance of the report session all the questions submitted under Standing Order 1.5 (d) which are in order, compositing similar questions where appropriate.

How does this compare with previous conference Q&As? Well for instance at Spring Conference in 2023 on a report to the Federal Conference Committee the following four very similar questions were asked and were not composited.

3) Question by Daniel Jones

Could the committee elaborate on the steps being taken to ensure conference remains a welcoming space for trans and non-binary attendees?

4) Question by Gregg Webb

What are FCC's plans to ensure that Conference remains accessible to trans members, rather than being dominated by a vocal but small trans-hostile minority?

5) Question by Olly Craven

What precautions have FCC made to ensure that trans people are safe from harassment and abuse at Conference?

6) Question by Lucy Tonge

What are FCC doing to ensure the safety of trans members at conference given the hostility of the vocal minority of GC members?

A comprehensive search of previous conference documents online going back 10 years has found no other examples of questions being composited.

From FCC Standing Orders:

12.2 Submission and selection of questions

A voting member may submit questions to any report tabled for consideration, by the deadlines set under Standing Orders 1.5 (d) and (e). The Committee shall publish in advance of the report session all the questions submitted under Standing Order 1.5 (d) which are in order, compositing similar questions where appropriate. Questions to the Federal Board report may include questions about the work of the Federal Audit and Scrutiny Committee and the work of the Federal People Development Committee.

Asking questions at Conference is one of the few ways members have to hold those in power to account. As liberals we have always valued transparency and openness. But whenever we see issues arising from political trans activism including, for example, where trans activist party officers have behaved badly, there seems to be a tendency to sweep the issues under the carpet rather than facing up to them. We ask party leaders to address this obvious partisanship in the interests of both fairness and the long term well-being of the party.