Badenoch says organisations should be able to decide if staff can wear burkas
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has said employers should be able to decide if their staff can wear burkas in the workplace.
Mrs Badenoch also said people who come to her constituency surgeries must remove their face coverings 'whether it's a burka or a balaclava'.
Advertisement
Ms Badenoch posted a video on X of part of her interview with the Telegraph, in which she said: 'My view is that people should be allowed to wear whatever they want, not what their husband is asking them to wear or what their community says that they should wear.
'I personally have strong views about face coverings.
'If you come into my constituency surgery, you have to remove your face covering, whether it's a burka or a balaclava.
'I'm not talking to people who are not going to show me their face.
Advertisement
'Organisations should be able to decide what their staff wear for instance, it shouldn't be something that people should be able to override.'
She added that France has a ban and has 'worse problems than we do in this country on integration'.
On Wednesday, Reform's newest MP Sarah Pochin asked Sir Keir Starmer during Prime Minister's Questions whether he would support such a ban.
Reform UK deputy leader Richard Tice said his party has 'triggered a national discussion'.
Advertisement
Asked if he wants to ban burkas, Mr Tice told GB News on Sunday: 'We've triggered a national discussion. I'm very concerned about them (burkas).
'Frankly, I think they are repressive. I think that they make women second-class citizens.
'We're a Christian nation. We have equality between the sexes, and I'm very concerned, and if someone wants to convince me otherwise, well come and talk to me.
'But at the moment, my view is that I think we should follow seven other nations across Europe that have already banned them.'
Advertisement
He called for a debate on the topic to 'hear where the country's mood is'.
Meanwhile, shadow home secretary Chris Philp said 'employers should be allowed to decide whether their employees can be visible or not', when discussing face coverings.
Asked on the BBC's Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg programme if the Conservative Party's position is not to speak to people who cover their face, Mr Philp said of Mrs Badenoch: 'Well she was talking specifically about her constituency surgery I think, and it is definitely the case that employers should be allowed to decide whether their employees can be visible or not.
'But I don't think this is necessarily the biggest issue facing our country right now.
Advertisement
'There's a legitimate debate to have about the burka.
'You've got, obviously, arguments about personal liberty and choice and freedom on one side, and arguments about causing divisions in society and the possibility of coercion on the other.
'That is a debate I think we as a country should be having, but as Kemi said, it's probably not the biggest issue our nation faces today.'
Asked if he would talk to people who would not show their face, the Croydon South MP said: 'I have in the past spoken to people obviously wearing a burka – I represent a London constituency – but everybody can make their own choices, that's the point she was making, each employer should be able to make their own choices.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
27 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Rachel Reeves in stand-off over policing and council budgets days before spending review
Rachel Reeves has been locked in a standoff over the policing and council budgets just days before this week's spending review, which is set to give billions to the NHS, defence and technology. Yvette Cooper's Home Office and Angela Rayner's housing and local government ministry were the two departments still at the negotiating table on Sunday fighting for more cash, after weeks of trying to reach a settlement. Whitehall sources said the policing budget would not face a real terms cut, but there was still disagreement over the level of investment needed for the Home Office to meet its commitments. Rayner's department is understood to have reached an agreement with the Treasury late on Sunday night after last-minute wrangling over housing, local councils and growth funds. However, any failure to strike a deal would raise the prospect of a budget being imposed on an unwilling department. The spending review, taking place on Wednesday, is a chance for Reeves to hold up billions of pounds of capital spending as a sign she is working to repair public services after years of Tory austerity. After tweaking her fiscal rules last autumn, she has an additional £113bn funded by borrowing for capital spending. Her plans will include £86bn for science and technology across four years and an extra £4.5bn for schools – taking funding per pupil to its highest level ever. However, day-to-day spending is more constrained in some areas, while the NHS and defence swallow up higher allocations. As well as policing, the Home Office budget covers the border force and spending on asylum costs, while the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has been battling for funds for the affordable homes programme, councils, homelessness and regional growth. Labour has manifesto pledges to build 1.5m homes and deliver 13,000 new police officers. Pressed on the policing budget, the technology secretary, Peter Kyle, said Home Office and others would have to 'do their bit'. Funding for the police has the potential to become a politically difficult issue for Keir Starmer. Tory former shadow cabinet minister Robert Jenrick has been campaigning against transport fare dodging and Nigel Farage's Reform are also highlighting the issue. Asked about which public services will be prioritised, Kyle said 'every part of our society is struggling' and numerous sectors had asked Reeves for more money. 'On the fact that the police have been writing to the chancellor, they have,' he told the BBC's Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg programme. 'We also have letters from the universities, we have letters from doctors about the health service, we have letters from campaigners for child poverty writing to us, and other aspects of challenges in Britain at the moment. 'Every part of our society is struggling because of the inheritance that we had as a country and as a government.' He pointed to the £1.1bn extra funding already earmarked for police this year, as he defended Reeves's handling of the spending review process. 'We expect the police to start embracing the change they need to do, to do their bit for change as well. We are doing our bit,' Kyle said. 'You see a chancellor that is striving to get investment to the key parts of our country that needs it the most … You will see the priorities of this government reflected in the spending review, which sets the departmental spending into the long term. 'But this is a partnership. Yes, the Treasury needs to find more money for those key priorities, but the people delivering them need to do their bit as well.' While some areas of spending may be cut or receive only low increases, the NHS is set to receive a boost of up to £30bn by 2028, while defence spending is expected to rise to 2.5% of GDP by 2027. Kyle defended the chancellor's approach to public spending, saying she was like Apple founder Steve Jobs who turned the company around when it was 90 days from insolvency. He told Sky News's Trevor Phllips: 'Now Steve Jobs turned it around by inventing the iMac, moving to a series of products like the iPod. 'Now we're starting to invest in the vaccine processes of the future. Some of the hi-tech solutions that are going to be high growth. We're investing in our space sector. All these really high, highly innovative sectors. 'We are investing into those key innovations of the future. We know that we cannot break this vicious cycle of high tax and low growth by doing the same as we always have done. We have to innovate our way out of this and we are doing so by investing in those high-growth sectors.'
Scottish Sun
30 minutes ago
- Scottish Sun
Nigel Farage U-turns on plan to scrap all MSPs and put Scottish MPs in Holyrood instead
The Reform UK leader once wanted a watered down parly when he bossed the Ukip party U-TURN Nigel Farage U-turns on plan to scrap all MSPs and put Scottish MPs in Holyrood instead Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) NIGEL Farage has U-turned on a plan to scrap all MSPs and put Scottish MPs in Holyrood instead. The Reform UK leader wanted a watered down parly when he bossed the Ukip party — but now concedes 'devolution is here to stay'. 1 Nigel Farage says devolution is here to stay Credit: Getty But he told The Scottish Sun: 'I don't think you can turn the clock back. We're not going to reverse devolution.' Mr Farage previously wanted to axe our parliament as we know it and put Scotland's Westminster politicians in there when they decide on Scottish-only matters. Reform surged to third in last week's Hamilton by-election — fewer than 1,500 votes behind winners Labour. Farage — bookies' favourite to be the next PM — hit out at 'excesses of the Scottish Parliament' such as whopping construction costs and 'the fact that it's really failed quite badly to deliver on some of its key objectives — education in particular, and health'. He said: 'The job now is to make sure it's done better.' Reform grabbed 26.1 per cent of the vote last week, the SNP 29.4 per cent and Labour 31.6 per cent. Farage's party is tipped to grab at least a dozen MSPs at the 2026 election — but has been criticised for a lack of devolved policies. Asked how his party would spend £10billion if they had power in Scotland, Mr Farage said: 'What about creating money? What about creating wealth and jobs? What about upping the average income of people living in Scotland? That's my priority.' Reform has published a one-page, 200-word 'position paper' which states: 'We have a vision where personal liberty and free speech are respected and promoted, support is available when needed, but life is largely untrammelled by government interference.' It also plugs 'traditional Scottish values' like 'integrity, thrift, hard work and tolerance'. Dark curse ravaging 'UK's best high street' On independence, it says Scotland should stay as a 'full and respected member of the UK
The National
42 minutes ago
- The National
Farage's proposal is just the latest undermining of the Barnett system
This, according to senior criminologists and ex-police officers, is not just a failure of admin, it's the result of austerity-era cuts that stripped police forces of capacity, dismantled the state-run Forensic Science Service in 2012, and left fragmented, underfunded systems to cope with ballooning evidence demands. Austerity didn't just weaken institutions; it disassembled infrastructure. READ MORE: Nigel Farage could cut the Barnett Formula. Here's what devolution experts think of that While these failings may seem like an English and Welsh concern, they tell a broader UK-wide story. Because when public services are cut in England, the Barnett formula translates those cuts into reduced budget allocations for Holyrood, too. Scotland has long borne the dual burden of being denied full fiscal autonomy while also seeing its devolved budget squeezed by decisions made for entirely different priorities south of the Border. Cuts to police, criminal courts, housing, public health, and local government in England have systematically eroded the spending floor on which Scottish services rest. So when justice collapses in England, it affects Scotland financially – even if the governance is separate. And now, against this backdrop of UK-wide budgetary degradation, Nigel Farage has called for the scrapping of the Barnett formula entirely. It's a move that's politically convenient, historically illiterate, and economically reckless. But more than anything, it's a distillation of what's already happening by stealth. Successive UK governments have undermined the foundations of the Barnett system – and devolution itself – for more than a decade. READ MORE: Furious Anas Sarwar clashes with BBC journalist over Labour policies It's obvious to every Scot that Farage's view relies on a mischaracterisation of Barnett as a subsidy, when in fact it simply ensures Scotland receives a proportional share of changes to spending in England for devolved services. It doesn't calculate entitlement or need, it mirrors policy shifts at Westminster. If England increases education or health spending, Scotland sees a relative uplift. If England cuts deeply, Scotland's budget falls, even if demand remains or rises. This has led to an absurd and punitive dynamic where Scotland loses funding not by its own decisions, but because England spends less. And when Scotland chooses to maintain higher standards in public services, it must do so from a proportionately smaller pot. Perversely, it doesn't stop there, though. Since the 2016 Brexit vote, Westminster has begun bypassing devolved governments directly. Funds like the Levelling Up Fund and Shared Prosperity Fund are allocated by UK ministers to local authorities, often bypassing Holyrood entirely. Promises made in The Vow on the eve of the 2014 independence referendum to deliver near-federal powers and respect Scottish decision-making have unravelled. READ MORE: SNP must turn support for independence into 'real political action' The Internal Market Act has overridden devolved laws under the banner of market 'consistency'. Powers that returned from Brussels in areas like food standards, procurement, and agriculture were supposed to go to Holyrood, but in many cases they were retained by Westminster. The Sewel Convention, once a safeguard of devolved consent, has been treated as optional. Farage's proposal to scrap Barnett isn't an outlier, it's the natural conclusion of a decade-long pattern: cut services in England, shrink the Barnett allocation, bypass devolved institutions, and then blame the devolved nations for 'taking more than their share'. There's no consideration of fairness, or implementation of a needs-based analysis, it's a strategy of erosion; one that gouges out the Union from the centre while draping itself in the flag. The failures of justice in England, catastrophic as they are, expose a deeper injustice: the systematic unravelling of the constitutional promises made to Scotland. Ron Lumiere via email
