The Reader: Why question head scarves at school and not pencil skirts?

While giving evidence to MPs on the public accounts committee this week, Ofsted Chief Amanda Spielman defended her assertion that schools should enforce a “muscular liberalism” to prevent religious groups from influencing the national curriculum.

In 2017 Ms Spielman sanctioned a policy whereby state officials inspecting schools could question young schoolgirls about their choice to wear a garment that enabled them to look more like their mothers.

Ironically, this approach, which claims to protect schoolgirls from the pressures of wearing a hijab, inverts the secular mandate on which it’s based by effectively allowing the state to act like the moral police. Even if other religious symbols were to be included (and Ms Spielman condemns Jewish schools that demand that religious considerations trump the Equality Act), the question is why Ofsted would choose to interrogate schoolgirls about wearing an otherwise innocuous head covering, but not be concerned about schools requiring young girls to wear pencil skirts — widely deemed as uncomfortable and impractical by children.

If the pursuit of secular values is really at heart here, Ms Spielman’s approach, paradoxically, poses the greatest threat.
Ayesha Malik

Dear Ayesha

I’m afraid I agree with Ms Spielman more than you. You imply that girls are choosing to wear the hijab, but while some might do, schools have a duty to protect others who might be directly pressurised, or socially conditioned, into wearing one.

The reason for this is that even if some adult women freely opt to wear the hijab as a sign of their independence, for others it can be a sign of female subjection. That is out of keeping with this country’s belief in equality of the sexes and not something that should be accepted by schools.

Nor is it valid to suggest that girls should be allowed to copy their mothers’ dress. There are many items of clothing adopted by parents that are barred by school uniform policies and children, whatever their background, do not have a right to decide what they wear to class. This is a sensitive area but I’m pleased Ms Spielman has had the courage to speak out because this is an issue on which the state should take a lead.

Martin Bentham, Home Affairs Editor

Tristram Hunt, the director of the V&A Museum, told your readers why he thinks London should introduce a hotel tax [Comment, January 22]. I don’t agree. Taxing people is not the answer to every question and indeed increasing taxes has invariably tended to stifle growth.

Studies show that while a national hotel tax could possibly raise £70 million to £150 million annually, the potential impact on the UK economy could be devastating. Even modest estimates show such a retrograde step could reduce GDP by £1.2 billion and cost 23,000 jobs.
Michael Ellis
Minister for Arts, Heritage, Tourism

There is no guarantee that money raised by a tourist tax would improve London’s tourism sector. Instead, there is a risk it would be swallowed by local authorities with gaps in their budgets, and there is no justification for tourism bearing the brunt.
Kate Nicholls
CEO, UK Hospitality

Richard de Friend notes that the monarch must assent to any bill that Parliament has passed [“The monarch must bow to Parliament”, The Reader, January 23]. The monarch also has the power to dismiss any government that has become unworkable (as at present at Westminster, in my opinion) and call for a new election.

While some constitutional scholars apparently believe this “reserve” power does not exist, it was, in fact, used on elected governments twice in the previous century in Australia: in 1975 the Queen dismissed the Gough Whitlam government, via Governor-General Sir John Kerr, while in 1932, when George V was king, Jack Lang’s New South Wales government was dismissed by NSW Governor Sir Philip Game. In both cases, neither party survived the subsequent election.
Michael Rolfe

When I look at our present political leaders I am reminded of George MacDonald Fraser’s anti-hero, Flashman, describing Major-General William Elphinstone (Elphy Bey).

“I still state unhesitatingly that for pure, vacillating stupidity, for incompetence to command, for ignorance combined with bad judgment, for the true talent for catastrophe — Elphy Bey stood alone.

“Only he could have provoked the First Afghan War and let it end in ruinous defeat. He started with a good army, a secure position, a disorganised enemy and repeated opportunities to save the situation.

“But with the touch of true genius, he swept aside all such obstacles with unerring precision, and out of a settled order he wrought complete chaos. We shall not, with luck, look upon his like again.”
Rev Dr John Cameron

It’S time for London to stand up to the black-cab industry. Black-cab drivers have staged repeated mass protests, bringing London to a halt, and objecting to councils and TfL making streets safer for people on buses, walking and cycling.

Black cabs emit 60 per cent of all London car NOx pollution. They make up 40 per cent of cars in the congestion zone yet make only 1.5 per cent of all daily transport trips in the capital.

As even ambulances (when not on emergency calls) will have to pay the new ultra-low emission charge, it is outrageous that the Mayor has exempted black cabs, which emit up to 30 times the pollution of an equivalent private car.

It is time for Sadiq Khan to face down the black-cab bullies and end their unfair exemptions.
Donnachadh McCarthy