Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour Party leader, has criticised a parliamentary committee’s report on antisemitism in Britain for its “disproportionate emphasis on Labour”.

The Commons’ Home Affairs Select Committee, which had been investigating antisemitism in Britain since April, said Mr Corbyn does not fully appreciate “the distinct nature of contemporary antisemitism”.

“His lack of consistent leadership on this issue has created what some have referred to as a 'safe space' for those with vile attitudes towards Jewish people,” MPs added in the 70-page report published this morning.

The committee, which also criticised other political parties, said Labour’s “demonstrable incompetence” in the way it has handled incidents of hatred against Jews gave credence to the suggestion the party is “institutionally antisemitic”.

Mr Corbyn said: “The report’s political framing and disproportionate emphasis on Labour risks undermining the positive and welcome recommendations made in it.

“Although the committee heard evidence that 75% of antisemitic incidents come from far right sources, and the report states there is no reliable evidence to suggest antisemitism is greater in Labour than other parties, much of the report focuses on the Labour party.

“As the report rightly acknowledges, politicising antisemitism – or using it as a weapon in controversies between and within political parties – does the struggle against it a disservice.”

The Labour Party leader also criticised the committee of cross-party MPs for its conclusions on Baroness Chakrabarti, who published a report on antisemitism in Labour before Mr Corbyn nominated her for a life peerage, then made her Shadow Attorney General.

The MPs found her report was “ultimately compromised” by her failure to provide a definition of antisemitism, and her promotion to the Shadow Cabinet “threw into question” the independence of her “clearly lacking” probe.

Mr Corbyn said: “The report unfairly criticises Shami Chakrabarti for not being sufficiently independent. This fails to acknowledge public statements that the offer to appoint Chakrabarti to the House of Lords came after completion of her report, and was based on her extensive legal and campaigning experience."

He said the party was "already acting on her recommendations, including reform of our internal procedures, changes to the Party’s rule book and expansion of training to tackle antisemitism."

Mr Corbyn added: “The Committee heard evidence from too narrow a pool of opinion, and its then-chair rejected both Chakrabarti’s and the Jewish Labour Movement’s requests to appear and give evidence before it.

"Not a single woman was called to give oral evidence in public, and the report violates natural justice by criticising individuals without giving them a right to be heard."

The Labour leader reacted favourably to some recommendations put forward in the report, "such as strengthening anti-hate crime systems, demanding Twitter take stronger action against antisemitic trolling and allow users to block keywords, and support for Jewish communal security.

“I will be writing to both Twitter and Facebook to request urgent meetings to discuss tackling online abuse," he said.

Tim Loughton MP, the acting chairman of the committee, said: “I would have hoped that Jeremy Corbyn would have been rather more positive and welcomed this report.”

He said the Labour leader “still seems to be in denial about the nature and the extent of the problem he’s got within his own party.”

Mr Loughton had discovered Labour MPs being subjected to "absolutely grotesque" abuse, he said, adding: "We were talking about mainstream parties and nobody can deny there have been very high profile incidents within the Labour Party."

Speaking on BBC One this morning, Mr Loughton said the committee felt Baroness Chakrabarti’s report “wasn’t worth worth the paper it was written on”.

He added the MPs had sent a letter to Baroness Chakrabarti with a list of further questions in August, but had still had “no response”.

Chuka Umunna, a Labour MP who was on the committee, rejected claims of politicising which came from Mr Corbyn among others.

He said despite being criticised for his “robust questioning” of Labour representatives, “it would have been cowardly to do otherwise because people’s right to freedom from hatred and prejudice is bigger than any one individual or party in my view.

“It is grossly insulting to suggest that those of us who recognise this – Labour Party members or otherwise - do so because of some desire to score political points either between political parties or within them.”

The former Shadow Business Secretary denied suggestions that the report he helped to put together showed “institutional antisemitism across the whole of the Labour Party,” but did voice concerns about his party.

He said Labour members “would be putting our heads in the sand if we denied the existence of antisemitism amongst a minority in our wider Labour family - this is something our movement has a solemn duty to root out if we are to remain true to the principles we were founded to promote and protect.”

Pat McFadden, who resigned as Shadow Minister for Europe in January, said “pointing to your own sense of righteousness is no excuse for nastiness or cruelty,” and called on his party to take the findings “very seriously”.

Speaking on BBC One this morning, the Labour MP for Wolverhampton South East added: “I hope we take the report seriously and I hope we don’t fall into the trap of when these accusations are wielded, that we point to anti-racism records and say ‘look at our virtue and our record here, that must mean we can’t be antisemitic’.”

Wes Streeting, Labour MP for Ilford North, tweeted that the report was “grim reading, especially for Labour. Needs to be read and acted upon.”

Ken Livingstone, the former Mayor of London currently suspended from Labour after making repeated remarks about Adolf Hitler supporting Zionism, said the report was “rigged”.

He added it was a “political stitch-up” aimed at “whipping up” complaints against Mr Corbyn.

In response to the publication, James Sorene, Bicom chief executive, said: “This report brings much needed clarity where previously there has been denial, obfuscation and abdication of responsibility.

“I welcome the committee’s condemnation of ‘Zionist’ as a term of abuse and the recommendation that in such a context it should be considered inflammatory and potentially antisemitic. This issue was highlighted in Bicom submission to the inquiry.

“Those who portray the existence of Israel as a crime, and indulge dangerous fantasies about the country no longer existing, are not only deeply offensive, but antisemitic.

“There is a constructive debate in the UK about how to reach a peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict of which we are a part. Those that tolerate or indulge antisemitic anti-Zionism place themselves outside of that debate.”

Mark Gardner, director of communications of the Community Security Trust, said: “CST thanks the committee for its serious investigation of antisemitism and hopes that its conclusions will be acted upon.

"This problem has become increasingly acute in recent years and it is vital that British Jews do not end up questioning their futures as is now sadly the case in mainland Europe.”

Sir Mick Davis, the chairman of the Jewish Leadership Council, said the committee had delivered "a serious report which has made serious recommendations".

He added: "We welcome the fact that this independent, cross-party group of MPs has produced a unanimous report which sets out a road map for concrete action to address antisemitism in all its forms. The proposal of a working definition for antisemitism is a welcome start and their proposals to address the intolerable rise in hate speech online are timely and necessary.

"The report correctly says that it is not antisemitic to criticise or campaign against the actions of the Israeli government, but it should be noted that disproportionate criticism is problematic. The report highlights but does not endorse my views that anti-Zionism of the 21st century is antisemitic; it nevertheless makes very cogent comments and recommendations about anti-Zionism and antisemitism.

"The JLC and CST will work together with our partners to ensure recommendations are carried out as quickly as possible."

John Mann MP, the chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group Against Antisemitism, said: “This is a very welcome and important report and I praise the Home Affairs Select Committee members for their commitment, careful investigation and timely recommendations.

"I am pleased that the inquiry took our submission into consideration and we look forward to hearing a positive government response. We will continue to work hard on a cross-party basis to ensure that antisemitism is effectively tackled.”

Board of Deputies president Jonathan Arkush welcomed the report.

Mr Arkush, who was the first witness to give evidence to the committee, said: “I commend the Home Affairs Select committee for writing such a clear and comprehensive report which will stand as a critical source document for future work in this area.

"The Board of Deputies is greatly heartened that the committee has taken care to listen to the range of concerns expressed in the evidence given from across the community and beyond.

“In particular, we are pleased that the committee has highlighted the outrageous and ongoing online abuse suffered by those who support the Jewish community.

"The report also supports our assertion that there are problems within the Labour Party which still need to be addressed and that the leader has not fully grasped the enormity of the problem of antisemitism within his party.

Mr Arkush noted the report also vindicated the Board's view "on the questionable independence of the Chakrabarti Report and its weak content. There are also welcome recommendations on the definition of antisemitism and the problem of antisemitic anti-Zionism."

Josh Nagli, Union of Jewish Students campaigns director, has commended the committee for its “in-depth criticism of the NUS National President and her organisation,” and recommendations he said “can provide the foundations to ensure a safe space for Jewish students.”

The report singled out Malia Bouattia, National Union of Students president, for criticism for “failing to take sufficiently seriously the issue of antisemitism on university campuses”.

Her “choice of language suggests a worrying disregard for her duty to represent all sections of the student population and promote balanced and respectful debate”, the report stated.

Mr Nagli said: “The evidence outlined in the report all points to the fact that the NUS National President treats Jewish students’ concerns differently to those of others, proving that there’s one rule for Jewish students, another for everyone else.

“As the report makes clear, the National President of NUS should not be making the kind of abhorrent and unacceptable comments that she has previously made.

“Her inability to fully represent all parts of the student population is disgraceful, and for no part of the student population is this truer than for Jewish students.”

The UJS agreed to talks with Ms Bouattia this week, a month after Mr Nagli said the union could cut off all contact with the NUS over concerns about its president.

Mr Nagli said: “We will only meet with the National President to discuss her past comments and continued inability to address the valid concerns that Jewish students continue to raise.

“This report must act as a wake-up call for the NUS President and her organisation, because the culture being created on UK campuses is, unacceptably, one that accepts and fails to challenge antisemitism; a culture that is being manifested on her watch.”

Responding to the MPs’ findings, Ms Bouattia said: "The report's data on increasing antisemitism and targeting of the Jewish community is deeply concerning.

“I welcome the report's highlighting of the issue and its call for action across society, including in such areas as online platforms. This is also a priority for NUS.

"I will continue to listen to the concerns of Jewish students and the Jewish Community. As I wrote upon my election as president, and in the submission to this inquiry, if the language I have used in the past has been interpreted any other way then let me make this clear – it was never my intention and I have revised my language accordingly.

“Our movement has students, both Jewish and otherwise, who hold a variety of deeply held beliefs on Israel-Palestine but it is a political argument, not one of faith. There is no place for antisemitism in the student movement, and in society.

"Following two years as co-chair of the NUS' Anti-Racist Anti-Fascist Campaign, I will continue to work across the student movement to eradicate all forms of hate, including antisemitism. We are stronger when we work together and I will continue to encourage progressive and inclusive working relationships across our movement."

A spokesperson for the NUS said the organisation “takes all forms of racism, including antisemitism, extremely seriously. As such, we recognise the importance of the report and its deeply troubling findings regarding the sharp rise in antisemitism across society.”

However, the NUS - like Mr Corbyn - criticised the report for its focus.

The spokesperson continued: “It is concerning that the report identifies that 3/4 of politically motivated antisemitic incidences come from far-right groups, yet focuses almost exclusively on NUS in relation to antisemitism on campus. This fails to address the reality for students.

"We are only too aware of the reality, hence our continued work on Anti-racism and Anti-fascism, including more recent work with the Runnymede Trust on racism, and research into the experiences of Jewish Students.

“It is disappointing that the report is partial and inaccurate in relation to NUS work in tackling antisemitism, although we offered a detailed submission to the Inquiry.”

Karen Pollock, Holocaust Educational Trust chief executive, said: “This cross-party inquiry has issued the strong clarion call we have so desperately needed in the fight to tackle antisemitism in all its guises.

“We must fight this age old hatred as we would fight any form of racism and prejudice – by taking action, not just in Parliament but across society.”

The Conservative Friends of Israel welcomed the report. Sir Eric Pickles MP, Lord Polak and James Gurd - the executive director - said in a joint statement: “The Committee deserves applause for not pulling any punches in confronting the problem of antisemitism in Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party and Baroness Chakrabarti's worthless report.

“Antisemitism is a cancer in our society and the cross-party endorsement of this timely report highlights the national unity that will be needed to stamp it out.”

Rabbi Herschel Gluck, president of Stamford Hill Shomrim, also welcomed the findings for sending out “a strong message that antisemitism must be challenged wherever it lifts its ugly head”.

However, he alleged the committee had failed to investigate antisemitism in the Charedi community, saying: “the parliamentary enquiry did not request any evidence from the most visible section of the Jewish community, the Charedi Community, where the majority of the attacks are in person rather than online, leaving victims very vulnerable, and are usually clearly and unequivocally antisemitic.

“I repeat my call to the Home Office to understand the real life antisemitism that members of the Charedi Jewish Community experience, and to start working directly with the Charedi Jewish Community, concerning the reporting of antisemitism.”

Hugh Lanning, chair of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, condemned the report. He said it was “very worrying that the report recommends adoption of a discredited definition of antisemitism that dangerously conflates anti-Zionism with antisemitism.”

Mr Lanning said “asking law enforcement officers to adopt a definition of antisemitism which incorporates criticism of Israel within its categories risks the policing of political debate.

“We believe this runs counter to everyone’s freedom of expression – a right guaranteed in European law.”