The deafening silence on veil bans

France and Belgium are racing to be the first to ban the burqa. Why wasn't that worth mentioning in

I thought that last night's debate, which supposedly concentrated on foreign affairs, was pathetically limited. As I predicted, our place in the world was discussed almost entirely through the prisms of our relationships with the US and with the European Union.

Given that, a little more examination of those relationships would have been welcome. Take the EU. Whatever you think about our membership, it is an institution that does matter -- not least because its laws supersede ours.

So why was there no mention of the unbelievable race that France and Belgium are engaged in -- the prize for winning which is to be the first country in Europe to ban the full face veil?

Belgium's parliament was due to vote on the legislation yesterday, until the government coalition collapsed after one party withdrew. This, despite the fact that according to the BBC's estimate, only 30 women in the country regularly wear the burqa or niqab. (The link above also provides a
handy guide to different kinds of face veils, incidentally.)

The French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, has ordered his government to put a bill with similar effect to parliament next month. The dignity of all women, apparently, is threatened by the under 2000 who are recorded as wearing the full veil in France.

I am no fan of either the niqab or the burqa. (I expressed my approval in October when the Dean of Al Azhar University called full face veiling "a custom that had nothing to do with the Islamic faith".) Mehdi Hasan has also discussed the subject on this site before.

But were these extraordinary moves on the part of two of our closest European neighbours not worth a mention in last night's debate? After all, what does it say about the continent's great traditions of tolerance and liberty that two countries wish to legislate specifically to tell a tiny number of women how they should dress?

It's understandable that our attention is concentrated inwards during an election. But I still find the deafening silence on this astonishing. Or are we happy for some minorities to be less equal than others?

Sholto Byrnes is a Contributing Editor to the New Statesman
Getty
Show Hide image

BHS is Theresa May’s big chance to reform capitalism – she’d better take it

Almost everyone is disgusted by the tale of BHS. 

Back in 2013, Theresa May gave a speech that might yet prove significant. In it, she declared: “Believing in free markets doesn’t mean we believe that anything goes.”

Capitalism wasn’t perfect, she continued: 

“Where it’s manifestly failing, where it’s losing public support, where it’s not helping to provide opportunity for all, we have to reform it.”

Three years on and just days into her premiership, May has the chance to be a reformist, thanks to one hell of an example of failing capitalism – BHS. 

The report from the Work and Pensions select committee was damning. Philip Green, the business tycoon, bought BHS and took more out than he put in. In a difficult environment, and without new investment, it began to bleed money. Green’s prize became a liability, and by 2014 he was desperate to get rid of it. He found a willing buyer, Paul Sutton, but the buyer had previously been convicted of fraud. So he sold it to Sutton’s former driver instead, for a quid. Yes, you read that right. He sold it to a crook’s driver for a quid.

This might all sound like a ludicrous but entertaining deal, if it wasn’t for the thousands of hapless BHS workers involved. One year later, the business collapsed, along with their job prospects. Not only that, but Green’s lack of attention to the pension fund meant their dreams of a comfortable retirement were now in jeopardy. 

The report called BHS “the unacceptable face of capitalism”. It concluded: 

"The truth is that a large proportion of those who have got rich or richer off the back of BHS are to blame. Sir Philip Green, Dominic Chappell and their respective directors, advisers and hangers-on are all culpable. 

“The tragedy is that those who have lost out are the ordinary employees and pensioners.”

May appears to agree. Her spokeswoman told journalists the PM would “look carefully” at policies to tackle “corporate irresponsibility”. 

She should take the opportunity.

Attempts to reshape capitalism are almost always blunted in practice. Corporations can make threats of their own. Think of Google’s sweetheart tax deals, banks’ excessive pay. Each time politicians tried to clamp down, there were threats of moving overseas. If the economy weakens in response to Brexit, the power to call the shots should tip more towards these companies. 

But this time, there will be few defenders of the BHS approach.

Firstly, the report's revelations about corporate governance damage many well-known brands, which are tarnished by association. Financial services firms will be just as keen as the public to avoid another BHS. Simon Walker, director general of the Institute of Directors, said that the circumstances of the collapse of BHS were “a blight on the reputation of British business”.

Secondly, the pensions issue will not go away. Neglected by Green until it was too late, the £571m hole in the BHS pension finances is extreme. But Tom McPhail from pensions firm Hargreaves Lansdown has warned there are thousands of other defined benefit schemes struggling with deficits. In the light of BHS, May has an opportunity to take an otherwise dusty issue – protections for workplace pensions - and place it top of the agenda. 

Thirdly, the BHS scandal is wreathed in the kind of opaque company structures loathed by voters on the left and right alike. The report found the Green family used private, offshore companies to direct the flow of money away from BHS, which made it in turn hard to investigate. The report stated: “These arrangements were designed to reduce tax bills. They have also had the effect of reducing levels of corporate transparency.”

BHS may have failed as a company, but its demise has succeeded in uniting the left and right. Trade unionists want more protection for workers; City boys are worried about their reputation; patriots mourn the death of a proud British company. May has a mandate to clean up capitalism - she should seize it.