It is never easy grappling with political hot potatoes, especially where religious or cultural sensitivities are concerned.

These are areas where politicians should walk warily, so it is not surprising that some of the more controversial issues never see the inside of the ministerial box – or get on to the council agenda.

Yet in my experience, it never helps in the long term to ignore issues that can become the ‘elephant in the room', even if it means opening up difficult debates.

The controversy over the wearing of the niqab or burka is a case in point.  At one level, it isn't by any means the biggest issue facing us in local government, even though it can engender strong and genuinely held feelings on both sides.

At another, it engages basic human freedoms, key policy areas of fairness and cohesion, as well as important practical matters in the administration of justice, education and the delivery of public services.

That is why we do need to talk about this at a national level, but it is a national debate that local government has to be part of and where our experiences can add value.

And it has to be conducted in careful and moderate terms and language.

We should start by ruling out the kind of ‘burqa ban' adopted in France. That sort of ‘dirigiste' approach doesnt fit well with our national tradition of tolerance.

As Theresa May has said, in the UK we do not believe in legislating about what people can and cannot wear walking down the street.

And it is important to remember that the vast majority of Muslim women in this country do not feel the need to wear a full face covering.

Equally, we must recognise that many experts, including Islamic scholars, do not believe that so strict a covering is in fact a religious requirement.  There are strong arguments that it is not specified in the Qur'an or in religious custom, or hadith, and that it is rather an expression of cultural values established in some parts of the Arab world.

So we should not let the debate be closed down by unjustified accusations of Islamophobia.

Once you accept those two parameters, sensible debate and compromise is both possible and necessary.


The issue is not going to go away so we need to find a way forward consistent with both our tradition of tolerance and our belief that all citizens of this country can, and should be encouraged to, take a full part in the life of our community.

Councillors and council officers have, I suspect, considerably more practical experience of how pragmatic compromises can be reached on a day to day basis than MPs, ministers or civil servants have, so that is why local government has so much to bring to such a debate.

But there a some areas where we arguably need a national steer, either from Parliament, or the courts, or both.

An important part of the recent controversy was about whether a defendant could give evidence in court wearing a niqab or burqa.

I think that the judge was right to rule that she could not.  Having spent over 25 years as a barrister prosecuting and defending in criminal cases, I can assure you that the ability to see a witnesses' facial expression is one of the critical factors that a judge and jury, or a bench of magistrates, need to be able to take into account in deciding if they can or cannot believe them.

If a jury cannot properly assess a witnesses' full demeanour, they cannot properly assess their credibility, and injustice may result.

Doesn't the same apply to some important areas of council work too?  Quasi-judicial
proceedings, assessment panels, disciplinary hearings, decisions around care, various appeal processes...

But the principle goes a step further.  Suppose the witness is not a defendant, who can choose whether to give evidence or not, but a prosecution witness, who can be compelled and whose evidence may be critical in deciding who is responsible for a serious crime?

A jury – and the defendant – are surely entitled properly to see and assess them too.

And what if the woman is not a witness or a defendant but has been called to serve as a juror – a civic duty all eligible citizens are expected to undertake?

Courts are actually very sensitive to shielding witnesses from all but essential personnel in appropriate cases, and there may be practical lessons that local government can learn from them.

While I use the example of the justice system, the case has also been made in respect of education and healthcare.

In any view, the issues are important ones, are not going to go away, and need careful and moderate debate.  If sensible and responsible politicians do not have the courage to do so, the dialogue will become polarised between much more strident and unhelpful voices.

Either way, we cannot just put this into the ‘too difficult' tray.

Bob Neill is vice chairman (local government) of the Conservative Party