PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Manchester Terrorism Attack - 13 October 2025 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement about the terrorist attack on 2 October and the action that the Government are taking in response. Let me start by calling this attack what it was: an evil act of antisemitic terrorism that targeted innocent worshippers on Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar, which was carried out by a terrorist pledging his allegiance to the warped ideology of Islamism. I pay tribute to the two men who were killed on that day, Melvin Cravitz and Adrian Daulby. Their bravery saved countless lives. On behalf of the whole House, I offer my deepest sympathies to their families and their friends. May their memory be a blessing.

A further three men were seriously injured in the attack. I know that all our thoughts are with them, and with all those who were caught up in these terrible events. I also wish to thank those whose bravery saved lives: worshippers, staff and volunteers from the Community Security Trust, and the emergency services, who acted with speed and the utmost professionalism. This is a moment of profound national sorrow. An attack on our Jewish community is an attack on this entire nation, and it calls on us to assert, once more, our determination to tackle extremism, antisemitism and hatred wherever they appear.

Although the events of that day are painful to recount, it is important that we do so. On the morning of Thursday 2 October, a terrorist drove a car at worshippers outside the Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation synagogue in Crumpsall, Manchester. The driver then left his vehicle, armed with a knife, and resumed his attack. He was wearing what was later determined to be a fake explosive device, although it should be remembered that all present had every reason to believe that that bomb was real. When the first call to the emergency services came in, Greater Manchester police declared a major incident and firearms officers were deployed. Within seven minutes of that call, the attacker had been intercepted and shot dead. Melvin Cravitz was killed by the attacker. Tragically, initial findings now indicate that Adrian Daulby sustained a gunshot wound during the armed police response.

As is standard in such cases, an investigation is being carried out by the Independent Office of Police Conduct, but there are two things that I can say. First, it is important to note that the IOPC has confirmed that the officers involved in the response are being treated as witnesses. Secondly, it must be remembered that the police acted in a situation in which they believed a terrorist was likely to detonate an explosive device. The necessary processes must now take their course, and I expect the IOPC to complete them as quickly as possible.

There is no ambiguity around who is responsible for the deaths and injuries that took place on that day. Members will be aware that the attack was carried out by Jihad al-Shamie, a 35-year-old British citizen of Syrian descent. We know that he came to this country as a child and was registered as a British citizen while still a minor. He was never referred to the Prevent programme, nor was he known to counter-terrorism policing or the security services. He had, however, recently been arrested on rape charges, for which he was on bail at the time of the attack.

Investigators believe the attacker was influenced by extreme Islamist ideology, evident in a 999 call that he made during the incident in which he pledged allegiance to Islamic State. Six people were arrested following the attack and were released without charge; one was subsequently re-arrested and has been bailed. I know that there are many questions that the public rightly demand answers to, as do Members of this House. Those answers will come, but for now the investigation is ongoing, and we must allow that work to take its course.

We know that voices in the Jewish community had long been warning that this day would come, and that Jews who had long felt safe in this country—in their country—now no longer do. Now that this awful day has come to pass, we must learn from it so that we do everything within our power to ensure that it does not happen again.

Our immediate priority was to enhance security. Visible officer patrols have been stepped up at synagogues and other sites in Manchester and across the country. Additional support has been made available to more than 500 locations, and although there have been long-standing security arrangements in place, with £18 million of funding each year for the Community Security Trust, it is clear that more must be done. We will provide our Jewish community with the protection they deserve, because no one should be forced to live a smaller Jewish life in their country because of the events of 2 October.

Our posture at religious sites is one of maximum vigilance. That applies to the Jewish community, and it also applies to British Muslims. I know that Members from across the House will have been disturbed by a suspected arson attack that took place at a mosque in Peacehaven, East Sussex, last week. The Policing Minister visited the mosque and met those who were forced to flee for their lives in terrifying circumstances, and we have discussed this with my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven (Chris Ward), who I know also visited the mosque on Friday.

Let me be clear: violence directed at any community—be they Jewish or Muslim, and of all faiths or none—is an attack on our entire country. I know this country is united in our condemnation of those who seek to divide us, because one of the greatest achievements of this country has been our tolerance, our ability to accept and embrace difference, and our generosity towards those who may not look the same but are encompassed comfortably within a single national identity. It was for that reason that I was so affronted by the protests that took place in the days after the attack. These were a clear source of fear to the Jewish community, who were grieving just days after an unspeakable tragedy. The same was true on the anniversary of the 7 October attacks. I described those protests as “un-British” and I stand by that, because those protesters showed none of the generosity of spirit that I love about this country, and they most certainly did their cause no good whatsoever.

The right to protest is a fundamental freedom, but it must be balanced against the right the public have to their safety and security. In my conversations with community leaders and the police in recent days, it is clear that balance has not been struck. For that reason, I can confirm to the House today that we will amend sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986. The police will be able to take account of the cumulative impact of frequent protests when considering whether to impose conditions. This will mean that protests that follow the same routes time and again can be forced to change their route or the time of a protest. I am also reviewing all existing legislation to ensure our public order powers are fit for purpose and are being consistently applied.

The right to protest must and will be protected, but of all the freedoms we enjoy none is more precious than the right to live in safety. The Government’s first responsibility is to keep the public safe. Since 2017, the Security Service and the police have disrupted more than 40 plots, and this work has saved countless lives. Through our counter-terrorism strategy Contest, we continue to tackle threats to this country, including those posed by Islamist terrorism, which remains our primary domestic threat. Through programmes such as Prevent, we seek to stop the slide into extremism that is drawing in far too many young people today.

Once the investigation into this attack is complete, we will know much more about how it took place, but the reality is we now face a domestic terrorist threat in this country that is more complex, less predictable and harder to detect than ever before. That threat will never be defeated unless we address the hate that fuels it. That means acting on the rising tide of antisemitism in this country. I am horrified when I hear our Jewish community talking about their fear in a country that once offered a rare island of sanctuary in an all-too-often hostile world. We have, in the days since the attack, stepped up our efforts to tackle antisemitism wherever it is found—challenging misinformation and hatred in schools, calling on vice-chancellors to do more to protect Jewish students at universities and calling on local authorities to use their powers to protect the community, as well as reviewing the clearly inadequate regulations that protect Jewish staff and patients in the national health service.

While these are important steps, more must be done. Antisemitism is the oldest hatred, and we must now redouble our efforts to fight it once more. Terrorists seek one thing: to divide us. They hate a society like ours where different communities live together in harmony, united by a common identity that transcends the colour of our skin or the nature of our faith. This attack has raised questions that must be answered about the security that we provide to our Jewish community, about how we address a rising tide of antisemitism and about how we bring communities together, rather than allowing some individuals to separate off into dark corners, including how we tackle the continuing threat of Islamist extremism and those who are pulled towards its warped ideology.

However, at the same time we must not let this attack defeat us, nor forget who we really are, because the real face of this country was not that of the vile monster who conducted this attack. It was those who stood up to him and saved their fellow worshippers, and the emergency services who sprinted towards danger to bring the attack to an end. The real face of this country was not those who took to the streets and protested the very next day, but rather those who were horrified by the attack, stood with their Jewish neighbours and chose the path of solidarity over division. The antisemitic terrorist attack of 2 October was a horrifying act. In response to it, I hope the whole House can be united in a simple message: those who seek to divide us by pitting one against another will fail. No act of terror will ever defeat us. I commend this statement to the House.

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement.

At 9.31 am on the morning of Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar, we saw the sickening terrorist attack on worshippers at Heaton Park synagogue in Manchester by an Islamist extremist. The brutal attack left two men dead, Melvin Cravitz and Adrian Daulby, and three more injured. Our thoughts and prayers remain with the victims and their families whose lives were so wickedly torn apart on that holy morning.

I want to thank Greater Manchester police and others in the security and emergency services for responding so quickly, and the brave worshippers inside the synagogue who stopped the attacker from entering. I join the Home Secretary in saying that I hope the IOPC completes its work quickly and that its conclusions reflect the fact that the police officers acted with courage in what was a very dangerous, unpredictable and fast-moving situation.

Sadly, we know that antisemitism is at record highs in the UK. The Community Security Trust recorded over 1,500 antisemitic incidents across the UK in the first half of this year, the second-highest level ever, and Jewish people in our country, tragically, face far higher rates of hate crime than any other community. We must stand with this country’s Jewish community and fight with all our resolve and energy the ancient evil of antisemitism wherever it is found. It has no place on these shores—not ever.

To be clear, attacks based on race or religion are totally unacceptable. The recent attack on a mosque in Peacehaven was appalling, and I know that we all unreservedly condemn it. Everyone in this country in all communities, including the Muslim community, must have the courage to stand up to extremism wherever we see it. Standing by and saying nothing when encountering extremism is complicity. That is why the antisemitism that is rife on university campuses must also be fought. The Home Secretary mentioned that in her statement, but will she work with her colleagues in Government to withdraw funding from universities that do not do enough to fight antisemitism?

We must do more than just call out extremism. Anyone espousing extremist views or who expresses support for terrorism, or racial or religious hatred of any kind, including antisemitism, who is not a British citizen should be removed from this country. Will the Home Secretary commit today to using her powers under the Immigration Act 1971 to remove from this country any foreign national who expresses extremist views or sympathy for political violence, terrorism, antisemitism or any other form of religious hatred, whether or not the criminal threshold is met? She could make that commitment now. Will she show that she is serious about fighting extremism by doing so?

I agree with the Home Secretary that the protests on 7 October this year, the anniversary of the terrorist murders by Hamas and just days after the Manchester attack, were appalling—“un-British”, in her words, which I agree with. The protests have continued even after the recent peace agreement relating to Gaza was signed, and, of course, they started before Israel’s military action in Gaza. In principle, I support her proposed introduction of a new cumulative impact test to sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act, but will she also consider expanding that test to also account for intimidation felt by other communities as a result of protest? Does the Home Secretary also agree that anyone expressing support for a proscribed terrorist organisation or who incites violence, for example by calling for jihad or intifada, should be arrested and prosecuted?

Since the attack, the police confirmed the attacker pledged allegiance to Islamic State and was influenced by extreme Islamist ideology, as the Home Secretary acknowledged. Islamist extremism is sadly a threat we know all too well in the United Kingdom. In July, we remembered the 52 people murdered by Islamist terrorists in the 7/7 bombings, which took place 20 years ago—the deadliest terrorist attack committed on British soil. We also remember Sir David Amess, also murdered by an Islamist extremist, and the 22 victims of the Manchester Arena attack, also murdered by an Islamist extremist.

We should not be afraid to call out this extremist ideology wherever we see it. It has no place in this country. Will the Home Secretary pledge to drop any definition of Islamophobia that would make calling out Islamist extremism any harder? The fact is that 75% of MI5’s terrorism-related caseload is related to Islamist extremism, and the vast majority of terrorist murders in the past 25 years were perpetrated by Islamists, yet only 13% of the Prevent caseload is Islamist related. What does the Home Secretary propose to do about that?

Britain gave perpetrator Jihad al-Shamie a home when he arrived here from Syria. He then carried out a brutal attack on a synagogue, deliberately targeted at Jewish people, on the holiest day of the Jewish calendar. We need to reflect very deeply on the implications of that.

Today, we must all stand together and fight the hatred of extremism and terror. Attacks like this one are an attack on our whole nation. We will never change our way of life, and we will never allow our fellow citizens to be threatened or attacked simply because of their background. I know that the whole House will want to send out that message today.

I thank the shadow Home Secretary for his response and for the way in which he made it. I look forward to working with him and with all Members across the House as we deal with what I hope will always be a shared issue and a shared problem. Where there is agreement and consensus in this House on the measures that we should take, I hope we will be able to progress those matters quickly.

The shadow Home Secretary asked specifically about universities. He will, I hope, have seen the comments made by my colleague and right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education, who has made clear to universities what their responsibilities are. It is important that she does that engagement before considering what measures to take if universities fail to take all steps to protect Jewish students on campus. This Government are very clear that universities already have responsibilities and they need to demonstrate that they are reflecting those responsibilities and taking appropriate action.

The shadow Home Secretary asked a range of questions on other crimes that are being committed. He will, I hope, recognise that this Government have worked very closely with policing, despite lots of disquiet in some quarters, to ensure that we have absolutely no tail-off in our response to those who support a proscribed terror organisation. He will have seen that there have been many hundreds of arrests. As long as people continue to show support for a proscribed organisation, they will face the full force of the law every time they do so.

On immigration powers, I am considering all immigration issues. The shadow Home Secretary will know that this Government have quite significantly increased the deportations of foreign offenders who have been found guilty of committing a crime in this country, compared to the situation we inherited. I note his points on the wider powers of the Immigration Act 1971, which I am reviewing. I will say more to the House on that in due course.

The right hon. Gentleman also made a number of points on our proposed amendments to sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986. I hope that when we bring those measures forward, they will receive support in this House. I am happy to write to him on any further details about the Public Order Act. I am going to review the wider landscape of public order legislation, particularly in relation to the cumulative impact of repeat protests; we are already going to take steps on imposing further conditions and making explicit that cumulative impact is something that the police should take into account, but I am also going to look at the wider framework. Again, I will return to the House in due course with further updates on that legislation.

The shadow Home Secretary rightly noted that the protests have continued both before and after the peace agreement in the middle east. I think we can conclude that not all those protesting truly wish to see peace in the middle east, but it is for them to answer on what their motivations really are. We are very clear that although the right to protest is a fundamental freedom in our country enjoyed by people of all backgrounds, it is often the cause of grave offence to other people who live in this country, and it must be balanced against the right of all people to be able to live in safety.

The shadow Home Secretary mentioned Islamist extremism in particular. Let me be clear to him and to the House that this Government, and I as Home Secretary, have a clear-eyed view of where the threats that face this country are coming from. It is true that within our domestic extremism landscape the largest cohort of work that keeps our security services and counter-terror policing busy is related to Islamist extremism. We will not shy away from confronting those issues and dealing with them in the appropriate way.

What happened in Manchester on 2 October asks a bigger question of all of us. This threat is something that we have been living with for some time, and we have not yet defeated it. I commit myself and the Government to doing everything in our power to stand up to this particular threat without fear or favour, and to destroy it for good. I also note that the first people that Islamists often suppress, hurt and damage are their fellow Muslims. It is in everyone’s interest to fight Islamist extremism wherever it is found.

As the shadow Home Secretary noted, there is a wider and more complex domestic extremism picture in relation to extreme right-wing terrorism, and the emerging threat of those who do not have a fixed ideology but who are fixated on violence. It is important that all of our response is measured and follows where the risks are coming from and that we are always asking ourselves what action will ultimately be effective in dealing with the threats. We will redouble our efforts to interrogate the assumptions that have been made in the past and to assess whether they need to be changed and what new effective action must be pursued. I hope that in that task we will have support from Members across the House.

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, and I am sure that the people of Crumpsall, where this atrocity took place, will welcome it. The only point I would add is that while these acts of antisemitism and violence are un-British, they are also inhuman—I think that is a better way to describe them, rather than “un-British.”

I thank the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister for coming to Manchester on the day of the attack, which was much appreciated. The Home Secretary had a chance to meet the heroes, because while there was violence and tragedy, there were certainly heroes, not least the members of the congregation—two of whom lost their lives—who protected other members of the congregation from what would undoubtedly have been more deaths. The Home Secretary also met the Community Security Trust, the police and the fire brigade, who all played an excellent role in getting to the site of the violence as quickly as they could.

I have lived in this community, within a stone’s throw of the synagogue, for most of my adult life, and I have no doubt that the community will remain resilient. It has always been resilient. The film crews who thronged about the area after the violence were amazed that Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Christians and people of no religion were all consoling each other. There was no hostility at all on the street.

The final points I want to make are not as heartwarming. There is hurt and anger within the local Jewish community. They had known for some time that an attack like this was coming. Obviously they did not know when or where, but it has arrived. They feel that there has developed a hierarchy of racism—that somehow Jew hatred is not as important as other kinds of racism. They feel that not enough has been done to protect them. The extra security that the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have announced is welcome, but what the community are looking for is extra action to deal with religious extremists who are involved in illegal activity, to get to the heart of the violent activities against the Jewish community.

The final point I will make is that, in one sense, taking action against illegal activities is the easier part. But partly because of what has happened in Gaza, many people now think it is okay in casual dinner party conversation—we have probably all heard it and witnessed it—to make antisemitic comments. It is not okay. It is also not okay, although it is not against the law, for artists—if I can use that word—like Bob Vylan to be operating and spreading their hate on campuses like Manchester University. Will the Home Secretary look forward with me to a future not only free of antisemitism but where I do not have to walk or drive past Jewish schools with security guards outside them?

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who is an assiduous constituency Member of Parliament. I saw for myself at first hand his deep links in the community that he represents in the House and how he has been a source of real strength in bringing people together in that part of Manchester.

As a member of an ethnic and faith minority myself, one of the things that I most hate about our political discourse and national conversation is the hierarchy of racism. I hate how minority communities feel like we are pitted against one another in a fight for attention and recognition of the difficulties that we might face as individual groups. Racism in all its forms is abhorrent, and I will be as assiduous in fighting the scourge of antisemitism in this country as people might expect me, as a Muslim, to be in fighting Islamophobia in this country. We are all safe when we are all safe, and I will not stand by and watch our communities being forced to compete with one another and forced to explain again and again why they are suffering and why they do not feel safe. To me, that is unacceptable in 21st-century Britain. I will not stand for it, and it will not be the policy position of this Government.

The person who bears responsibility for what happened on 2 October was the terrorist attacker himself—I will not name him again today—but there is no doubt that events in the middle east have caused tensions here at home, and some have sought to exploit those tensions. It is incredibly important that we are clear-eyed in holding the line between what could be a legitimate critique of the Israeli Government’s actions in the war in the middle east and antisemitism: you can be a critic of policy in the middle east without becoming antisemitic, hating Jews and holding Jews in this country to account for things happening in a country elsewhere that are nothing to do with them. It is incumbent on all of us to hold that line and to be clear where that line is, so that we speak with one voice and give confidence to our minority communities here at home.

One of the most devastating things that I heard when I was in Manchester on the day and in the aftermath of the attack was our Jewish community expressing how they now feel unsafe in their own country and that they might never see a time when their children do not have to have security when they go to school. Although it is important that in the immediate aftermath of the attack we consider security matters, enhancing the police presence and deepening our work with the Community Security Trust, I will not stop until people in this country can go to a synagogue or Jewish school without first having to go through a security cordon.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. This is my first duty as my party’s home affairs spokesperson; I only wish that it was not in response to such a tragedy. My party’s thoughts are with the families of Adrian Daulby and Melvin Cravitz, who were tragically killed. Our thoughts are also with those who were injured, the congregation, and the wider Jewish community, which was the target of a vicious attack on its holiest day, Yom Kippur.

We must all be clear that the attack did not happen in a vacuum. Antisemitism is widespread on Britain’s streets, and British Jews have been living in fear, particularly since Hamas’s horrific terror attacks of 7 October 2023. The Liberal Democrats are committed to ensuring that our Jewish friends and neighbours feel safe walking the streets and worshipping in their synagogues. Those who spread antisemitic hatred or incite violence against Jews, whether online, at marches or elsewhere, must be stopped. That is never acceptable.

I thank the Community Security Trust, as the shadow Home Secretary did, for the incredible job that it does, working with the police, to protect the Jewish community across our country. I praise its collaboration with organisations such as Tell MAMA, with which it shares best practice so that both the Jewish community and the Muslim community can be better protected. I look forward to visiting the CST’s headquarters in the near future as one of my first duties in this role.

We cannot ignore the issue of protests. The right to peaceful protest is a cornerstone of our democracy, and it is a right that the Liberal Democrats will always protect, but we are also acutely aware of the fear felt by the Jewish community and the harassment that they have felt at some marches. Too often we have seen marches hijacked by people spreading antisemitism and inciting violence against Jews; we saw it even on the night of this appalling attack. My party is unequivocal in its view that those who incite antisemitism and carry it out must be met with the full force of the law.

I say this advisedly, Mr Speaker: unfortunately, the Government’s recent decisions have led to police arresting pensioners for holding up cardboard signs when they should be protecting all communities, including the Jewish community, from those who would cause harm. This undermines the right to protest and, crucially, means that the police are using their time and resources on other things when they should be protecting people. The British Jewish community should not have to suffer violence or live in fear simply because of their identity. We need less “thoughts and prayers” and more action. Will the Home Secretary confirm what additional physical security the Home Office has provided for the Jewish community since the attack?

We must also tackle the underlying root of modern-day antisemitism in this country. If the conversations we have make us feel squeamish and lead us to ask questions that prompt discomforting answers—as questions that I have asked recently have done—that is all the more reason to have them, and to have them more often. Will the Home Secretary, with the Prime Minister, convene a summit of interfaith leaders, communal bodies, education heads and the security services to really get a grip of the ever-growing crisis of antisemitism? Antisemitism, terrorism and hatred can be defeated, but only if we stand united against them and stand for the values that we as British people hold so dear.

I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesman for his response. Where we agree, I hope we will be able to work closely, in particular on issues relating to protests and rebuilding interfaith work in this country. I think everybody who has been involved in interfaith work in the last two years, myself included, will acknowledge that there have been real challenges and difficulties there. We have to think more creatively and redouble our efforts to rebuild relationships that have been deeply strained.

However, I cannot accept and leave unchallenged what the hon. Member had to say about the protests, led primarily by the group Defend Our Juries, in relation to the proscription of the group Palestine Action. I think the Liberal Democrats have to ask themselves some serious questions. Are they going to stand up for the rule of law in this country? In this House and outside it, anyone is free to challenge our terror laws—to say that they should be changed and to suggest that the thresholds are in the wrong place and need updating. That is fair and legitimate comment. We may disagree, but it is perfectly legitimate to debate that in this House and outside it. What is not acceptable, and what is a crime under the law of our land, is to support a proscribed organisation. Members of this House should not feel that they can do anything other than support the law of our land. It does not matter whether someone thinks proscription was the wrong thing to do: supporting a proscribed organisation is an offence under our terror laws, and it will always be met with the full force of the law.

I do say to the Liberal Democrats that they really have to decide whether they are going to stand up for the rule of law in this country. If they have things to say —suggestions or amendments—about our terror laws, they should raise them in the normal and legitimate way in the House, but do not break the rule of law in our country. [Interruption.] I think the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart), who is speaking from a sedentary position, is suggesting that he thinks that policing the protests where support for a proscribed organisation is shown is somehow a waste of time; I call it standing up for the rule of law in this country.

I am sure the whole House will share my joy at the release of the hostages in the middle east today, but as the shocking attack in Manchester last week showed, and as the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer) made absolutely clear, antisemitism is rife and increasing on our own doorstep. I therefore ask the Home Secretary to increase funding for police and security not only at synagogues but at Jewish schools like Brodetsky primary and Leeds Jewish free school, as well as at the Zone youth club in my Leeds North East constituency. Will she also consider funding essential and crucial community organisations, such as the Leeds Jewish Representative Council, that are fundamental to community cohesion in Leeds and other cities?

I am sure that the whole House shares the relief at the release of the hostages after such a long period in captivity, having seen their families go through so much. I am sure that we all hope and pray that the peace process in the middle east properly gets under way and that we will see a longer-term resolution as quickly as possible.

We have already increased the police presence at synagogues and other sites of interest and community institutions for the Jewish community all across the country. We are in discussion with the Community Security Trust and other community organisations about what the future looks like in terms of security and other issues. We will report to the House in due course.

I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and for advance sight of it. While I am very supportive of the work that is being done to increase security at Jewish synagogues and other venues, the answer cannot be constantly more security for the Jewish community. The Jewish community need to be able to live their lives fully, as the Home Secretary said, so what steps is she taking to address the extremist ideology of the perpetrator? It is present online, in schools and in mosques; it is addling brains and making people do utterly horrendous things, such as those we saw last week.

The Chair of the Select Committee is absolutely right: the answer cannot just be more funding for more security. As I said in response to an earlier question, I do not want it to be forever the case that in order for Jewish children to go to their local Jewish school, they have to walk through a security cordon. I think it is right that in our initial response to the attack, we are focused on security, because it is important that we give confidence to the community, who have seen such a horrific terror attack take place, but the future has to look different from the present and the past. That is why the Government are going to step up our action on tackling antisemitism, working closely with the independent adviser, Lord Mann. We have set up an antisemitism working group, which will make wider societal recommendations in due course. It is why the Secretary of State for Education has written to universities in particular to remind them of their responsibilities to students. Action is already taking place based on our current arrangements, but there is a question for us to ask about the wider picture and how we really deal with the scourge of antisemitism. It has gone on for far too long, it is rising, and as a society we need to think more carefully and more deeply about how we tackle that hatred and how we bring all our communities together.

The perpetrator of the hideous antisemitic terror attack on the Jewish community at the Heaton Park shul was on police bail for rape at the time of the attack, joining a long line of terrorists and violent extremists with a documented history of violence against women and girls. I welcome the measures that the Home Secretary has outlined today to provide greater protection for our Jewish communities in the wake of the attack. Alongside that, will the Home Secretary outline whether any work is taking place into misogyny as a risk factor for, or nexus into, other forms of extremism within our anti-terrorism framework, and what plans the Government have to publish an extremism strategy and hate crime action plan?

My hon. Friend is right—the attacker was, at the time of the attack, on police bail for two different charges of rape. All previous contact he had with the police is subject to an IOPC investigation. There are two planks to the IOPC investigation. The first is the shooting itself, but then there is the attacker’s previous contact with the police. Once we have that part of the IOPC’s work completed, I will be able to give much more detail about the exact nature of those alleged offences, why he was dealt with in the way that he was, and if there are any wider lessons to be drawn from that. I assure her that the nexus of misogyny with extremism is something that this Government take very seriously. I am joined on the Front Bench by the Minister for Victims, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), from the Ministry of Justice, with whom we work closely on these matters. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) that our next publications will focus, if possible—if the investigations have taken place—on the lessons that have been learned from this case.

I call the Father of the House.

Of course, we all agree with the Home Secretary, but can we dig a little deeper? There is a reason why the Jewish community is by far our most successful immigrant community, dating from the end of the 19th century. They were determined, and are determined, to integrate into our society in every single way. But let us be realistic: there are some parts of some communities who do not integrate. Will the Government say unequivocally that if someone wants to come and live here, they must think of themselves primarily as British? It does not matter what their colour or faith is—they are British. However strongly they feel about Gaza or anything else, they must approach all issues with our traditional sense of good humour and tolerance.

I think everyone across the House can agree and unite around the idea that it is important that everybody who comes to this country, makes it their home and chooses to raise their family here commits themselves to being the best of British. That is certainly my own experience as somebody whose parents came to this country in the late ’60s and then in the ’70s. Actually, the vast majority of our minority communities are very proud of being British. Every survey I have ever seen of minority communities that asks them to describe their Britishness finds a huge pride in Britishness and also in our Union Jack—our flag and symbol of our nation.

There are obviously, though, some issues that we have to confront. There is a question to be asked here about this attacker who had all of the benefits. He came here as a small child and became a naturalised British citizen. He was still a minor when he became British, and he committed these attacks in his mid-30s. There is a question to ask about what went wrong in that period of his life, in those formative years, that made him do such an act. I will ensure that those wider lessons are learned, and I will never shy away from honest conversations about either integration or community cohesion in our country. But I also do not want it to be the case that we allow the actions of a minority to make us believe that our majority are not proud of being British, because my own experience and all the data show that the exact opposite is true.

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and her visit to Manchester immediately following the attack. In the Jewish community in my constituency in south Manchester, there is a real sense of anxiety and fear, and she is right to identify that. The message that needs to go out today, and that has gone out across Manchester, is that the people of Manchester are shocked and appalled by this attack and stand with our Jewish neighbours against antisemitism and extremism. A number of my constituents in Manchester Withington have asked me to press the Home Secretary to ensure that the Community Security Trust and other community organisations get the full support they need—not just security, which is obviously important, but trauma services and mental health support. Could she say a little more about that and give them that reassurance?

The volunteers of the Community Security Trust are absolute heroes and do vital work every single day. They were there at the site of the attack, and the actions of those volunteers and worshippers at the synagogue in Manchester on 2 October saved many, many lives. So many people were cowering behind the door to the synagogue, keeping it shut and preventing the attacker from entering. I cannot imagine what must they have gone through while they did so, but they did so to keep others safe. They are all heroes. I have been very struck by the conversations that I have had with those volunteers.

I assure my hon. Friend that I and the Prime Minister have had constant contact with the Community Security Trust and other Jewish community organisations. We will say more in the coming days and weeks about how we intend to move forward on matters of security, and about the wider picture of giving reassurance to this country’s Jewish community, so that they can go about their business safely.

First, on behalf of the Scottish National party, I join the Home Secretary in expressing our solidarity with the Jewish community after the horror of the appalling events at the Heaton Park synagogue. Such antisemitic hate must never be allowed to prevail or divide us. In Scotland, the police have increased security in our centres of faith, and have asked the public to remain vigilant following the attack. However, does the Home Secretary not see that by cracking down on our legitimate right to protest, she is simply giving succour to the haters, allowing them to dictate our approach to protest, and to alter basic freedoms that we have always enjoyed? Surely that cannot be the Government’s intention.

The Government’s intention is to ensure that the right balance is struck between our fundamental right to protest and ensuring that our communities can go about their business without living in fear of weekly protests on their doorstep. Through amendments to sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act, we are suggesting making it explicit that the police can take cumulative impact into account when imposing conditions. That is not a removal of the right to protest; it is just saying that there are conditions. The protest can carry on, but not in a way that prevents other communities from being able to go about their business in safety and security. I am surprised—well, I am not surprised, because the hon. Gentleman is from the Scottish National party, but I hope that Members across the House understand that getting the balance right is delicate and difficult, and that this measure will put us back toward something that looks and feels much more like a balanced situation. Protests can go ahead, but with some conditions. I would be surprised if that did not get backing from across the House. I hope that it does.

During my time in and around public life, Manchester has faced a number of terrorist atrocities: the ’92 and ’96 IRA bombs, the death of Detective Constable Stephen Oake in 2003 at the hands of an Islamic extremist, the 2017 Manchester Arena terror attack, and now this vile attack on Manchester’s Jewish community. Is the Home Secretary confident that we have fully implemented the recommendations on tackling the failings identified after the arena attack, and that there is an equitable distribution of counter-terrorism resources in the United Kingdom?

When I visited soon after the attack, I was very clear that the main findings from the arena attack related to the ability of the emergency services to respond in a timely way and therefore save lives. I can tell my hon. Friend that between them, the emergency services—the fire service, the police, the ambulance service and everybody else—took on board the direct learnings from what happened in the arena attack. Only seven minutes passed between moment the first call came in and the moment the attacker was shot dead, so I pay direct tribute to all those emergency services. A role was played not just by armed police, but by the ambulance service and the fire service—fire services happened to be going to a different fire, but they re-routed to deal with the aftermath of the attack. I pay tribute to them. Those are direct learnings from the arena attack.

On the wider picture, we will know more about the preparation and planning of the attack once all the facts are in. I will inform my hon. Friend and others in the House if I think there are wider lessons to be drawn, but it is a little early in the investigation to say whether there are.

As in the case of the attack on Parliament in 2017, this attack was a combination of the use of a vehicle as a deadly weapon and an attempt to break into premises to kill people indiscriminately. On both occasions, brave men had to sacrifice their life to prevent access. Would it not be a sensible first step for all vulnerable premises to have doors that can be easily locked, so that people do not have to put themselves at risk physically holding them closed? I congratulate the Home Secretary on an excellent statement.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question and comment. He is right: there are wider learnings here. That is why the Government are implementing Martyn’s law, which is about making premises safe from attack and draws on lessons from the Manchester arena attack. That is due to be implemented. I know there is some concern in the House and elsewhere—in the Jewish and other communities—about the length of time for implementation, which is up to 24 months. I will make sure that we interrogate whether that implementation can occur more quickly; if it can, I will ensure that it does.

As a Greater Manchester Member of Parliament proudly representing a significant Jewish community, I know how much fear and anguish there already was in the community, even before the horrific attack in Crumpsall, as Manchester colleagues have said. As the Home Secretary has outlined, we need actions, not words, to tackle the scourge of rising antisemitism. Can the Government update the House on the development of our counter-extremism strategy? Have we responded to previous findings in this regard—for instance, the review conducted by Dame Sara Khan?

My hon. Friend is right. He will have noted my earlier comments about immediate actions that the Government are taking, as well as the wider message to partners across the public sector—at universities, in the NHS and so on: that we all need to do more to tackle the scourge of antisemitism in our country.

On counter-terror policy more broadly, I am myself reviewing all the previous findings made by experts following earlier attacks, under the previous Government and our own, to make sure that we have implemented all relevant recommendations and that our response is alive to the scale of the challenge.

I am very clear that this attack has asked a bigger question of all of us—of the country, and the Government specifically—about the response to antisemitism, and integration and community cohesion. Those issues will be subject to further lively debate in this House in the weeks and months to come.

May I take this rare opportunity to praise the Home Secretary for what she has done with Palestine Action, and for taking steps to preserve the ability of some to protest, while stopping hate speech and other actions from other protesters? Does she agree that there is a correlation between the rise of antisemitism and these protests?

The Jewish community in London—but also, I am sure, across Manchester and the rest of the UK—are afraid to be comfortable in their religion. They feel afraid even to wear a yarmulke or to identify as Jewish. That is a national disgrace, and I hope that the Home Secretary will move forward to tackle it, with not just words but action.

I have been clear that I do not want people in our country—our own citizens—to feel that they have to live a smaller life and hide away who they really are because they are afraid of attack, be it verbal or physical, or scared that their children will be abused. That is not the future that I want for anyone in our country—not in our Jewish community or any other community. That is why I have taken steps on protests, and am reviewing the wider legislation on protests and the thresholds for hate crime.

I have been hearing clearly in the last few days that there are particular phrases that may not be liable for prosecution under our legislation, but that create huge amounts of fear. I want to review all that properly in the round, to make sure that we have the most robust legal framework—a framework that allows people in our country their effective precious freedoms, and accepts that people sometimes say offensive things, but provides a clear line between what is offensive and what is criminal. Once I have completed that review, I will report to the House.

I thank the Home Secretary for her excellent statement. I pay tribute to the men who were killed and I send my condolences to their family and friends, and the wider Jewish community. As the Home Secretary has said, there is no place whatsoever in the UK for hate crime of any sort, directed at any group or any individual, and those who propagate hate must be held to account. The Home Secretary proposes changes to the regulations in the Public Order Act 2023; in addition, will she undertake a review of the Online Safety Act 2023? Use of the online space is a key way in which messages of hate are propagated, and not enough is being done to stop that.

My hon. Friend is right to point out that hatred against minority communities runs riot in the online space. We do not need to look that deeply at many of the groups that proliferate online to see that whatever other hatred they say they profess, underneath there is usually a cesspit of antisemitism. That is a huge problem for us. The Online Safety Act has measures that are designed to begin to address some of those problems, but I am sure that there will be more work for us to do in the future. We must first ensure that our legal framework is robust enough to tackle the threats that we see daily in our real-world space, and then review to ensure that there is action much earlier in the online space. I will talk to colleagues across Government to ensure that we do everything that we can.

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, and I join her in expressing solidarity with the Jewish community following the horrific attack. Does the Home Secretary agree that we must urgently address online spaces where hatred is radicalised and amplified? Will she work with the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology to review Ofcom’s guidance, and the categorisation set out in the Online Safety Act, to ensure that small, high-harm platforms are properly regulated to prevent the radicalisation that leads to such devastating attacks?

The hon. Lady will understand that I will not make new policy at the Dispatch Box, but I confirm that I will be talking about those matters to the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology. I recognise that the online space poses a specific challenge when it comes to all forms of hatred, particularly antisemitism, which proliferates across the political spectrum—on the left, on the right and everywhere in between—and I will talk to colleagues in Government about that.

Tonight, Jews around the world begin the festival of Simchat Torah. On Simchat Torah two years ago, we witnessed the worst attack on Jews since world war two. Today, we express joy at the hostage release, but also great sorrow at the massive loss of life during this terrible war. As we have heard, antisemitism is widespread. There is often only one Jewish child at a rural school in, say, Norfolk or Suffolk—indeed, my brother and I were the only Jewish children at our school. What can be done to support our teachers, so that they have the skills, knowledge and curriculum to educate all our children on the terrible scourge of antisemitism?

The Department for Education and the Secretary of State for Education have already made funding available to schools to tackle antisemitism in the classroom, and to educate teachers about the best way to handle conversations on the subject. I am sure that she will say more about that when she is next before the House for oral questions. My hon. Friend should rest assured that we recognise that antisemitism is a society-wide problem. Colleagues in the Department of Health are taking action, particularly around the regulation of doctors, to ensure that our national health service is a safe space for patients of every background, including Jewish patients. There has been work not just in the Department for Education, but in other Departments; there needs to be a whole-Government response, because this is a whole-society problem.

In the wake of the terrorist attack in Heaton Park, I am very proud to say that Belmont shul, in my constituency, hosted a Shabbat service following a meeting of the Harrow Interfaith council at which representatives of all religions stood together with the Jewish community to say that hatred will not be allowed to win.

On the previous Friday, however, I was horrified to receive frantic phone calls, just before Shabbat started, saying that none of the synagogues had had contact from the police about what would happen the following day. After some frantic phone calls, the police said, “We can do drive-bys and various other things, but we can’t have a permanent presence at the shuls on Shabbat.” The reason was the Palestine Action demonstration in central London, at which the police knew they would have to arrest perpetrators supporting proscribed organisations.

My constituents, and those across London, are fed up with paying for these hate marches and hate demonstrations to take place. In addition to changing the routes, the meeting places and the times that these demonstrations can take place, how about another suggestion? If people want to organise these hate demonstrations, let them have the bill for the policing.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am considering all the recommendations made by advisers to both our Administration and the previous Conservative Administration. I understand the call for protesters to pay. One of the difficulties is with implementation, rather than a disagreement on the substance of that issue. It is one of the things I will be looking at in the wider review I am doing.

It is important that whatever action we take does not create more work for policing, which is why I have already had discussions with senior police officers across the country about what we should do going forward. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I will review those measures very carefully, bearing in mind all the previous reports that have been written. I will ensure that the framework we are left with is robust and capable of being policed properly, and has the confidence of both the police and communities. It is important that, whatever we do, we have the resources to meet that.

If the hon. Gentleman writes to me on the specifics of what happened with synagogues in his constituency, I will ensure that he gets a proper response.

I pass on my sincere condolences to the families and friends of Melvin Cravitz and Adrian Daulby, some of whom were in the Gallery earlier. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer) said, it is important to mention how Jews, Muslims and Christians came together, united in their revulsion and mourning in the wake of the attack.

A few days before the attack, the punk band Bob Vylan told a concert in Holland:

“F*** the Zionists, get out there and fight…get out there and meet them in the streets.”

I and other Members from Greater Manchester have urged Manchester Academy to cancel the Bob Vylan concert that is due next month because the band is a direct threat to the Jewish community of Manchester. Does the Home Secretary agree that the concert should be cancelled?

My hon. Friend will understand that decisions on whether specific concerts or other cultural events go ahead are made independently by safety advisory groups in those particular locations, informed by evidence on the operational requirements. It would be quite wrong for me, as the Home Secretary, either to pre-empt those decisions or to call into question their legal basis by commenting on them from the Dispatch Box.

It is important that safety advisory groups, wherever they are, take into account all the factors around these cultural events and ensure that they take the measures required to keep our communities safe. That is the job they are supposed to do, and it is the job that I hope they will do.

While the Prime Minister is swanning around Egypt, shamelessly trying to claim credit for the Gaza-Israel peace deal, we have the Mayor of London stating that the chant “From the river to the sea” is not antisemitic. I think it is antisemitic. Does the Home Secretary agree with me or with the Mayor of London?

I really do not think the hon. Member should lower the tone in that way. These are very serious matters, and we should all be united in this House in supporting the peace process in the middle east, which has undoubtedly made progress in the last few days because of the actions of the American President and other partners in the region.

One reason I am reviewing the wider legislation in this area, including the thresholds for what constitutes a hate crime, is precisely that we have many contested phrases that, based on context, currently fall foul of being prosecuted. I want to ensure that we have the most robust legal mechanisms so that hate speech and hate crimes are always prosecuted in our country, and that those who propagate them face the full force of the law.

I begin by praising Melvin Cravitz and Adrian Daulby, who lost their lives defending the lives of others. In my constituency, we have five universities with 1,500 Jewish students—more than any other constituency in the country. We also have a Hillel house, which was attacked in 2024 after a social media post by a senior politician. What will the Home Secretary do to protect Hillel houses on campuses up and down the country, and will she write to all Hillel houses to reassure them of their safety on campus?

I am of course happy to provide support and to write in the way that my hon. Friend suggests. In doing so, I will be backing the work of the Secretary of State for Education, who has direct responsibility for universities. As some Members will have seen, the universities regulator said on Friday that the Office for Students has powers to fine universities and, ultimately, cut off public funding if those universities fail to uphold their responsibilities to keep students safe, including our Jewish students on campuses. It is important that there is a whole-society response. The university sector needs to step up, and I will work closely with the Secretary of State for Education to ensure that is the case.

Clearly, how antisemitism is tackled by the police in our communities is key, so I would be interested to hear from the Home Secretary what specialist training our police forces and the Crown Prosecution Service—I appreciate that this is a bit off-piste; maybe she might put on her Justice hat for a moment—are receiving to help them understand the complexity of investigating, charging and prosecuting those exhibiting antisemitic views early on. There is a belief among members of the Jewish community who live near my constituency that far too many cases are dropped due to being labelled as having mitigating issues around concerns for Israel.

Having discussed these matters with senior police officers across the country, I know that they often take independent legal advice, both on the decisions that the police have to make and in testing with the Crown Prosecution Service whether a prosecution is likely to result in a conviction. These are contested areas of public and political debate, which is why I want to review for myself the legislation that is in place. I will report to the House in due course.

I join colleagues in expressing my condolences to the families of those who lost a loved one in last week’s attack. I also put on record—I think this whole House will agree—our support for the Community Security Trust, not just for the tireless work it does every week at shul, but for its cross-community work. So many in our country right now want to divide people by finding points that pit people against each other. That cross-community work is critical to keeping everybody in our communities safe.

On that thread, one common theme that is coming out—I allude to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols)—is a concern about misogyny, and about the record of violence against women that many of those involved in violent offences have. I know that the Home Secretary’s predecessor was pulling together a counter-terrorism strategy that was going to include that theme in looking at antisemitism, Islamophobia and radical Islam. Can she update us on where that review has got to, so that we can be confident that we will get all these people off our streets and improve our understanding?

I can reassure my hon. Friend that the nexus between misogyny and other serious offences, including offences relating to extremism and terrorism, is something we take very seriously. If she will forgive me, having been in the job for only a few weeks, I have not yet reviewed all of the counter-terrorism strategy. Our strategy will now need to take account of the things that have happened in Manchester, but I can reassure my hon. Friend that it will be published in the usual way, and we will of course consider the wider lessons about misogyny and violence against women and girls that can be drawn.

First, I congratulate the Secretary of State on the forthrightness and clarity of the message she has sent from this House today. People in Northern Ireland appreciate the deep hurt experienced by those who went to worship and found that they were victims of terrorism. We have had people machine-gunned while praying, people shot dead as they came out of church, and people’s churches bombed over 30 years of IRA violence, and we understand that. Will she join me in expressing disgust at those in Northern Ireland who, in the very same week that this attack occurred, blocked roads and held protests celebrating Hamas terrorists who had carried out the atrocity two years previously? That kind of anti-Jewish hate drove the action we saw in Manchester. Does she agree that we cannot allow, under the cloud of free speech, people to use the language that drives sectarianism, which is causing hatred, division and the loss of safety in the United Kingdom?

The right hon. Gentleman is right that this country has had to learn painful lessons on sectarianism in the past, and it seems we have to learn them again in a slightly different context today. That cannot be our reality in the future, and I hope that all of us across this House can unite around that work. Let me also be clear for anybody celebrating and supporting Hamas that it is a proscribed terror organisation in this country. To support that organisation is to break the law of our land, and whenever anybody does so, they should face the full force of the law.

After the vile attack in Manchester, many of us in this House will have spent time with Jewish friends last week celebrating the festival of Sukkot. It was particularly emotional for me to do that with friends and to realise that for the sukkah—that temporary shelter where we eat that meal—you have to have sight of the sky, because the Jewish community needs to be ready always to leave. That sense of insecurity is pervading the Jewish community now, and the Home Secretary must most importantly address that. Jews’ Free School in my constituency, the largest Jewish school in Europe, had a huge police presence outside it in the Friday afternoon after that attack, but as many have said, that reassurance should not be necessary. We have to address the fundamental insecurity that the community is facing.

Let me assure my hon. Friend that while in the initial aftermath of the attack it is important that we focus on reassurance measures and security measures, we are clear that in the medium to long term, the only way to make sure that all our Jewish community is safe and that Jewish life in Britain can thrive—as it has every right to do—is to ensure that we tackle the scourge of antisemitism across our country and deal with those wider questions of integration and community cohesion.

I congratulate the Home Secretary on an excellent statement, in which she said early on that the police officers involved are being treated as witnesses. That is absolutely right, but does she understand that many members of the security forces involved in this kind of work fear that they will be hung out to dry? Many of them will not have their fears assuaged by the written ministerial statement today on the legacy of the troubles, on which more anon. Will she reassure me that everything is being done by the Greater Manchester police to put an arm around those officers who were directly involved in this incident, and that they will be given every support necessary?

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that those officers are being supported. That is why I wanted to make it clear to the House that they are being treated as witnesses. It is why I have asked the Independent Office for Police Conduct to ensure that it concludes that part of its investigation as quickly as possible. There are wider issues about firearms officers in our country having the confidence to do their job. We will soon publish our police accountability review, which is designed to ensure that we meet the scale of the challenge in giving our officers the confidence they need to put themselves in danger for the rest of us. There are sometimes questions that have to be answered, and I think we can all accept that to be the case, but we should do that in a framework that commands public support as well as the support of the professionals, with things done in a timely way, so that we can get answers as quickly as possible and not have a debilitating impact on policing confidence in the long term.

I commend my right hon. Friend for her statement and also for her prompt response, which I know was appreciated by people in Manchester on the very day.

I believe that people should be able to pursue all religions, or none, without intimidation or fear of being attacked. I also believe in freedom of speech and the freedom to protest, but does my right hon. Friend agree that people cannot use that right to promote hate and promote violence against those with any other religions or beliefs? Does she agree that we need to keep that under review to ensure that we do not allow such people to continue to promote these messages of hate?

My hon. Friend is right: protest is a fundamental and precious freedom and should be protected, but it must be balanced against the need for all our communities to be able to live in safety and security. That is why I am carrying out a review of the wider legislation, particularly in relation to hate crimes and associated issues. I am doing that to ensure that we know exactly where the line is, and to ensure that that line and the careful balance that must be struck are policed properly and prosecutions follow when the line is crossed.

I recently visited a synagogue in my constituency to celebrate Sukkot, but this year our celebration was drowned in sadness as we paid our respects following the terrorist attacks on two very brave men. We all condemn those attacks because, as the Home Secretary said, an attack on our Jewish community is an attack against us all and we are indeed stronger together. However, does she agree that acts of terrorism should not be used to pit communities against each other, and that by conflating the right to peaceful protest with the actions of a crazed terrorist we are in danger of doing just that? What steps is she taking to ensure that there is greater community cohesion which will build bridges and not wars?

I have to say that I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I was very clear that the protests that took place immediately after this terror attack, especially in Manchester itself, were fundamentally un-British. I hope the hon. Gentleman would agree that sometimes imagining that it was ourselves who had suffered, and extending the hand of friendship, love and solidarity to a community that is suffering, is the kind thing to do, the right thing to do and the British thing to do. I would have liked to have seen the organisers of those protests in Manchester in the immediate aftermath of the attack, and across the country, show some of that very British solidarity. That does not mean that people are not allowed to protest—they are, they have been and I am sure they will continue to do so—but sometimes a little bit of solidarity and kindness can go an awfully long way.

I wish to extend my condolences to the friends and families of Adrian Daulby and Melvin Cravitz, and to the people of Manchester and the wider Jewish community across the United Kingdom, following the appalling terrorist attack at the synagogue in Heaton Park. Many in the Jewish community felt that this attack was a matter of not if, but when. According to the Community Security Trust, 76 of the 1,521 antisemitic incidents that occurred in the first six months of the year were violent assaults that were so severe as to be recorded as extreme violence, which meant that they involved gross bodily harm or a threat to life. Will my right hon. Friend say a little more about what she is doing personally to tackle the scourge of antisemitism in our nation?

Let me first say, as I said throughout my statement, that antisemitism is at unacceptable levels. It is rising and has been rising for some time, and it demands a different and new answer from all of us in government and across society if we are to tackle it effectively. That means, in the immediate aftermath of the terror attack in Manchester, that we provide reassurance to the community for their safety and security, but in the longer term it means that we must work across Government to tackle antisemitism wherever we find it, whether in the national health service, on our university campuses or in protests and marches. We must hold the line between action that might be offensive but is lawful, and that which is a hate crime and must be prosecuted under the law.

Section 12 of the Public Order Act already allows a senior police officer to place conditions on a protest march, for instance by rerouting it if the march will be noisy, disruptive or intimidating, so can the Home Secretary clarify her comments about section 12? When she talks about addressing the cumulative impact of the marches, is she still talking about allowing the rolling anti-Israel marches to go ahead, just using different routes, or does she want to give herself the power to stop them altogether?

The measure that I have announced will be about placing conditions on marches under both section 12 and section 14 of the Public Order Act. What became very clear to me in the immediate aftermath of the terror attack in Manchester was that there was inconsistency of practice across police forces in the country as to whether cumulative impact could be taken into account when they make decisions about whether to place conditions on a march or a protest. The legislation I propose will make it explicit that cumulative impact is, in and of itself, a feature that policing can take into account in order to put conditions on a march. It will not need to meet any other threshold before conditions can be placed on a march or a protest.

On the wider question, I am reviewing the broader legislative framework. I will have more to say about potential bans, although the hon. Gentleman will know from his time at the Home Office that the policing and banning of protests has consequences, as does allowing them to go ahead with conditions. Again, it is one of those areas where a careful balance needs to be struck. I hope there might be cross-party agreement on how we get that careful balance, and on how we hold it and ensure that the police are able to police effectively, whatever we may decide in the future.

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and agree with her that anyone seeking to divide us will only unite us. I join hon. Members in paying tribute to both Melvin and Adrian’s families.

I refer the Home Secretary to the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) about looking at the issues in policing across the country. Sadly, the Home Secretary will be aware of the recent exposé on the Met police, who are responsible for some of the major counter-terrorism operations across the country. Those seeking to protect people who report hate crime should not be the perpetrators of hate crime, and we saw some disgraceful behaviour in that exposé.

This week is National Hate Crime Awareness Week. Every community should feel confident about reporting crime to the police, but we know that for every hate crime reported, many more go unreported, because people do not feel safe or have confidence in the police. Will the Home Secretary look at some of the issues across our police forces?

My hon. Friend refers to the BBC “Panorama” exposé into the Met police, and this is the first time I have been able to place on the record my views on that matter. Like everybody else, I was horrified, particularly at the situation at Charing Cross police station, which had been the focus of previous exposés and promises of change. I have discussed these matters with both the Mayor of London and the chief of the Met police, and I am reassured that they are absolutely clear-eyed about the need to tackle the issues that were exposed in that programme. We are all united in our desire to root out from our police forces all individuals who hold horrible attitudes and we cannot trust to police our communities safely. They have no place in our police service and I am confident that, through the work of the Met police going forward and through the Mayor of London and other partners working together, we will get to a place where we can be confident in our police forces. I hope to work closely with Members from across the House on that issue as well.

I join the Home Secretary in paying tribute to CST and Greater Manchester emergency services for their response on the day, and particularly to those brave members of the congregation who protected their fellow members. I thank the Home Secretary for her quick response in coming to Greater Manchester. As a Greater Manchester MP myself, I know it meant a great deal to our community.

I am proud to have the Yeshurun Hebrew congregation in my constituency, as well as North Cheshire Jewish primary school. I met the rabbi on the Monday before this horrendous attack and we talked about the genuine fear in our community about the rise in antisemitism, which was a horrendous foreshadowing of what would happen at Heaton Park. I completely agree with the Home Secretary that more security should not be the answer, but we are in a situation in which more security is currently needed. Will she assure the House and the Jewish community that greater resources will be given to CST, the police and local authorities to ensure greater visible protection around our synagogues and our local Jewish schools—not just in the immediate term but for as long as necessary, to reassure the community that they are safe?

Let me assure the hon. Gentleman and the whole House that we are discussing these matters closely with the Community Security Trust and other representatives of the Jewish community. The Prime Minister and I will have more to say in the coming days about the medium-term picture on security and funding for places of worship in our country. Let me assure the hon. Gentleman that we take this very seriously. I know he will agree that, in the long term, we need not only simply to provide protective security but to know with confidence that all our communities can go about their business without having to go through a security cordon before they do so.

Eighty-nine years ago this month, the British Union of Fascists, led by Oswald Mosley, tried to march through the largely Jewish east end of London. They were marched off by people of Jewish, Irish and working-class backgrounds in what became known as the battle of Cable Street, uniting in protest against antisemitism. Following this month’s horrific antisemitic attack, and amid a surge in the far right’s targeting of minorities and the attack at Peacehaven mosque, does the Home Secretary agree with me that we must tirelessly oppose fascism, antisemitism, Islamophobia and racism, and also protect the hard-worn democratic right to protest, which was crucial to defeating fascists in Cable Street in my area in a historic act of solidarity and unity in British history?

My hon. Friend is right that acts of solidarity among communities to protect each other reflect the absolute best of our country. As I have said, there is a careful balance to be struck in relation to the fundamental freedom and right to protest—sometimes for causes we can all believe in and sometimes for causes that are much more politically contested. It is a fundamental freedom and one of the things that makes this country such a strong and free place to be, but there must be a balance between that and the right for all of our communities to go about their business with safety and security, which is why I have made the announcement about the Public Order Act. I think the balance struck at the moment is in the wrong place, and we need to take some steps to correct that.

I thank the Home Secretary for the statement, and I thank her and her team for dealing very promptly with an issue I have raised over the last couple of weeks.

My thoughts and prayers go out to the Jewish community, and I thank those from the Jewish community who have reached out to me to speak about their concerns. I visited a Jewish school with the CST, and it was awful to see children—young British children— in 21st-century Britain having to do drills on protecting themselves from a lone wolf attack. We are clearly not in the right place on this. In the sentiment of dealing with the root causes, does the Home Secretary agree with me that inter-faith work has fallen off a cliff, and that that needs to be dealt with? I am also concerned about the raising of Palestinian flags in the centre Birmingham—closer to home—and Preston council’s hosting of a known Palestinian terrorist. All of these things contribute to the feeling I am getting from the Jewish community, which is that they do not feel safe in this country.

This attack has shone a light on the burden that British Jews bear every single day just to live an ordinary Jewish life. There is nothing worse than imagining little children in our country having to go through drills every day at school to keep themselves safe. I would hope that everyone across this House could commit ourselves collectively to doing everything we can to root out the evil of antisemitism, because no child should have to do what has become ordinary and normal for British Jewish children in our country. That is a disgrace for us all, it shames us all and we absolutely need to work together to fix it.

On inter-faith work, the hon. Member is right. In the last two years, people who have done inter-faith work for 20 or 30 years have told me many times that it has fallen off a cliff. There are no easy answers for how we get it up and running again. I think it will take careful, delicate work to bring people together again and rebuild some trust between communities—between our Muslim and our Jewish communities. Let me be frank about that. With enough good will and British generosity of spirit, it is possible for us to get that work up and running. I see it as crucial in tackling the scourge of antisemitism and other forms of hatred, and in making sure that our country is a safe place for people of all different communities. I hope the whole House will support that.

I share with Members the joy at the hostages being released today, and the sorrow at the loss of Melvin Cravitz and Adrian Daulby, and I send my condolences to their families.

I join the Home Secretary in condemning this attack and condemning antisemitism and racism. I met our local rabbi last week to share my solidarity, and I am so pleased that the congregation have received so many messages of support from across the community and other faith groups—the mosque, churches and other groups—and that there is real support from the local police, for which they are very grateful. Does the Home Secretary agree that it is vital that we continue to send a united message that we support the Jewish community and their right to live and worship in safety, and that we all have a role—here in this place, and in workplaces, schools and streets across this country—in taking action against this?

It is natural after a terror attack that we might focus on the actions of those who still wish to cause pain and do damage to our communities, but my hon. Friend is right. Since the attack, millions of Brits have come together in the spirit of solidarity towards one another, whether in our churches, synagogues, mosques and other places of worship, or in places that are community institutions open to all faiths and none. It is those acts of solidarity that will ensure we can be a strong country going forward.

When we allow Islamist hate preachers such as Sheikh Alafasy to do speaking tours, it is no wonder British Jews in the UK no longer feel safe. In January, he had a platform at the Bridgewater Hall in Manchester, despite the Jewish Representative Council raising its concerns. They were ignored. In the follow-up meeting, described as an appalling “tick-box exercise”, the chief executive could not have cared less. It now turns out that this Sheikh was one of only 10 people that the terrorist perpetrator of this attack followed on Twitter. There was a chance that he was at the event in January. Can the Home Secretary advise what her Department is doing to hold the chief executive Andrew Bolt and the trustees of Bridgewater Hall to account for completely failing to take the concerns of Manchester’s Jewish community into consideration? It is not just the hate marches.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. Forgive me, I do not know the specifics of that particular case. If he writes to me, I will discuss it with the Security Minister and ensure he gets an appropriate response.

First, I welcome the move to consider cumulative impact when it comes to policing the issues discussed today. It is a hugely positive move, and I hope it can be applied to static protests as well as marches. In the aftermath of the horrific attack on the synagogue earlier this month, the Centre for Countering Digital Hate undertook research that showed the shocking, but these days sadly not surprising, number of calls for further violence against Jews on the X social media platform. Does the Home Secretary agree that those advocating online for the death of Jews and for synagogues to be burnt down are exactly the sort of content that the Online Safety Act 2023 is supposed to address? Does she also agree that it is utterly reprehensible for anyone to give positive publicity to those on social media calling for people to be killed and for buildings to be burnt down?

On the measures on cumulative impact, yes, they do apply to both static protest and marches. That is why they are measures aimed at both sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act. As I said earlier in my statement, I am very clear that the online space is not going to be a free space for antisemitism, which presents itself both on the left and the right and everything in between of the political spectrum. I will discuss these matters with the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology.

I echo comments across the House and extend Plaid Cymru’s sympathies to the families of everyone affected. We as MPs and other commentators in the public sphere need to be vigilant and alert to the potential consequences of inflammatory language as we recall what happened on 2 October. I thank the Antisemitism Policy Trust for its work showing how utterly unacceptable it is that antisemitic tropes place Jewish people in peril. Does the Home Secretary agree that with free speech, which we rightly treasure, comes responsibility?

Yes, I do. That is why I described the protests in the immediate aftermath of the attacks as un-British. We have our rights and we can choose when to use them. We can choose whether we wish to cause pain to people or not. I wish that those individuals who were involved in the protests in the immediate aftermath had chosen to show a sense of British generosity of spirit, rather than go on those marches that day.

I share the Home Secretary’s condemnation of this terrorist attack. I was pleased to join my Jewish constituents in solidarity at an event to mark Sukkot this weekend. It was particularly touching that we were joined by people of all faiths, including Hindus and Muslims. They were there in solidarity, but also with anxieties of their own. One Hindu community representative said to me, “This incident makes us nervous that this could happen to us as well.” Does the Home Secretary agree that the Government’s protections must extend to people of all faiths? Can she say more about what she will do to ensure that people of all faiths can meet, celebrate and worship without fear?

I agree with my hon. Friend. The Government’s places of worship protective security scheme is open not just to synagogues but to mosques and other places of worship, and already makes significant sums available for the protection of mosques and other temples. We are working closely with representatives from the community on what we might need to do going forward.

I associate myself with the tributes paid to those who were killed in Manchester and to the invaluable work of the Community Security Trust, whose headquarters I have visited. I pay tribute to my constituents, who have sent a wall of love and support in messages to our local synagogue, showing how they absolutely reject antisemitism.

The Manchester attacker was wielding a knife. My local police force has stressed to me the ease with which someone—even with a pattern of criminal behaviour—can obtain a lethal knife. We do not know what kind of knife was used or how the attacker obtained it, but we do know that the Southport attacker purchased a 16-inch machete from Knife Warehouse, a retailer which, in the words of the inquiry chair, showed “no curiosity” at all about whom it was selling to. It is clear that those who intend to commit violence can arm themselves with alarming ease by exploiting online loopholes that treat lethal weapons as ordinary products. Does the Secretary of State agree that we now need a far stronger and clearer approach to tackle the online sale and circulation of these knives and to close the gaps that allow sellers to profit from them?

The hon. Lady will know that we are already taking action in the Crime and Policing Bill to ban the sale of those knives. It is a little too early to draw wider lessons about exactly what happened in this case, but I am sure we will return to these matters in due course once more of the facts are in.

I commend the Home Secretary for her statement and join her in both condemning this despicable attack and sending condolences to the families of Melvin Cravitz and Adrian Daulby. They are heroes—may their memory be a blessing.

Hendon has one of the largest Jewish communities in the country. Many of my constituents are scared; I must tell the House in all candour that more than a few are asking whether there is a future for them and their families in this country. One of the sources of concern is the fear of bias towards Jewish patients in the NHS. Can the Home Secretary expand on the action the Government are taking to ensure that all may be treated in the NHS without fear and stamp out antisemitism in our health system?

It is an absolute outrage that any patient in our country might be afraid of seeking treatment in our national health service because of the expressed views of the person who is treating them. We are determined to ensure that that is not something that anyone in our country, including in our Jewish community, has to go through. That is why the Health Secretary has already announced that he will be overhauling the regulatory system for medical practitioners, and I am sure he will come to the House in due course to give more details.

The Green party stands shoulder to shoulder in cross-party solidarity with the victims and survivors of the horrific attack on the Heaton Park synagogue. I pay particular tribute to those who put their lives at risk to bring the attack to a swift stop.

The Home Secretary has today spoken passionately and personally about the fight against the scourge of antisemitism being the same as the fight against any form of prejudice, and I very much welcome that. I am sure she will agree that it is essential to say loudly, clearly and unequivocally that prejudice, hatred or violence against Jewish people is totally unacceptable in our country, and will not be tolerated.

The Home Secretary has used this opportunity—this moment—to announce further restrictions on protest, which, I confess, do concern me. Important points have been raised in the Chamber today regarding radicalisation within online spaces. Will the Home Secretary ensure that every policy measure she takes is focused on building solidarity between communities and countering division in our country?

I agreed with everything the hon. Lady said until she got to restriction on protests. Let me be clear: there is a balance to be struck between these freedoms. I think it is in the wrong place, so I am taking measures to bring it back into balance. I repeat the points I have made about the online environment, which is something I will discuss with colleagues across Government.

My condolences and solidarity and those of my constituents are with the Jewish community in Manchester in the wake of this terrible terrorist attack. The Home Secretary mentioned regulators. Regulators such as Ofcom have a hugely important role in tackling antisemitism, not least online harm and hatred, as raised by the Antisemitism Policy Trust. Can she give an assurance that the Government have a plan to ensure that regulators are playing their full role in addressing the poison of antisemitism?

Yes, I can. My colleagues in the Cabinet have written to the different regulators that report directly to them, and they will all come before this House to set out further measures and how we will hold people accountable for their powers.

Does the Home Secretary agree that the murderous attack on the Jewish community in Manchester was the product of the rampant Islamic radicalisation that we have seen across our country—something which chimes with the antisemitism that has been evidenced in the bitter hate marches in our capital city? In that context, is enough being done to deal with the radicalisers? Do we not need to strike the axe at the root of this problem? Much of that root is those who are radicalising young people to carry out awful acts such as this.

I repeat to the hon. and learned Gentleman my earlier comments on dealing with the domestic threats we face, the largest of which is Islamist extremism. We will know more about the specific journey that this attacker took before he carried out his attack when more of the facts are in, but I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that whatever wider lessons are to be drawn from this attack, I will make sure that they are understood and learned from and that we have the measures in place to be effective in dealing with radicalisation wherever it takes place, including with Islamist extremism.

I pay tribute to the Leeds Jewish Representative Council and the Jewish Leadership Council for organising moving tributes in memory of the victims of the Manchester attack. I also thank CST for its tireless work to keep the community safe. I am sorry to say that a few weeks ago a speaker on the streets of Leeds during one of the protests called for all synagogues and all Jewish schools to be held to account for the crime of, as they say, harbouring Zionists. This was the thinnest of veils draped over an excuse to legitimise targeting the Jewish community. Does the Home Secretary agree that there is absolutely no place for such calls on the streets of Leeds or anywhere in the UK? Will she do everything in her power to enable the police to ensure that it does not happen again to keep the Jewish community safe?

I agree with my hon. Friend; those comments are despicable and utterly unacceptable. It is why I am reviewing the wider legislative framework in relation to protest and hate crime.

I give my condolences to those who lost their lives as a result of the Manchester synagogue attack and to those who suffered the trauma of the loss of a family member. I thank the Home Secretary for her strong and emphatic statement. She speaks for everyone in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland with her words of strong condemnation. I was sickened and shocked to hear of the attack in Manchester on Yom Kippur and the loss of life that ensued. It is an established fact that antisemitism in the UK is once again on the rise, to such an extent that there are security details at all religious events.

I can well remember after the Darkley hall massacre that many, probably all, churches across Northern Ireland had extra security details on their doors. Those dark days are behind us in Northern Ireland, but they are not behind our Jewish friends, and we have witnessed that in recent times. They require actions, not words, and above all honesty about the threat level against them. Just how will the Home Secretary provide assurances to the Jewish community that are not just media soundbites but promises of safety that can be trusted?

I assure the hon. Member and the House that the Government will take action—we have already taken action, and there will be more to come. I know that will be debated in the House over the coming weeks and months, but this is not a moment for warm words; it is a moment for strong action, and that is what the Government will deliver.

I agree with the Home Secretary that violence directed at any community, be they Jewish, Muslim, of all faiths or none are attacks on our entire country and we are united in condemnation of those who seek to divide us. In Luton, we have strong cohesion because we have worked for many years to build it, yet recent events, combined with increasingly open far-right and racist rhetoric, have left many feeling scared and vulnerable. Bedfordshire Police has stepped up patrols around different places of worship, but its resources are limited. I welcome the Home Secretary’s comments on looking at that. What cross-Government work is being done on the community cohesion building of our voluntary and community sector, and what support will there be for that?

Community cohesion will be vital and is an important element of the work we have to take forward in the light of the attack. I am happy to discuss that with my hon. Friend and ensure that she gets a meeting with the relevant Minister to feed in the experience of those in Luton.

I join the Home Secretary and all Members across the House in my unequivocal condemnation of the heinous terrorist and antisemitic attack against Jewish worshippers in Manchester, and I express my heartfelt condolences to the family and friends of Mr Daulby and Mr Cravitz. As a proud British Muslim, I remind the House and those listening that the actions of these so-called Islamist terrorists were vile and unacceptable. They have nothing to do with the religion of Islam and are actually in total contradiction to the teachings of Islam and the obligations of all Muslims.

In my constituency and across the country, Muslims have joined the Jewish community in being saddened and angered by the terrorist attack in Manchester, and by any and all hatred and violence expressed against any community. We stand in full solidarity with them. The Home Secretary said that the terrorist was not known to the police or to the Prevent programme, so will she advise the House what steps are being taken to address any gaps identified in our preventive measures so that such acts of terrorism cannot happen again?

The attacker was not known to counter-terror policing and had not been referred to the Prevent programme. Once all the facts are in, we will be able to draw wider lessons. As we did not know him, the question will be: should he have been on our radar? That is a question that I and others in our security services will take seriously. He was, of course, known to the police in the context of those two charges for rape, and the IOPC will now investigate all his history with the police in a non-terror context so that we can draw those wider lessons.

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and pay tribute to everyone who helped defeat the attack last week. I also pay tribute to the Home Secretary for the leadership she has shown so early in post, which has been fantastic. In an earlier reply, she lamented the decline in interfaith work across the UK. In Edinburgh, it has never been going stronger. The Edinburgh Interfaith Association does fantastic work to ensure that Edinburgh is an inclusive city. I formally invite her to meet it to learn about its work.

None the less, the Jewish community in Edinburgh are concerned about the rise in antisemitism. I met them last weekend, and I spoke to a young man who is proud to be Jewish but said he could not live his life openly—the phrase he used was that he was “Jewish in the closet”, and I felt ashamed. I welcome the Home Secretary looking at the threshold for hate crime, but will she reassure us that she will be speaking to the devolved Administrations to ensure that we get this right across the UK?

I will be speaking to all our colleagues in the devolved Administrations. I am happy to discuss with my hon. Friend the wider lessons on interfaith work to be drawn from his own experience.

The horrific terrorist attack at Heaton Park follows a decade during which antisemitism has increased nearly every year, and the CST has confirmed that antisemitism is increasing on university campuses. In York we have two fantastic universities where antisemitism has no place. Will my right hon. Friend commit to working with the Secretary of State for Education to ensure that universities across the country have all they need to root out antisemitism for good?

Yes, absolutely.

On an inspiring visit this weekend to Bromley Reform synagogue, which serves my constituents in Dartford alongside those of my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon) and the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune), I was moved by the strong views of the congregation rejecting hatred across all religions and communities in our country. Following the Home Secretary’s excellent statement, does she agree that it is vital that we send a message to the Jewish community and every other community in this country that they will be safe and that the Government stand with them?

I agree with my hon. Friend and I hope that that message has been heard today. There is obviously much work for us to do, but the Government will not shy away from doing it.

I thank the Home Secretary for her powerful statement and send my condolences to those grieving for their loved ones following the horrific terrorist attack, which realised the fears of those in our Jewish community across the country. A Stevenage constituent wrote to me straight after the attack to say how scared she was for her husband, who had gone to do security at Yom Kippur that evening. She also told me that classmates of her son’s had wished he had died in the Holocaust, and that other classmates had talked about antisemitic comments during lessons on the second world war. She also told me about not disclosing the fact that a party for her daughter was for her bat mitzvah because she was scared of the response. These are the fears that our Jewish community are facing. While I welcome all that the Government are doing in their deeds, in law and with resources, the harder thing is how we call out these so-called small acts of antisemitism. They start that way, but where do they end? How can we encourage everyone—all of us—to call them out?

No act of antisemitism, big or small, is acceptable, and we must all call it out and challenge it wherever we see it. The Government will act. We are already taking measures, and we will take more, to strengthen the response to rising antisemitism in our country. Let me assure my hon. Friend that the testimony from his constituent is devastating for all of us. It is a source of national shame that our fellow citizens feel that they have to hide who they are in this way. We must all commit ourselves to doing everything in our collective power to ensure that our Jewish community can live a full Jewish life here in Britain in the 21st century.

I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. Does she agree that slogans such as “Glory to our martyrs”, “Globalise the intifada” and “Zionists off our streets” are unacceptable and likely to encourage unstable individuals to carry out horrific actions and attacks on the Jewish people such as the one we saw so recently?

Let me reassure my hon. Friend that I am carrying out a review of the wider legislation on protest and thresholds for hate crime legislation, to ensure that our whole legal framework is as robust as it needs to be, so that we can strike the careful balance between our freedom of protest and freedom of speech, and keeping all our communities safe.