Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban

(Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary to make a statement on the adequacy of the evidence on which West Midland police took decisions relating to the Aston Villa versus Maccabi Tel Aviv match.

Let me again acknowledge the concern and disappointment caused by the decision to ban away fans at Villa Park on 6 November. I recognise the continued strength of feeling in this House, and in the country more widely, and I welcome this opportunity to update Members on the latest developments.

The House will be aware that Chief Constable Craig Guildford, Assistant Chief Constable Mike O’Hara and police and crime commissioner Simon Foster gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee last week. I am aware that Assistant Chief Constable Mike O’Hara has since apologised for some of his remarks in relation to Jewish community support for the decisions taken. He will need to set out his correction to the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee directly and we will await the Committee’s conclusions.

Any suggestion that the intelligence gathering and community engagement led by West Midlands police was anything other than of the highest standard would, of course, be a matter of profound concern. I am sure that the House will understand that I remain limited in what I can say about the specific intelligence underpinning this decision while investigations continue. However, in my evidence to the Committee last week, and to this House before then, I explained that the Home Secretary had already commissioned His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services to review how forces in England and Wales provide risk assessment advice to local safety advisory groups and other bodies responsible for licensing high-profile public events. That wider report will be returned to the Home Secretary by 31 March.

Before then, I can confirm that, by the end of the year, HMICFRS will also provide a specific update on the intelligence gathered by West Midlands police on this matter and how it was used. Operational independence is an important principle and one we must protect. At the same time, scrutiny and accountable are essential, especially when it comes to issues with clear implications for public safety and public confidence. It is absolutely right that West Midlands police are asked to explain as fully as possible how the decision was reached.

I thank the Minister for that response, including the news of the HMICFRS report by the end of the year.

The police intelligence used to justify the ban on Israeli fans from Villa Park has fallen apart, and so has the evidence given to the Select Committee by Chief Constable Craig Guildford and Assistant Chief Constable Mike O’Hara. The police say their information came from the Netherlands, after Maccabi Tel Aviv played Ajax last year, but the Dutch said the West Midlands intelligence report was “not true”.

At the Committee, the police repeated claims—denied by the Dutch—that the fans were “militaristic”, threw people in the river and targeted Muslim civilians. They even said that the Dutch police had lied under political pressure from their own mayor. We are asked to believe that the Dutch police lied to their own people, the media, their justice and security inspectorate, their mayor, their Government and even their King, but told the truth once in a Zoom call with West Midlands police that was never even minuted.

The police again claimed that the Dutch deployed 5,000 officers—a claim denied by the Dutch—but admitted to the Committee that they made up the number themselves. Asked whether a fictional match cited in the intelligence report came from artificial intelligence, Craig Guildford told the Committee “not at all”, but AI detection programmes conclude otherwise. The police have already had to apologise for wrongly telling the Committee that a local Jewish community had supported the ban.

There are many questions here, but I will limit myself to four. First, did the Policing Minister believe the evidence that the police presented to the Committee? Secondly, have the police replied to the letter she sent to them two weeks ago? Thirdly, will she guarantee the publication of all relevant information and correspondence? Fourthly, does the chief constable retain her confidence as Policing Minister and the confidence of the Home Secretary?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this urgent question. I know that he will have watched proceedings at the Home Affairs Committee with interest. Of course, it will be for the Committee to draw its own conclusions. As I said in my statement, it is right that the police clarify the latest reports that we heard over the weekend—through the pages of a newspaper, sadly, rather than proactively—on the situation regarding the engagement with the Jewish community and the conclusions that came from those conversations.

The hon. Gentleman will hopefully understand that I do not want to express judgment here when we have a very thorough process, which is ongoing, about the evidence that was gathered in order to reach the conclusion that was reached on the Villa match, and it is absolutely right that HMICFRS is looking at this matter. I know that the hon. Gentleman is frustrated—I can hear his frustration. However, it is right that it goes through that process and talks to whoever it needs to talk to in order to get to the bottom of the pros and cons of the evidence, both as the hon. Gentleman portrayed it and as West Midlands police portrayed it. We need to understand that.

I have been clear that if it is the case that there is anything other than the highest standard in terms of what we would expect, that is a matter of profound concern. It is clear that mistakes have been made in this process—not least with the fictitious match to which the hon. Gentleman referred—and I want to get to the bottom of what happened. I have also been on the record praising West Midlands police for things that it has done in the past, and I would not want to jump to conclusions. However, I want to assure the hon. Gentleman that we will get to the bottom of this and that we will act accordingly once we have that information.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether the police responded to me. Yes, they did. I think I can put that into the public domain, should he want to see it. He also asked whether we will publish the relevant documentation. Of course, we always want to publish what we can. The Home Affairs Committee has already asked some follow-up points from that sitting, and we will be very happy to provide that information. The hon. Gentleman also asked whether I have confidence in the chief constable, which I was asked last week. I will repeat that I have seen some very good work in the west midlands across a range of issues, but we need to get to the bottom of this particular issue.

Does the Minister agree that at the heart of this matter is the question of the truth, and the question of whether the deliberation of the safety advisory group at Birmingham city council was compromised or prejudiced?

There are a number of questions we need to think about. The safety advisory groups were set up many years ago and in a different context, so it is right that we look at the way in which police intelligence and information are fed into those groups. That is the topic of the main piece of work that the inspector is doing, which will report by the end of March. The piece of work relating to West Midlands in particular will report by the end of the year.

The Home Secretary has asked officials to look at Louise Casey’s recommendation from 2021 that we signify certain events as “nationally significant” and then perhaps have a different model for how we take them forward. There is also a review going on in the Cabinet Office of the guidance for safety advisory groups. All those factors need to feed in together. Clearly, we need to look at whether we can improve the structures that exist for very large significant events—in this case globally significant.

I call the shadow Minister.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) for securing this critical urgent question.

It is important not to forget the context of this decision. It came only weeks after the tragic events of the Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation attack. After the attack, the Prime Minister spoke to the Jewish people. He said that he would do everything in his power to guarantee them the security that they deserve. Yet when it came to a football club predominantly supported by Jewish people, they were suddenly deemed a risk to public safety. That is not just inconsistent but an insult to a community still reeling from a violent antisemitic attack. At a moment when Jewish families needed reassurance, this decision sent entirely the wrong message. It undermined confidence, contradicted the Prime Minister’s own promise and fell short of the duty we owe to the Jewish people to keep them safe.

Why was this decision taken? When the Minister addressed the House a couple of weeks ago, she said that the shadow Home Secretary was “jumping the gun a bit” in saying that certain pieces of intelligence were “just made up”. We now know that not only did imaginary matches somehow enter the intelligence picture, but officers giving evidence to Parliament were inaccurate about their dealings with the local Jewish community. That seriously undermines the integrity of this House and the vital work that police forces do in securing accurate intelligence.

The Government have asked HMICFRS to review the intelligence, but will the Minister go further and ensure that the details are made public? We need full transparency and more accurate accounts than we have seen so far, so that proper accountability can finally take place.

I remind the House that the Prime Minister’s view and the view of this Government is that the decision taken was the wrong one. The Prime Minister was very clear about that from the outset, saying:

“This is the wrong decision. We will not tolerate antisemitism on our streets. The role of the police is to ensure all football fans can enjoy the game, without fear of violence or intimidation.”

That is our view, as it has been consistently since.

We are trying to make sure that we can avoid such a situation happening again. HMICFRS will do its report in the normal way, and we are asking it to do so in two stages. One stage will include the information about West Midlands, and the second will take a wider look at how police information is fed into safety advisory groups. HMICFRS will do its report in the way that we would expect.

I do not want to disagree with the hon. Member about the harm that this has done. I am very well aware of it, and I have had many conversations with Jewish colleagues and organisations since this incident. I hope that we can put it behind us by learning the right lessons and making sure that we take appropriate action.

As someone who has had the pleasure of working with the chief constable, I can say that he is a very considered man. Having said that, as an MP who represents the adjoining constituency, I was given absolutely no information about what was going on. Can the Minister assure the House that lessons will be learned and the appropriate actions will be taken to ensure that this does not happen again?

My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. She might not be the MP directly in the area but, as the Member for Erdington, she has a very close interest in this matter. The safety advisory group as constructed at the moment has a couple of councillors on it, so there was representation, but is that the right mix? This speaks to the wider question of whether, if there are issues of national significance, we need a different lens through which to view them. In answer to her question: yes, I will do all I can to ensure that we get to the bottom of what happened and learn the lessons in the appropriate way.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

This has been a sorry saga from the very beginning. First, we were told that the fans had to be banned for safety reasons. Intelligence reports, we were told, said that Maccabi Tel Aviv fans were highly organised, skilled fighters with the serious desire and will to fight with police and opposing groups. That was false. Last week, the West Midlands assistant chief constable told MPs that the Jewish community in the local area supported the ban. This has now been found to be false, too, and he has rightly apologised. There are serious questions to be answered about West Midlands police’s handling of this decision, so will the Minister commit to support the setting up of any independent inquiries that are needed to get to the bottom this, in excess of what is already going on, if the answers are not found, so that anyone who is responsible can be held to account?

Finally, with antisemitic incidents remaining at record highs in this country, the Government must reassure the Jewish community of its safety. Ministers assured me last month that the community cohesion strategy would be published when it was ready. Can they assure us that the Jewish community remains part of that process, and can they give us a concrete timeline for the strategy’s publication?

I very much hope that through the processes I have listed—the HMICFRS review into what happens to police intelligence and the advice feeding into safety advisory groups, the wider look at what is needed for events of national significance, and the Cabinet Office review of the role of safety advisory groups—we will ensure that we do not have a situation like this ever again. The hon. Gentleman asks what we would do if we did not get to the bottom of this, but I very much hope that we will. Of course I will come to this place and make sure that the House has all the information it needs to draw its own conclusions.

The hon. Gentleman asks about the community cohesion strategy, and we are working hard on that. In the wider context of how we deal with it when we know that large groups of people will attend protests, we are doing a wider piece of work that will help us navigate whether the existing legislation on protests is fit for purpose on a range of issues. For example, we have had significant concerns about antisemitism rearing its head at protests and we are working really hard with Jewish organisations to make sure that we get it right on that. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman on that.

I wish to associate myself with the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton). Something has clearly gone very wrong with the safety advisory group process in respect of Aston Villa, as the Minister, to her credit, has said from the start. I am particularly concerned by the apparent absence of clear decision-making processes, and of evidence and recording surrounding those processes, and I wish to know whether this is indicative of other decisions that might have been made by the respective police forces. Can the Minister confirm to the House whether, as part of her considerations, she is looking at new national minimum standards for the way that decisions are made and evidenced through safety advisory groups?

The Cabinet Office is updating the guidance on safety advisory groups and it is looking at exactly those kinds of issues. There is a wider point about the need to reference, account for and minute decisions when they are made and to record how they are made. We do that in government and we do it for a reason. It is because when we are questioned about our decisions, we need to have access to the right information about what was said, when and to whom. That is a wider question that I definitely take away from this episode.

I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.

I would be grateful if the Minister could share any correspondence she has with the Committee because we are keen to get full transparency on this issue.

Does the Minister share my incredulity that a decision that was so sensitive appears to have been taken on the basis of a single unminuted Zoom call between a West Midlands police officer and officers from Amsterdam, and that the exercise in social media scraping led the police to believe that a match that had never taken place could be cited in the evidence for the decision to ban the away fans?