West Midlands Police: Maccabi Tel Aviv Match

Question

Asked by

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the evidence on which West Midlands Police took decisions relating to the Aston Villa versus Maccabi Tel Aviv match.

My Lords—

Hear, hear!

I have not finished yet, my Lords—we have a while to go.

The Home Office is committed to full transparency regarding the intelligence used by West Midlands Police for the Aston Villa and Maccabi Tel Aviv match. To ensure full independent scrutiny, the Home Secretary has commissioned His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services to inspect how police forces in England and Wales provide risk assessment advice to local safety advisory groups, with an initial report focusing on the Maccabi Tel Aviv v Aston Villa match.

I admire my noble friend’s stamina, particularly considering he has a Statement to follow.

He will know that the decision of the safety committee in relation to Maccabi fans coming to Birmingham was a mistake. However, it seems to have been based on very flawed evidence from the West Midlands Police force. In the first case, it relied on what the Dutch police had told it about their experience in Amsterdam with Maccabi fans, which the Dutch police themselves disowned; the information seemed to have been gathered through an unminuted Zoom call. Then a football match was cited which turned out never to have been played—there is some thought that it was generated by AI. Thirdly, at the Home Affairs Select Committee only a few days ago, the West Midlands Police said that the local Jewish community supported the ban. That was a mistake and the police have now had to apologise. I think we have reached the point where there is considerable doubt about the integrity of the leadership of the West Midlands Police force. I say to the Government that I understand the need for all these reports and due process, but action has to be taken.

I am grateful to my noble friend. Let me say two things. The police and crime commissioner for the West Midlands is accountable to the people of the West Midlands for whatever they say. The chief constable is accountable to the police and crime commissioner and it is for them—I say this genuinely—to determine locally whether they wish to take any further action in the light of the interesting points that my noble friend made.

What we have done, as the Home Office and Home Secretary, is to ask, on 27 November, for an urgent report on the intelligence received and the issues that my noble friend mentioned. We have asked for that to be done via His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary by 31 December, so that we can get to the bottom of what was said and what information led to it. It is better that I wait for the outcome of the report that we commissioned before I comment in detail on any of the potential allegations that have been made. The Home Affairs Select Committee is looking at this issue separately and will produce its own report in due course.

My Lords, we now know that the match decision was based on fake evidence, but it is not just a local matter. I have made a list of the number of times that this Prime Minister has said, “We will not tolerate antisemitism in our society and on our streets”. But he does and they do: more than any other Government I remember in recent years. It is time for the Government to indicate to the police that they should not prioritise the supposed interests of violent, unreasonable, anti-Israel politicians and mobs over the peaceful majority, whether around football or at protests.

Let me, in the nicest possible way, refute exactly what the noble Baroness said. This Prime Minister is committed to rooting out and tackling antisemitism and to making sure that we do not have racism in our society. He is doing so in a way that also allows for people who take a view on Israel and the performance of the Israeli state to protest peacefully. If the noble Baroness looks at the Crime and Policing Bill that we are taking through now, she will see that we are putting in a range of measures to stop protests that impact on any community in a particular way.

The noble Baroness also raised some wider issues, which I accept, which is why we have asked His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary to look at them, as well as the specific allegations to which my noble friend referred, and at whether we can improve the performance of safety group assessments in the areas that she mentioned.

My Lords, let me put it to the Minister straightforwardly: how is it remotely acceptable for police leaders in the West Midlands to fabricate a report, as the noble Lord said, with a made-up meeting and a made-up match? They have lied to a parliamentary Select Committee. They have basically yielded to the mob shamefully led by Ayoub Khan MP. If I may use footballing parlance, how can the Minister have any confidence in Chief Constable Guildford and Assistant Chief Constable O’Hara? As Nick Timothy said, they should be sacked today.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, who knows that any suggestion that intelligence gathering or community engagement led by West Midlands Police was anything other than of the highest standard is a matter of great concern. But I hope he accepts that the Home Secretary has understood that concern and commissioned a report. It is fair and proper that we await the findings of that report before we take any further action. I refer back to my earlier answer: the chief constable is accountable to the police and crime commissioner, who is accountable to the people of the West Midlands. For the Home Office to take any action would be a significant step, certainly if it is before we have any further information from the report that we have commissioned.

My Lords, we have gone over this several times now and it all seems to come back to bad intelligence leading to bad policy decisions. The Minister said that we will be taking action; can he assure us that we will be informed of what is happening and when, so that we can make sure that this is not repeated? That is essential: can we have assurances that, in the future, we all know what is happening so that this never happens again?

I first congratulate the noble Lord on the announcement yesterday of his retention in the House through his new peerage. I think I have already said but will re-emphasise that the Home Office has commissioned two reports: a report into the intelligence surrounding the Maccabi-Aston Villa match and the failures that have eloquently been put to the House today; and a report, by 31 March, on the wider issues that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, mentioned. Again, I could comment, trail or examine but, as we have commissioned a report for 31 March, it is better that we await its conclusions, which will be shared with the House for comment, criticism or support.

My Lords, the Times reported that UEFA was present at the Birmingham safety advisory group meeting and that UEFA advised that the Villa-Maccabi game should go ahead. Is my noble friend the Minister able to confirm this? If not, can he urgently write and clarify UEFA’s position, whether it attended any part of the SAG meeting, either online or in person, and what advice UEFA offered about the viability of the game?

I am grateful to my noble friend and hope I can help her by saying that my understanding of what has been said to date is that UEFA was not directly represented at the meeting, but was involved in wider discussions on the admission of fans. The Home Office was not party to those wider discussions, but I hope that the wider investigation, as I have already indicated to my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, will examine that. The Policing Minister herself said in evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee that we are exploring processes around the role of the safety advisory group when considering sensitive events of national significance. Whether external bodies comment on those matters will be part of that reflection.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is right to raise this issue, because I have become confused about the source and quality of the intelligence, and the decision-making process, particularly because the outcome was that Israelis were stopped from visiting the UK and attending a legal sporting event. This is a very serious issue, particularly at the moment. Of course, this is a two-part process: the police provided the intelligence and the sport safety committee did the banning. I am not sure who is looking into their decision-making and the juxtaposition between the two. Who called for what? I cannot remember the last time that any sport safety committee banned away supporters. Would the Minister let us know, at least in writing, when that happened and who is looking at the decision-making between the police and safety committee?

Again, this is for the West Midlands Police and the police and crime commissioner, but I understand that they are undertaking their own review into what happened and how that worked. We have commissioned a review through the inspectorate to look at issues around that particular incident, including the safety advisory group. We are also commissioning a report for 31 March on wider issues around the safety advisory group and how we can improve performance in the future. I heard what the noble Lord said but, if he will let me, I need to examine those details when the information is before the Home Office. If noble Lords wish to table Questions on the 31 December report post Christmas, they can. If they wish to table Questions on the 31 March report post then, they can. I will undoubtedly be making further comments on both reports to the House in due course.