Rayner's office accused of breaching Ministerial Code over deleted Islamophobia definition evidence

Max Thompson, Campaigns Officer

7 September 2026

The Islamophobia definition — now repackaged as "anti-Muslim hostility" — was announced by the Government in March 2026. Since it was published by the then Communities Secretary, Steve Reed, it has been weaponised by activists, and even Labour MPs, to silence those who have legitimately criticised, challenged, debated, or mocked Islam, its practices, and its history.

When Angela Rayner was first appointed Communities Secretary by the then Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, she formed a Working Group of five individuals and tasked them with drafting the Islamophobia definition, which has since had a chilling effect on free speech. The Free Speech Union exposed, at the start of the year, in a briefing by FSU Director of Policy and Research David Rose, that all five individuals were not only already sympathetic to the need for such a definition, but also had alarming links to Islamist organisations, including the Muslim Council of Britain and MEND. Both organisations have been subject to a government policy of non-engagement, owing to concerns about extremism.

A recent Freedom of Information (FOI) request by the Conservative MP and Shadow Justice Secretary, Nick Timothy, revealed that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) had deleted all responses submitted to the Working Group's consultation.

The Shadow Justice Secretary has now written to the most senior civil servant at MHCLG, Permanent Secretary Will Garton, arguing that the deletion of the submissions amounted to a breach of the department's own data policy. Mr Timothy is also accusing Angela Rayner's office of potentially breaching the Ministerial Code.

"Labour has shown an unacceptable disregard for transparency and accountability by deleting the evidence behind a definition which they want the entire public and private sector to adopt."

MHCLG's own records policy states that it is "committed to managing information in a way that enables transparency and accountability." It also sets out that records of "short-term administrative value" are typically kept for around two years, while records of "potential historical value" are retained for around twenty years, at which point they are reviewed for permanent preservation. Surely introducing what amounts to an Islamic blasphemy law — one that is openly being used to suppress free speech and our right to criticise religion, eighteen years after Parliament abolished Britain's blasphemy law — is a matter of historical importance.

This latest alarming development in the shady conduct of the Working Group and MHCLG comes amid suspicions that extremist groups were able to influence the drafting of the definition by submitting to the consultation. It is worth remembering that the Working Group did not reach out to groups such as the Free Speech Union or the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), both of which had voiced concerns about the impact the definition would have on free speech and existing law.

"This is a definition the Government is encouraging all public and private sector organisations to adopt, meaning it could have a role in public sector decision-making for years to come. It clearly has historical value, and so it is vital to retain the evidence on which it was based. By deleting all the evidence the Working Group received, and refusing to provide information about which organisations submitted evidence, you have acted with neither transparency nor accountability."

The Ministerial Code, via the Seven Principles of Public Life, states that "holders of public office should act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner. Information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear and lawful reasons for doing so."

This constant flow of disturbing revelations has led to calls for Angela Rayner to come clean on exactly what is happening in her department. Did extremists have an opportunity to influence the definition? Did ministers direct departmental officials to delete evidence?

The public deserves to know the truth.

Read more in The Telegraph.