Anti-Muslim Hostility: Non-statutory Definition

Debate between Lord Harries of Pentregarth and Baroness Taylor of Stevenage

Thursday 12th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government have adopted a definition of anti-Muslim hostility focused on protecting individuals. The definition provides a shared practical framework to help victims, communities and services respond to anti-Muslim hostility while improving understanding across wider society. It also explicitly safeguards free speech, making it clear that criticism, debate or even ridicule of religious ideas remain lawful. Keeping citizens safe is a fundamental duty of government. I would always hope that we did not need these definitions, but we know we do, and this definition is a crucial step in strengthening the protection for our citizens.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)]

I thank the Minister for her reply, and I appreciate that the Government have made a real attempt to balance protecting Muslims on the one hand and safeguarding freedom of speech on the other. While I can see that the definition might be quite useful from a cultural point of view, it is very difficult to see how it is going to work in relation to the law. The Government’s statement specifically says:

“The definition does not change what is or is not a crime, nor does it equate anti-Muslim hostility with crime”.


My question is really this: in what way, if any, does this definition make a difference to the application of the law? After all, violence against Muslims is already a crime. By having this definition, what difference does it make?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The noble and right reverend Lord is quite correct to say that this definition does not change the law. However, it describes distinct forms of unacceptable hostility that many Muslims experience. We know the terrible things that happen, online and in person, to members of our Muslim community. This should increase understanding across wider society. It gives victims confidence that what they face will be recognised and taken seriously. By setting clearer boundaries around what is and, importantly, what is not anti-Muslim hostility, the definition helps create space for a much more open and honest discussion of sensitive—we know how sensitive these issues are—but wholly legitimate issues. The definition does not restrict criticism, debate or even ridiculing. It is about unacceptable behaviour towards people, not the protection of belief systems.

Grenfell Tower: Bureau Veritas

Debate between Lord Harries of Pentregarth and Baroness Taylor of Stevenage

Tuesday 9th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Before I answer the noble Lord’s question, I thank him for his comments about my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, but I point out to him that my noble friend is in fact a life Peer. We truly value his service.

In response to the question about public contracts, we are, of course, absolutely committed to exploring all available options to take action to hold to account those companies which were criticised by the inquiry. In that spirit, the Cabinet Office said it would launch investigations into seven organisations, using the new debarment powers that came in the Procurement Act 2023. I have to say, however, that the Met Police and the Crown Prosecution Service informed the Cabinet Office that debarment investigations might unintentionally prejudice the criminal investigation, so the Cabinet Office then concluded that it was right to pause the debarment investigations while the criminal investigation was going on. However, I completely understand the noble Lord’s point, and we will do all we can to make sure that those who are responsible are brought to account.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)]

Does the Minister agree that one of the reasons for such widespread disillusion in our society about public life is the failure of both companies and people to be held properly to account after a disaster? Looking not just at Grenfell but more widely, what more could the Government do to reassure the general public that both companies and individual people will be held responsible when things go wrong?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

It is very important that those responsible for such issues are held to account as quickly as possible. There will eventually be a duty of candour, ensuring that those who are questioned on such matters respond in a timely and honest way. However, in this case the legal and investigative matters are sitting with the appropriate authorities, and it is very important that we let them carry out their work effectively. It is the shared responsibility of government, regulators and industry to deliver legislative and systemic change when an issue such as this comes forward. We will take every recommendation made to us. We have already delivered significant reforms to building safety, but it is very important that the accountability phase is carried out thoroughly and properly and that people can feel that those responsible for this most horrendous of tragedies are held to account.