Manchester Terrorism Attack

Debate between Shabana Mahmood and Pete Wishart

Monday 13th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

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.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

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.

[Shabana Mahmood]

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.

Higher and Further Education

Debate between Shabana Mahmood and Pete Wishart

Tuesday 11th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. She is absolutely right. As I have said, choices that are being made on the basis of affordability represent a tragedy not just for the individual making them, but for us as a country, because we are missing out on their potential at a time when we should be investing in our education and skills base. In a highly skilled economy we need our people to have high-level skills. This Government are creating circumstances in which that will not be possible in the future.

This Government’s policies will affect level 3 apprenticeships for those aged 24 and over. The added costs could act as a deterrent for potential apprentices and the added bureaucracy could put off businesses from offering places.

A high percentage of learners are also enrolled in courses directly related to, or benefiting, public services. For example, just over 90,000 learners were enrolled in courses in health, public services and care, and over 45,000 in those for education and training. Sixty three per cent. of those affected are women. A drop-off from those numbers would hit local services, and local economic growth prospects could hit the productivity of the public sector and the life chances of tens of thousands of adult learners. The policy will also affect those taking courses in science, technology, engineering and maths when we need more people, not fewer, to take STEM subjects in order to compete in the world with new technology and new industries.

As with higher education, the Government’s policies on further education take us in the wrong direction on participation and social mobility. We are mindful of the impact that the trebling of fees is having on students and would-be students, so this time last year we suggested an alternative to the Government. We have called on them to cut the tuition fee cap to a third, to a maximum of £6,000. We have proposed a fully funded way of doing that, paid for by not going ahead with the corporation tax cut for the banks and through some additional payments by the wealthiest graduates.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

The hon. Lady is being very generous in giving way. We know now the difference between a Labour tuition fee and a Conservative tuition fee—it is £3,000. She says that the proposal will be funded by reversing the corporation tax for banks. Does that include Scottish financial institutions? Why should they pay for a cut in tuition fees for English students?

[Shabana Mahmood]

The corporation tax cut is for banks across the UK.