Italy is planning restrictions on burkas and niqabs in schools (Image: Getty)
Andy Burnham has been urged to back a UK ban on burkas and niqabs after an overwhelming 99% of Express readers (9,203 people) voted in favour of Britain following Italy’s lead.
The Express poll asked readers: “Should the UK follow Italy and ban the burka?”. The result saw 99% vote yes, with readers also leaving a series of strongly worded comments on the issue.
Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
The poll was launched after Italy announced plans to ban the burqa and niqab in schools as part of wider measures concerning integration and the education of foreign pupils.
The proposals would cover the burqa, which covers the face and body, and the niqab, which leaves only the eyes visible. They would not apply to the hijab, which leaves the face uncovered.
Italy’s plans have prompted debate in Britain over whether similar restrictions should be introduced in the UK.
An Express reader argued that people wearing full-face coverings should not be exempt from identification measures.
The commenter wrote: “Why should one group be allowed to flout these laws?”
Another reader wrote: “Absolutely yes. It’s not a matter of hate of any sort, but this goes against any sort of safety policy.”
They added: “Face recognition applies to everyone, so why should it apply only to those not wearing it?”
A further commenter called for rules to apply consistently, writing: “We should have a country that has one set of rules and laws that apply to everyone in public.”
A fourth said: “If you have nothing to hide then don’t hide.”
However, not all Express readers supported a ban.
One commenter argued that prohibiting the garments could have consequences for Muslim women who may face restrictions from their families.
They wrote: “Introducing a Burka ban would simply make Muslim women prisoners in their own homes because their husbands or owners as I see them will never allow them out of the house.”
They added: “We don’t make Sikhs wear crash helmets for religious reasons so the same rule must be applied to the Burka.”
The debate comes as Italy’s proposals have reignited discussion over full-face coverings across Europe.
Supporters of a ban argue that full-face coverings can make identification and communication more difficult, particularly in schools and other public settings, while some also argue that restrictions could encourage integration.
Opponents say people should remain free to choose what they wear for religious reasons and that a blanket ban could interfere with freedom of religion and individual choice.
The issue has previously been raised by Reform UK leader Nigel Farage, who has called for a ban on full-face coverings in public.
The UK currently has no general ban on wearing the burka or niqab in public spaces.
Italy’s proposals will still have to pass through the country’s political process before they can become law.
Andy Burnham urged to introduce UK burka ban – ‘If you have nothing to hide’
Andy Burnham has been urged to consider a UK-wide ban on burkas and niqabs after a renewed political row over full-face coverings was triggered by proposed restrictions in Italy.
The controversy has placed the issue back on Britain’s political agenda, with supporters of a ban arguing that people should not routinely be allowed to conceal their identities in public, while opponents say restrictions would interfere with religious freedom and individual choice.
The immediate British debate followed reports that Italy was preparing measures restricting the wearing of burkas and niqabs in schools.
The proposals have prompted some British commentators and campaigners to ask whether the UK should consider similar legislation.
One such intervention came through a poll promoted by the Daily Express, in which 99 per cent of participating readers voted in favour of Britain following Italy’s approach. The poll was an Express reader poll rather than a representative national opinion survey, and therefore cannot be treated as evidence of the views of the wider British population.
The issue has nevertheless become another point of pressure around immigration, integration, religious freedom and public identification.
Why Andy Burnham has been dragged into the debate
Burnham is now at the centre of the discussion because of his position as Prime Minister.
Calls for action are not the same as government policy, however.
Britain currently has no general prohibition on wearing religious or non-religious full-face coverings in public spaces. In a parliamentary answer in June 2025, the government stated that it had no intention at that time of introducing such a general ban.
That means a nationwide burka or niqab ban would require a significant change in government policy and would raise questions about legislation, enforcement and compatibility with existing rights.
The current debate is therefore about a proposed change to the law, rather than a restriction already imposed across Britain.
The phrase that has fuelled the argument
Among the strongest reactions from supporters of restrictions has been the argument that people who have “nothing to hide” should have no reason to conceal their faces.
That argument has been used in wider debates about masks and public identification, but applying it to religious clothing creates a substantially more complicated legal and social question.
A burka is worn for religious or cultural reasons by a small minority of Muslim women.
A balaclava or other mask used by a protester to conceal identity has a different purpose.
The two issues can therefore overlap in debates about identification without necessarily being identical from a legal or policy perspective.
The distinction is already reflected in British legislation.
Britain has introduced restrictions on face coverings in specific circumstances
The government has recently strengthened police powers concerning face coverings at protests.
Under the 2026 Crime and Policing Act measures, police can designate an area for the purposes of controlling disorder connected with a protest where specified conditions are met.
In such a designated area, wearing an item that conceals someone’s identity can constitute a criminal offence.
However, the government has explicitly stated that the provision does not criminalise people covering their faces for religious, health or work-related reasons.
That distinction is important.
The existing law therefore demonstrates that Parliament has already considered the problem of concealed identities in public disorder while stopping short of creating a general prohibition on religious face coverings.
A nationwide burka ban would go substantially further.
Reform UK has taken a clear position
The debate has also been intensified by Nigel Farage and Reform UK.
In September, Farage called for a ban on all full-face coverings in public spaces, explicitly including religious coverings. Reform’s stated position is broader than simply banning burkas or niqabs.
The party argues that concealed faces can make people feel unsafe and undermine the ability to identify individuals in public places.
Earlier in 2026, Reform home affairs spokesman Zia Yusuf also backed a proposal for a ban on public face coverings, including burkas and balaclavas.
The issue has therefore become part of Reform’s wider political argument about public safety, immigration and integration.
It is important, however, to distinguish Reform’s policy proposal from the policy of the government.
A party calling for legislation does not mean that legislation has been adopted.
Italy has changed the political conversation
The British debate was partly prompted by developments in Italy.
Italian proposals concerning full-face coverings in schools have revived questions across Europe about where governments should draw the line between religious freedom and requirements relating to identification, communication and integration.
The garments at the centre of the debate are not the same.
A burka covers the face and body, while a niqab generally leaves the eyes visible. A hijab, by contrast, leaves the face uncovered and would not fall within the restrictions being discussed in Italy.
Those distinctions matter because discussions about a “veil ban” can otherwise give the impression that all forms of Muslim women’s clothing are being considered in the same way.
They are not.
Supporters say identification matters
Those supporting restrictions generally focus on several arguments.
The first concerns identification.
There are situations in which police, security staff, schools or other authorities may need to establish a person’s identity.
Supporters of a ban argue that requiring faces to be visible in public would make such identification easier and create a consistent standard.
The second argument concerns communication.
Facial expressions and visibility can play an important role in communication, particularly in schools and public services.
The third argument concerns integration.
Some supporters believe that common rules about public interaction and visibility can encourage participation in wider civic life.
These are political arguments for restrictions, rather than established evidence that a nationwide ban would necessarily achieve all of those objectives.
Opponents raise religious-freedom concerns
Those opposed to a blanket ban take a different view.
They argue that the state should generally allow individuals to choose their religious clothing unless there is a specific and compelling reason to restrict it.
A ban could also create practical consequences for women who currently wear the garments.
Some critics argue that women could face pressure from family members if leaving home became difficult without complying with a legal requirement to remove their veil.
Others question whether criminalising a particular form of religious dress would disproportionately affect Muslim women while doing little to address criminal behaviour by people who conceal their identities for unrelated reasons.
These concerns are part of the wider debate over freedom of religion and expression.
The UK already has a more targeted approach
Britain’s existing legal framework provides an alternative to a blanket prohibition.
Police can already require a person to remove a face covering in certain designated circumstances.
The 2026 legislation went further by creating a specific offence for concealing identity in areas designated because of serious risks associated with protest-related criminal activity.
But Parliament also included explicit protections for people wearing face coverings for religious, health or work-related reasons.
This approach reflects a policy choice: restrictions can be imposed in particular circumstances without making the wearing of religious face coverings itself a general offence.
Whether that balance should change is now part of the political debate.
The constitutional and legal questions
Any attempt to introduce a nationwide ban would raise questions extending beyond day-to-day policing.
Britain has legal protections for freedom of religion and expression.
The government would therefore have to consider whether restrictions were proportionate, how exemptions would work and how the law would be enforced.
There would also be practical questions.
Would a ban apply everywhere?
Would it apply only in schools, hospitals and government buildings?
Would there be exemptions for medical reasons?
What about extreme weather?
Would tourists be covered?
Would a person committing no other offence face criminal penalties simply for wearing a particular garment?
These questions would have to be answered in legislation rather than political slogans.
A debate that goes beyond the burka
The controversy also demonstrates why the phrase “face covering” can be politically complicated.
A religious veil, a motorcycle helmet, a medical mask, a winter scarf and a criminal’s disguise can all obscure some or all of a person’s face.
But their purposes are completely different.
British law already recognises this distinction.
The government specifically excluded religious, health and work-related face coverings from the new protest-related offence.
Any broader law would therefore have to decide whether the purpose of the covering matters or whether the visibility of the face itself should become the determining factor.
That would be one of the central issues in any future parliamentary debate.
What happens next?
For now, there is no general UK ban on the burka or niqab.
The latest calls for action are political demands rather than government policy.
The immediate controversy has instead been driven by Italy’s proposals, Reform UK’s renewed campaign for restrictions and the reaction of sections of the British media and public.
The 99 per cent figure cited from the Express poll has generated attention, but it should be understood in context: it represents people who chose to participate in that particular reader poll, not a scientifically weighted survey of the British electorate.
That distinction will matter if the issue develops into a serious parliamentary debate.
For Burnham’s government, the question would ultimately be whether existing targeted restrictions are sufficient or whether Britain should move towards a general prohibition on full-face coverings.
Supporters would frame such a move around identification, public safety and integration.
Opponents would raise religious liberty, individual choice and the potential impact on Muslim women.
The phrase “If you have nothing to hide” may make for a powerful political slogan, but a national law would require much more than a slogan.
It would require a clear definition of the garments covered, carefully designed exemptions, enforceable rules and an assessment of how the policy would interact with Britain’s existing legal protections.
For now, Britain remains without a general burka or niqab ban.
The renewed debate is therefore less about an existing law than about whether the country should change the balance between religious freedom, public identification and the state’s authority to regulate what people wear in public.