PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
West Midlands Police - 14 January 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

With permission, I will make a statement on the decision to ban the travelling fans of Maccabi Tel Aviv from attending a game at Villa Park in November last year. The decision was taken by Birmingham city council, following the advice of the safety advisory group, which acted on a recommendation by West Midlands police.

The House will be familiar with much of the detail, not least as the Home Affairs Committee has applied itself to the matter with its customary forensic focus, but it is important to begin this statement by laying out the facts. On 8 October, at a meeting with a number of chief constables from across the country, I was informed that West Midlands police force was considering its options to ensure the game could be conducted safely. As the minutes of the meeting show, a ban on fans was one of the options under consideration.

Such policing decisions are subject to operational independence. Politicians cannot dictate how the police choose to manage risk, so although my Department sought information thereafter on what decision was to be taken, I did not seek to influence it. I did not because I could not while a range of options were still under consideration. All options remained on the table until a decision was eventually taken by the safety advisory group on 16 October. The decision taken that day to ban the travelling fans was clearly of considerable national and even international importance. Maccabi Tel Aviv fans who sought to travel to this country to enjoy a football match were told that they could not, because the game’s safety could not be guaranteed. This came, lest we ever forget, just two weeks after the most horrific antisemitic terrorist attack this country has ever known. On 16 October, the day the decision was taken, the Prime Minister and I both voiced our considerable concern, setting out our belief that the game should go ahead with all fans present.

The Government sought further information from West Midlands police and offered the resources required to ensure that the game could go ahead. A subsequent meeting of the safety advisory group was then arranged, on 24 October. At that moment, its chair requested

“a wholly fresh consideration of the issue”,

at which point the intelligence provided by West Midlands police hardened, and the recommendation to ban fans was upheld.

In the days that followed, it was clear to me that an external review of the decision was required, as well as a review of wider questions around safety advisory groups. On 31 October, I commissioned a rapid review by His Majesty’s inspector of constabulary and fire and rescue services, Sir Andy Cooke, and on 27 November, as the intelligence that the force provided was called into doubt, I asked him to look specifically at that issue.

Today, I have received Sir Andy’s interim report, and a copy has been placed in the Library of the House. Sir Andy’s findings are damning—there is no other way to describe them. The force, we now discover, conducted little engagement with the Jewish community, and none with the Jewish community in Birmingham, before a decision was taken. As Sir Andy says, it is no excuse to claim, as the force now does, that high holy days during the relevant time prevented engagement.

Most concerningly, Sir Andy describes, in the approach taken by West Midlands police, what he characterises as “confirmation bias”. This means that rather than following the evidence, the force sought only evidence to support their desired position, which was to ban the fans. This saw West Midlands police speaking to Dutch police following a game in which there had been fan violence, while failing to speak to police in other countries—Greece, Ukraine and Denmark—where Maccabi Tel Aviv had played more recently, and where things had gone more peacefully.

The West Midlands police engagement with the Dutch police is one of the most disquieting elements of Sir Andy’s report. The summary provided as evidence to the safety advisory group ahead of its crucial meeting on 24 October was inaccurate. Claims including those about the number of police officers deployed, the links between fans and the Israel Defence Forces, the targeting of Muslim communities, the mass tearing down of Palestinian flags, and attacks on police officers and taxi drivers were all either exaggerated or simply untrue.

In his report, Sir Andy is clear that the force’s validation of intelligence was a cause for “significant concern”, and that record keeping within the force was “poor”. He was “especially concerned” about the handling of sensitive information that should never have been shared without redaction. Sir Andy also points to a series of public statements from West Midlands police that we now know to have been misleading. He shows that the police overstated the threat posed by the Maccabi Tel Aviv fans, while understating the risk posed to Israeli fans if they travelled to the area. The term “misleading communications” also extends to the words of the chief constable himself at his appearance in front of the Home Affairs Committee; he claimed that artificial intelligence tools were not used to prepare intelligence reports—a claim since refuted by one of his own officers, who blames incorrect evidence on “an AI hallucination”.

I know better than most that West Midlands police officers do their duty bravely, day in and day out. Sir Andy’s report does not argue that the entire force is failing, but it is clear from the report that on an issue of huge significance to the Jewish community in this country, and to us all, we have witnessed a failure of leadership that has harmed the reputation of and eroded public confidence in West Midlands police, and policing more broadly.

Faced with a game of such importance, the chief constable of the force, Craig Guildford, should have ensured that more professional and thorough work was done. As Sir Andy says, the shortcomings detailed in his report are

“symptomatic of a force not applying the necessary strategic oversight and not paying enough attention to important matters of detail, including at the most senior levels.”

The ultimate responsibility for the force’s failure to discharge its duties on a matter of such national importance rests with the chief constable. It is for that reason that I must declare today that the chief constable of West Midlands police no longer has my confidence. It has been, as I understand it, over 20 years since a Home Secretary last made such a statement, but on the evidence provided by Sir Andy Cooke, the chief inspector of policing, that is now the case.

Until 2011, the Home Secretary had the authority to dismiss a chief constable, but the power was removed by the previous Conservative Government. Today, only police and crime commissioners hold that power, so the chief constable’s future rests with the local police and crime commissioner, and not with me. I am sure that Simon Foster will now follow all due process as he considers the question for himself. However, I believe that this case illustrates that Home Secretaries should, in future, have that power restored to them. When a chief constable is responsible for a damaging failure of leadership, the public rightly expect the Home Secretary to act, and I intend to restore their ability to do so. I can announce today that the Government will soon reintroduce the Home Secretary’s power to dismiss chief constables in the light of significant or persistent failings, and that this will be part of the Government’s upcoming White Paper on wider police reform, with legislation to follow. I do not expect the power to be used often, but it must be available at those rare moments when it is warranted.

Sir Andy Cooke’s report is devastating. It catalogues failures that did not just affect the travelling fans but let down our entire Jewish community in the west midlands and across the country. I speak today not just as Home Secretary, but as a Member of Parliament for a Birmingham constituency. In his report, Sir Andy says that he believes that the police acted in an attempt to avoid long-term damage to local community relations; if that is the case, what a grossly misguided effort it was.

Peaceful, harmonious communities rely on a police service that, above all else, pursues the truth. We live in a world where misinformation flows freely and dangerously; in this case, the police added further misinformation to the public debate, when they could and should have provided the truth, which could have allayed fears. In doing what it did, West Midlands police force did not support community relations; instead, it inadvertently made things worse. This must serve as a lesson to police forces throughout the country—a reminder that they are called to their profession to serve truth and the law, and to police our streets without fear or favour, and that community trust and cohesion depend on them doing that above all else. With that, I commend this statement to the House.

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

This is a shameful episode. West Midlands police had evidence that Islamist extremists based in Birmingham planned to attack Maccabi Tel Aviv fans. Let us call that what it is: vicious antisemitism. We cannot allow violent Islamists to impose their will on our country, yet that is exactly what West Midlands police, through weakness and fear, allowed to happen. The force should instead have confronted the Islamist extremists. In fact, it should have investigated the extremists for inciting racial hatred, as Jonathan Hall KC said only yesterday. Instead, the force capitulated to the Islamist mob by banning the Maccabi fans.

But it gets worse. The West Midlands police force then tried to hide what it had done. The police fabricated a claim that it was the Maccabi fans who were the dangerous ones. They claimed that a previous game in Amsterdam had led to violence by the Maccabi fans. That claim was a pack of lies from start to finish. The Mayor of Amsterdam and Dutch police have now confirmed that West Midlands police simply made the whole thing up. The chief constable must be fired.

A moment ago, the Home Secretary claimed that she has no powers to dismiss the chief constable, but she failed to mention section 40 of the Police Act 1996, which remains in force today. Under that, she as Home Secretary has the power to direct the police and crime commissioner to do things—including dismissing the chief constable—where

“any part of a…force is failing to”

act

“in an effective manner”.

That test is clearly met: part of the force—the chief constable—is indeed failing to act in an effective manner, by the Home Secretary’s own analysis. If she is unfamiliar with that legislation, I have a copy of it here. The Home Secretary must today use her section 40 powers to direct the police and crime commissioner, Simon Foster, to dismiss Craig Guildford. She must stop pretending to have no power and actually act.

We now come to the role of the Home Secretary in this scandal. In a briefing to the BBC on 17 October, a source close to the Home Secretary—we all know that means her special adviser, acting with her authority—said that the Home Secretary first knew about the possibility of a ban on 16 October, the previous evening. We now know that is untrue. From evidence given to the Home Affairs Committee last week, and from the Home Secretary’s own admission just now, we now know that Chief Constable Guildford personally briefed the Home Secretary on 8 October that it was likely that away fans would be banned, and that that was the police’s recommendation. Will she apologise for allowing her adviser to give the BBC untrue information on 17 October?

The Home Secretary must now answer this. She knew on 8 October that it was likely that away fans would be banned. That was over a week before the final decision was taken on 16 October, yet in those critical eight days, it appears that she did nothing to investigate further, or to try to stop the ban. In evidence to the Home Affairs Committee last week, the chief constable said that when he briefed the Home Secretary on 8 October about the likelihood of the ban, she merely “noted”—that was his word—what he said; she did not ask further questions, or show curiosity about what she was being told. She did not personally convene any meetings attended by her in the following eight days, or take any personal steps to clarify the situation. She expressed concerns and took action only after the decision became public on 16 October, by when it was too late. She was asleep at the wheel at the critical time.

Given the disgraceful events that followed, does the Home Secretary now accept that she was wrong to personally ask no questions—officials may have done, but she did not—between 8 October and 16 October? Does she accept that it was wrong to stand by and do nothing during those critical eight days? By the time she did take action—after 16 October—it was too late. By standing by during those critical eight days, she allowed the ban to happen and let the Islamists win. Will the Home Secretary apologise to the House for that inexcusable inaction during those critical days? Will she also commit to exercising her section 40 powers to direct the police and crime commissioner to dismiss the chief constable?

Let me first say to the shadow Home Secretary that I have long and very personal experience of standing up to extremists in Birmingham, not least in the last general election campaign. I think my track record speaks for itself, and I am a woman who knows of what she speaks—clearly unlike him. He appears to be unfamiliar with the law, and indeed with Sir Andy’s findings in his report. Let me remind him of a few things.

First, it was the Conservative Government who removed the Home Secretary’s direct power to remove a chief constable. That power used to be in section 42 of the Police Act 1996, but it was repealed by the Conservatives; the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 explicitly removed the power. I will quote from the explanatory notes to that Act. I suspect that the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) drafted and approved them when he advised the former Home Secretary, Baroness May, so he will be aware of what is in them. They say:

“The Secretary of State does not have power to direct a police and crime commissioner to suspend or remove a chief constable.”

That is the law passed by the previous Conservative Government.

I am talking about section 40.

If the shadow Home Secretary made himself familiar with how the law is to be interpreted and implemented, he would well know that section 40 of the 1996 Act, which remains in force following the 2011 Act, cannot be read in isolation. When such matters are litigated before a court, a court would be aware of the direct powers removed by the repealing of section 42—we cannot read the two sections in isolation. If he paid any attention to the detail, he would know that, and he would know that the Home Secretary does not have the power that he claims I have.

Secondly, I suggest that the shadow Home Secretary and other hon. Members, in their own interests, pay attention to what Sir Andy has written in his report of today. On page 11 he deals with what the chief constable has suggested was the reading of the meeting that took place on 8 October. Let me give the House a bit of context. That was a meeting of police chiefs that I called following the attack in Manchester on 2 October. I had already announced that I was going to look at police protest powers and I had asked the most senior chief constables in the land, the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the College of Policing and, indeed, Sir Andy Cooke to attend a meeting with me.

Towards the end of that meeting, we did some horizon scanning of other difficult decisions coming up that might have public order consequences, and this was one such matter. It was mentioned briefly by the chief constable, and his recollection of it is absolutely untrue. The chief constable did not say to me, or indeed to anybody else in that room, that West Midlands police had already made the decision to reduce the allocation of tickets for Maccabi Tel Aviv fans to zero but that it was ultimately a decision for the safety advisory group when it next met—that is categorically untrue. If that had been the case, given the seniority of everybody who was in the room and heard what was said, that would have elicited a reaction not just from me and my officials but from many of the other senior policing officials present.

What was made clear to me was that the ban was a possibility but it was one of a number of options being considered. As late as 15 October, the football policing unit made it clear to Home Office officials and the Policing and Crime Minister that all options were still on the table. The next thing that we or anybody else knew about it was when the decision was taken on 16 October.

It is important that all hon. Members stick to the facts on this matter. As Sir Andy has made clear in his factual findings in his report, there will be those who wish to play politics with this matter, but I am afraid that does not meet the test of evidence as set out in the report. I recommend that the shadow Home Secretary pays some attention to the detail.

Is the Home Secretary able to say who was the most senior police officer who reviewed all the evidence—AI or otherwise—and signed off the decision?

Ultimately, the final decision on the West Midlands police’s recommendation to the safety advisory group was from the chief constable.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

The recommendation by West Midlands police to ban Maccabi Tel Aviv fans was clearly an incredibly serious mistake. That has been shown in evidence by Sir Andy Cooke’s damning report. Not just the decision but how it was made and the fact that misleading statements were covered up is damning. The latest examples of how artificial intelligence was used in coming to the decision, after multiple denials, beggar belief and risk seriously undermining public trust in the police, and not only in the west midlands but across the whole country.

The chief constable of West Midlands police does not have the Home Secretary’s confidence. He does not have mine, and I assume that he does not have that of most of the House. He needs to consider his position and go now. I am pleased that the Home Secretary went to quite unprecedented levels to say that he should go, and I am pleased that she has spoken to the House first. Will she meet the police and crime commissioner later today to call for the chief constable to go?

We need the Independent Office for Police Conduct to investigate what has gone on in West Midlands police. Will the Home Secretary ensure that takes place? We have already seen delays to the Hillsborough law and its duty of candour, including just this week. Does the Home Secretary agree that this incident shows the need to put the Hillsborough law on to the statute book as soon as possible? Finally, we need urgent transparency and clarity on the use of AI by police forces. Does the Home Secretary agree, and what plans does she have to ensure that guidance is given to police forces?

I thank the Lib Dem spokesperson for his remarks. I have, as a matter of courtesy, informed the police and crime commissioner in advance of making this statement that I would be saying that I do not have confidence in the chief constable of West Midlands police. I have also reiterated and made it clear that any statutory process, and any decision under the statutory process on further action against the chief constable, would be a matter for the police and crime commissioner himself. He must consider that on his own terms, and I am sure that he will be making his own statement once he has had a chance to absorb the findings of Sir Andy’s report. Given that there could be a statutory process, I will not be commenting on what may or may not be happening, in order to respect the independence and integrity of any future decisions.

On the IOPC, I expect that the police and crime commissioner will consider his position on this matter and approach the IOPC if he deems it necessary, but that is a judgment for him. I also expect the IOPC to consider whether these findings mean that it should use its own power of initiative to conduct an investigation. The hon. Member will know that it is independent, and it would be improper for me to seek to direct it in any way, but it does have those powers and I believe it has already indicated that it will consider the position again, once it has had a chance to absorb the findings of Sir Andy’s report.

I agree with the hon. Member that this case proves why we need a duty of candour on all public officials, and I look forward to the Hillsborough law becoming an Act of Parliament at the earliest opportunity. On the use of artificial intelligence by police forces, I will be returning to these matters when I publish—I will come to the House to make a statement—the policing reform White Paper. This is important because AI is an incredibly powerful tool that can and should be used by our police forces, but regulating it to make sure it is always accurate is a matter of legitimate concern to us all, and I will be saying more about that in due course.

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. It is disappointing, but perhaps unsurprising, that some of the evidence presented to the Home Affairs Committee was an AI hallucination. As I look to the back row of the Opposition side of the Chamber, I ask the Secretary of State whether she shares my suspicions that there was indeed political interference with the work of the Birmingham safety advisory group. What will happen if that turns out to be the case?

Having commissioned Sir Andy to investigate these matters, I think it is important that we reflect on his findings. He found that there was no evidence that police officers were motivated either by antisemitism or as a result of political interference, or were otherwise behaving with malign intent. It is important that I follow those findings from the independent inspector and act accordingly.

This is truly a sad day for British politics. Despite all the rhetoric in this House, Brummies know the truth: this is nothing but a witch hunt and the chief constable is being thrown under the bus. The Home Secretary knows all too well that West Midlands police have a reputation for working with all communities; it has never caved in to community pressure. We all know this because we regularly have far right protests and marches in our city. The police could have done a better job in terms of procedure, yes, but their reason for banning Maccabi fans was the same from day one. We all know about the unashamed racism and violence, and that is the reason they were banned, because that would have been brought to the streets of Birmingham—

Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is getting to his question.

The police did their job and now they are being punished for it, so I ask the Home Secretary: is it worth throwing our chief constable under the bus just to show that the words of the right-wing media and Dutch officials, under pressure from Amsterdam city hall, matter more than our British police?

You would think that the hon. Member, who I believe used to be a barrister, might be more cognisant of the actual facts in this matter. I am responding to findings made by His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services—that is, the independent inspector of policing. It is a sad day for all those who believe that policing should occur without fear or favour. I would encourage him to read the letter from Sir Andy Cooke, published today, in detail and reflect on whether he believes that we as a country should be able to rely on and trust all information put out by the police. The hon. Member purports to speak for every Brummie in the city, but I think other Brummies in this Chamber know that is simply not the case. I will tell him what every Brummie, and indeed every citizen of our great country, needs and deserves: that when the police carry out a risk assessment, we can trust it and rely on it, and that they will always be open and frank about what is really going on. That is not what happened in this case, but it is what we all should expect and deserve, whichever community we belong to. It is what we all need for our collective safety and for the cohesion of our country.

It is absolutely clear that, by lies and conspiracy, the chief constable of the West Midlands created a no-go area for Jews in one of our major cities. He cannot, by whatever mechanism, continue in office, but will the Home Secretary consider prosecuting him for malfeasance in public office, or in some other way, because we cannot let such an appalling activity by a public servant continue in this way by just sacking him?

My hon. Friend will know that it is not for me to make decisions on prosecutions. I am sure that the IOPC will consider all the findings made by Sir Andy Cooke and act upon them, once it has had a chance to make that assessment. The IOPC is independent and it would be inappropriate for me to say anything further from the Dispatch Box about what it, or indeed any other prosecutorial authority, might do. That is not a power that the Home Secretary has.

I thank the Home Secretary—who, like me, is a local west midlands Member of Parliament—for her well-judged statement, but is not one of the villains of this piece the police and crime commissioner himself? When we, in government, set up the PCCs in 2010, the aim was that they should represent our constituents to the police. Sadly, the reality has been the reverse, and nowhere more so than in the west midlands, which is why I strongly support the Government’s decision to abolish the PCCs. Can we please ensure that this is not yet another policy announcement upon which the Government will U-turn?

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we will be pursuing the policy that I have set out, which is to abolish the post of police and crime commissioner. I will return to the House with a White Paper and will make an oral statement in the not-too-distant future, setting out what we consider to be the best mechanism for oversight of policing at local level, as well as a reset of where some of those powers sit and another reconsideration of the Home Secretary’s powers. I am sure that we will be discussing these matters in detail in the weeks to come. Sir Andy makes some of his own remarks in relation to the police and crime commissioner, but I think it is known that the commissioner was not briefed in the way that we might have expected on these matters. I am sure he will be setting out exactly what he knew and when, when he responds to Sir Andy’s report.

I welcome this statement and this clarity. The findings are damning. I was born and bred in Birmingham and I am a local MP, and I know that in my community there is very little trust in the police. Does the Secretary of State agree that, in an increasingly political world, it is important that in future all chief constables have the skills to work in this new world and that they are able to engage with all communities?

I thank my hon. Friend and fellow Birmingham colleague for her question. That is exactly why I have made the statement I have, because I believe all of us in this country need to be able to trust the police when they come forward and say that they have risk assessed an upcoming event and come to a professional judgment as to whether the event can take place safely. We all need to be able to trust that they have gone about making that risk assessment in a way that is robust, consistent, in line with the law and, frankly, just plain old truthful. That is not what has happened in this case. It is why it has been debilitating to public confidence in policing in our great city and across our region, but also across the country. It is why I set out what I have said about losing confidence in the chief constable and why I believe some powers for oversight of policing need to return to the Home Secretary directly.

The Home Secretary is right to talk about the need for the information to be out there and for openness. In the light of that, can she clarify whether any Government officials talked to Maccabi Tel Aviv as a club or through either of the embassies to discuss the decision by the club to say that away fans would not travel even if the ban were lifted?

I think all the conversations that have happened were set out by one of my officials and by the Policing Minister when they gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee. I am not aware of any other discussions, certainly not from the Home Office. I can write to the right hon. Member in case there were discussions in other Departments that might also have had an interest.

It was right and proper to have an independent report commissioned, the findings of which no one can challenge because it was done independently. We need to be cognisant that it is not just the chief constable who is made the scapegoat in all this; the safety advisory group had a huge part to play, and members of it were biased and had an agenda. Some of them, I am ashamed to say, belonged to my party. Will the Home Secretary agree that tough action needs to be taken against the individuals who set out to influence the decision on a personal basis, rather than as an independent member of that safety advisory group?

Sir Andy Cooke will return to the wider questions as to how safety advisory groups function, who is on them, the role they play and the way in which they should carry out their duties, so we will return to that part of my hon. Friend’s remarks in a later session in this House when the rest of Sir Andy’s report is completed and he makes his final findings on safety advisory groups. But I share his concern that it is incumbent on us to ensure that the arrangements we have in place are capable of delivering a dispassionate, fact-based finding as to what risk an event poses and that other political agendas are not brought into play when what we are talking about is the proper functioning of the cultural life of our country.

This has been a dark moment for policing in the west midlands. I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and for putting on the record her belief that the chief constable of the force should go. For the avoidance of doubt, I agree with her. This has always been about the police being able to fulfil their role objectively without fear or favour. Repeatedly, the Jewish community are made to feel that they are the ones who are the problem. That cannot go on. We have seen in this instance that the police have surrendered to the pressure placed on them by an Islamic community that sought to create a no-go zone for Jews within the west midlands. That is not acceptable. Will the Home Secretary update the House on what the Government are doing to flush out antisemitism across public institutions and society at large? If she has not got time to expand on that today, will she come back to the House and give a statement as soon as possible?

Antisemitism is a terrible stain upon our country, and it is incumbent on all of us to work together to stamp it out wherever it occurs. Sir Andy’s findings, of course, do not suggest that anybody at the police force level acted because they were motivated by antisemitism or with malign intent, but it is undoubtedly the case that some individuals making representations to the police may well have been motivated by antisemitism. I also know others made, or wanted to make, good faith representations to the police about the fear of public disorder on the night, but some individuals will have been motivated by antisemitism. That is why it is so important that when the police carry out their duties, they follow the facts and that when they make their risk assessments, they do so on the basis of facts and their professional judgment as to whether something can go safely ahead. We all need to be able to trust the police when they assert what their risk assessment has told them. That has not happened here. Sir Andy will come back with further findings about the functioning of safety advisory groups. I am happy to discuss those with the hon. Member and others in this House, as well as wider policy measures that we will need to take as a Government and as a country to stamp out antisemitism once and for all.

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. The west midlands is an incredibly diverse area, and this whole episode has had a significant impact on community cohesion and confidence in West Midlands police, particularly among the Jewish community but among all communities. I therefore add my voice to the calls for the chief constable to resign his position forthwith, and others involved in this shameful episode should also consider their position. The police have a duty to act without fear or favour. Engaging with selected people or organisations is always a recipe for disaster, particularly as community groups very often have their own agendas. As somebody who has engaged in many safety advisory groups over the years as an event organiser, it is clear that the rules need changing, that there must be more transparency and that the ability to manipulate their proceedings must be removed. Will the Home Secretary provide more information about the review into safety advisory groups that she has announced?

I expect to receive Sir Andy’s further findings, particularly in relation to how safety advisory groups function and what changes we might need to make, within the next couple of months—no later than that. I will return to the House to enable all Members to take part in a debate once those findings are out. I agree with my hon. Friend—in the end, we are all safer when we know that we can rely on the police to do their job without fear or favour. We do none of our ethnic minority communities, or indeed any minority community of any description, any favours if we allow a suggestion to take hold that the police change their responses to things based on which community is involved. Everybody is safe when we know we can trust the police to follow the facts and do their jobs properly.

The Jewish community in this country, including many in my constituency, feel under siege right now. Sadly, this is not an isolated example; it is just another example of where elements of the British state appear to err on the side of the aggressor in the name of community cohesion. We have another example before us. Will the Home Secretary, in her capacity as a senior member of the Government with responsibility for tackling extremism, take the same robust approach to schools that are banning Jewish Members of Parliament from visiting them on exactly the same community cohesion grounds? It has to stop, and a more robust approach must be taken by the Government.

The incident of banning a Jewish Member of Parliament from the school is obviously disgraceful, and the right hon. Member will know that other senior members of the Government have already spoken out about this case. It is unacceptable. I hope he will see that the approach I have taken since I have been Home Secretary is to ensure that the law of our land is applied equally without fear or favour and in a consistent manner that gives every community across the country a sense of what they can expect from their local police, without feeling that they are in a postcode lottery and that it very much depends on the nature of the particular chief constable and the approach they take locally. That is exactly what I am trying to achieve with protest powers and with wider thresholds in relation to the Public Order Act where I have asked for an independent review by Lord Ken Macdonald KC, which will report soon. My intention is to ensure that every citizen of our country knows when it comes to all matters of law and order that we are all on exactly the same footing, and that is right for all our citizens.

I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. The picture Sir Andy paints of serious failings in the West Midlands police is utterly shocking, and the Home Secretary is completely right to withdraw confidence. Given the huge damage this saga has caused, what does the Home Secretary think can be done to ensure something like this never happens again?

This matter has been of interest to all policing leaders across the country, and it is why I addressed the final remarks in my statement to policing leaders everywhere because it is important that we learn the lessons from this event, and I hope that everybody will hear that message loud and clear. Operational independence will always be respected, but we all as a country—every citizen and every one of us as parliamentarians and members of the Government—need to know that when the police make a risk assessment, we can trust that assessment and rely on it.

I am proud that my father was a West Midlands police constable for 29 years, policing football matches during some of the darkest days of English football, but the Home Secretary is clearly right that there has been a failure in the leadership of West Midlands police over recent months. The Prime Minister rightly said that oversight for the police ultimately lies with the police and crime commissioner, which does not seem to have been the case here. The police and crime commissioner also has a specific responsibility for improving local relationships by building confidence and restoring trust in local communities, but both confidence and trust in West Midlands police have clearly collapsed. The Home Secretary is right to say that the chief constable needs to go, but should the police and crime commissioner not also consider his position?

I direct the hon. Member to Sir Andy’s findings about what the police and crime commissioner knew—in fact, he was not kept up to date—but I am sure that once he has absorbed Sir Andy’s findings, he will set out himself what he thinks on these matters and what he intends to do next. It is not for me to put words into his mouth.

Although I am a proud Wolverhampton Wanderers fan and, as a season ticket holder, regularly go to football games, for much of my life I was prevented and discouraged from going to a football game. I was told that because I wore a turban and because of the colour of my skin, I would be attacked. Can the Home Secretary assure the House that we will never again have a situation in this country where football fans cannot go to a game because their safety cannot be guaranteed?

My hon. Friend makes that point very powerfully. That is why it is so important that all police forces always do everything they can to ensure that matters of great cultural and sporting significance in this country can go ahead safely, and that people are not prevented from going to and enjoying a game just because of who they are or their faith.

Among the catalogue of failure here is the news that the decision was partly made on the basis of a hallucinated AI report about an entirely fictitious football match. What assessment has the Home Secretary made on the extent to which AI is being used by police forces across the country? Does she know of any other consequential decisions that may have been made using unverified AI? Finally, last month, after two months my Select Committee, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, finally received a response to our letter on this issue from the assistant chief constable Mike O’Hara, who said that he was

“satisfied that the policing operation conducted with communities and partners was effective, proportionate and maintained the city’s reputation as a safe and welcoming place for everyone.”

What is the Home Secretary’s message to him?

The contents of that letter have now been superseded by Sir Andy Cooke’s august report and findings. I hope that everybody who asserted that there was no problem here, and that everything worked exactly as it should, will now reflect on what they have said and done and give the rest of us confidence that these mistakes will not happen again.

AI is an incredibly powerful tool and has a big role to play in assisting the police, particularly when it comes to sifting through evidence at speed and improving other productivity measures so that they can get on with the job of finding criminals and bringing them to justice. It is important that it is used accurately, does not lead to misleading statements, as we have seen in this case, and protects the validity of evidence, which ultimately has to be strong enough to hold up in a court of law. I will be saying more in just a few weeks’ time in the policing reform White Paper, which will set out the Government’s approach and expectations of the roll-out of AI to policing more broadly.

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. As a Birmingham MP, I have set out on a number of occasions in the Chamber my serious concerns about both the decision and the way in which it was made. It is clear that the chief constable’s position is untenable. I pay tribute to the many police officers who are working hard to make Birmingham safer for all its communities.

However, this decision did not arise in a vacuum. Put simply, if a sufficient professional culture had been followed at every level and by every individual in West Midlands police, this decision would never have been made. Does the Home Secretary agree that there must now be sufficient assurance that other decisions, including those that may not have the same national profile, but are important to my constituents, have not been tainted by a similar failure of process? If the chief constable resigns or is removed, does she agree that measures must be put in place to ensure that the highest operational standards are maintained for everyone in Birmingham?

I thank my fellow Birmingham Member of Parliament for his comments and questions. There is no broader finding of systemic failure in Sir Andy’s report. The failures that have been highlighted in the approach to evidence and the way in which the risk assessment was carried out relate to this specific event. He gave us no cause for concern about broader West Midlands police practice. However, I am sure that the police and crime commissioner and others, myself included, and all Birmingham MPs will want to assure themselves of the robustness of the procedures that the West Midlands police have in place. I am sure that we will return to these matters as this case develops further.

I commend the Home Secretary for her robust statement and the leadership she has shown this afternoon. On community relations, can she assure me and other Members that lessons will be learned from this report and that other chief officers of other forces will look upon it as a reminder that they should be acting on behalf of the whole community that they seek to serve? She said that she was not able to direct the west midlands PCC to dismiss the chief constable, but is she confident that there will be no conflict of interest and that the PCC will not feel conflicted in removing the chief constable? Of course, I am sure that the chief constable still has honour, and therefore might choose to resign.

The right hon. Gentleman is right about community relations. Many people acting in bad faith and with malign intent across our country want to set Britain’s Muslims against Britain’s Jews. It is incumbent on all of us to ensure that we do not allow those efforts to succeed. On the police and the approach to community relations, I am clear that all of us, whoever we are and wherever we are in the country, must be able to rely on the police when they tell us that the foundation of their risk assessment is robust and secure. If we cannot trust the police on that, we have lost much more than just good and effective policing.

The right hon. Gentleman will know that I do not want to comment from the Dispatch Box on what the police and crime commissioner might wish to do; that is a matter entirely for him. He will make that choice independently. I am sure that he will have to ask questions about that. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is no conflict of interest simply because I have set out a view. It is important that I set out my view in the House, having commissioned a report from the independent inspector, but the police and crime commissioner is unfettered in how he approaches things. That is a matter for him, as I have made clear to him and as I am sure all his legal advice will tell him.

I thank my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for her words, particularly about the dedicated frontline police officers of West Midlands police who serve my community and hers. It is clearly time for the chief constable to go. It is right that we expect a high standard of community engagement across all our communities from all our senior public servants, which has clearly not been met in this case, as we have explored thoroughly in this statement. More broadly, will the Home Secretary urgently bring forward a community cohesion strategy that tackles extremism and antisemitism and sets out clear expectations for how we live together in this great country of ours?

Let me assure my hon. Friend that all matters of community cohesion are under intense discussion across Government. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government has already set up a taskforce to deal with antisemitism. I am sure that the Prime Minister and I will have more to say in the coming weeks about how we might take a fresh approach, but this is a question for wider Government, because although the Home Office interest is in countering extremism, as it should be, our broader interest in community cohesion sits across the rest of Government. I can assure her that it is a cross-Government effort.

The Home Secretary has rightly lost confidence in the West Midlands chief constable, who kowtowed to thugs, abandoned the Jewish community and blamed Jewish fans. The question for the Home Secretary now is this: if the police and crime commissioner fails to fire the chief constable, will she still have confidence in that commissioner, and will she make the new legislation retrospective, to ensure that action is delivered?

The hon. Gentleman will know that we do not generally use retrospectivity in our legal system, and to take such a step would be a new innovation. He should wait for the full proposals, which I will publish in the policing reform White Paper. The next decision—if a further decision is made—is for the police and crime commissioner. It would be completely wrong for me to try to influence, comment on or get ahead of that decision from the Dispatch Box. As we have discussed, the police and crime commissioner has those powers under the 2011 Act, and it will be for him to reflect on whether he wishes to use them.

This sorry saga with West Midlands police reveals a serious story about public life in Britain. It has become clear that employees in our public institutions do not recognise, understand or perhaps care about antisemitism in the police, local government, universities, political parties and elsewhere, and they are all too willing to accept at face value the claims by antisemites that their real objection is to the Israeli Government. They are unwitting agents of an agenda from the far left, the far right and Islamists. Antisemitism is rampant and unrelenting. Does the Home Secretary recognise the urgent need to take action, and will she consider a cross-departmental extremism strategy to address ideological antisemitism and other forms of extremism?

I thank my hon. Friend for her point, which was well made, about the stain of antisemitism in our country and the breadth and depth of ways in which it presents itself. I am well aware of those problems and working hard to resolve them. A cross-Government effort is under way, and we will have more to say in due course. I assure her that, as Home Secretary, my duty is to ensure that our legal system—law and order, and policing—is robust enough to withstand attempts to frustrate or improperly influence that system. It is important to remember that Sir Andy Cooke did not find that antisemitism was a motivating factor for the police officers who made the decisions in this case—nor were they subject to improper political interference or acting with malign intent. I accept her broader point, however, and reassure her that we are working on that carefully.

To build on the comment from my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden), the Jewish community in my constituency have felt under siege for a decade now. It is worth paying tribute to the Prime Minister, who, when he was Leader of the Opposition, drove out of the Labour party the people who had given antisemitism a safe space. Let us not be under any illusion, however, because many people still feel that they have a safe space for antisemitism—be it in our universities, where huge numbers of students believe that they can hassle Jewish students with impunity, or in our hospitals, as outlined in the Lord Mann and Dame Penny Mordaunt report, which I know the Secretary of State is trying to address. Antisemitism is blatant and people are allowed to get away with it.

We must call out antisemitism at all levels, so I call out the deputy leader of the Green party, who I am ashamed to say is a Leeds city councillor. He drove the Jewish priest of the University of Leeds into hiding, and he is still hiding. That must be called out. Will the Home Secretary use every effort of her office and across Government to ensure that where antisemitism is still given a safe space and is not addressed, the Government call out the leaders of those institutions and consider what action may be taken? This is another watershed moment—as odd as that sounds—and this time, something really must be done.

Let me reassure the right hon. Gentleman that the Government are taking action across a range of different Departments—Education, Health and the Home Office—to drive out antisemitism in every way it presents itself. I am particularly cognisant of the impact on our institutions and of how the democratic underpinning of our society can be overcome, frustrated and thwarted by antisemites undermining the very basis on which we run our country. I assure him that every effort is being made.

As someone who has suffered racism and discrimination because of my faith and race background, I think I can speak for most ethnic minority people on the view that we generally take on these matters, which is that none of us is safe until all of us are safe. There has to be solidarity across our country and for every one of our communities. It is the collective whole that makes this country great.

As a member of the Home Affairs Committee, I have been following this matter closely. Last autumn, safety advisory groups from Birmingham and Leicester banned or scaled down Diwali events. Does the Home Secretary agree that councillors should be removed from SAGs, and that there should be greater transparency to ensure that there is no reliance on confirmation bias, which is, in my view, intertwined with the risk of predetermination that local authorities have a duty prevent when carrying out judicial duties?

I thank my hon. Friend and other members of the Home Affairs Committee for their work on this and other matters. There are question marks over the way in which safety advisory groups function. As she remarks, there have been other incidents in which people have asked questions about how controversial decisions came to be made. That is why I asked Sir Andy to look more broadly at the functioning of safety advisory groups and to come to a view on their make-up, the transparency required of them, and the process by which they should make decisions. It is a little early to make determinations about whether any politician should be represented on those groups. If the system works well, local politicians can bring a local perspective with knowledge that only they have, but if that turns into an improper attempt to force their own political agenda, it cannot be tolerated. I hope that when Sir Andy publishes his findings, we will be able to return to where policy or legislative change is needed.

I know Villa Park well because, until the general election, it fell within my constituency boundary. After the decision was made, the Government and I—through my officials—asked West Midlands police whether the match could be policed in other ways to enable it to go ahead. We were clear that banning fans is an extreme action and that, in the general run of things, we should want cultural events in our country to take place. I recognise the picture that the hon. Gentleman paints. The findings are damning, as many hon. Members have said.

On the wider issue of other officers, I made the remarks today about the chief constable because he is the individual who leads the force. These events have happened on his watch. It was for him to set a culture in which all the risk assessments were done properly and where confirmation bias could not have taken hold, and it is he, of course, who made assertions and gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee in the way that he did. It is now for him to reflect on that; he may have things to say in the coming days. It is now for the police and crime commissioner to consider what further actions he might wish to take, including under his broader responsibilities to make sure that the force is functioning as it should.

As an alumnus of the University of Birmingham and former resident of Selly Oak, I have found this whole saga pretty astonishing from the start. We have had mistake after mistake and evidence that turned out to have been made up, and meanwhile the bond of trust with our Jewish community, which had already been under increasing pressure, has been caused further damage. Mistakes are made, but when they are this serious and include presenting falsified evidence to a Committee of this House, somebody has to take responsibility. I echo the calls made by Members across the House for the chief constable to do the decent thing and resign, and to do it today.

I have set out in my statement what I think. Others will need to reflect on their positions and what further steps they might take. I agree with my hon. Friend, however, that the findings of Sir Andy Cooke’s report are damning and devastating, and once the bond of trust between a community and the police breaks for one community, it breaks for every community, which is why these findings are so serious and why I have had to say today what I have said about confidence in the chief constable.

If I understand correctly the presentation of Sir Andy’s independent report by the Home Secretary, it says that the police knew that the visiting fans were not likely to attack the home community. Does it make clear whether they thought that the home community were likely to attack the visiting fans, because if they thought that and then inverted reality to blame the visiting fans, that would surely put the chief constable in an absolutely impossible position.

The findings in Sir Andy Cooke’s report are about an overstating of the risk posed by the travelling fans and an understatement of the risk posed to those fans by others in the local community, so it is not a case of one thing being presented as fact and the other not. There has been an overstatement and an understatement, and the effect has been a risk assessment that was imbalanced, wholly skewed in one direction and did not adequately deal with all of the risks posed. I believe that one of the reasons suggested for a possible attack from home local individuals against the travelling fans was community relations. It is why I stand by what I said in my statement: community relations in this country are not served by overstatements and understatements and by hiding the full picture in order to keep things calm; the truth is what helps us all to stay safe, and that is what the police should have held to in this case.

I genuinely welcome the content of the Home Secretary’s statement and her answers to other Members. It is clear that the west midlands chief constable’s position is no longer tenable, but I accept the Home Secretary’s explanation of why she cannot remove him today and I am pleased that she will reintroduce that power in the near future. It is a national scandal that Maccabi Tel Aviv fans were not able to attend a football match in the UK’s second city for what we now know were totally fabricated reasons. What does the Home Secretary say to them, and how can she reassure Israeli fans of any sport that this will not happen to them again and that the law will be applied equally without fear or favour?

The message needs to go out loud and clear to everyone that our expectation is that every police force that is making a decision on any cultural or football or other sporting event in our country has to do so by following the facts and acting without fear or favour. If the police do their job properly, we will always be able to put on events, police them safely and allow people in our country and from abroad to enjoy the great spectacle of football, a pop concert or other things. They are important parts of how we function as a country and they can only carry on being that if the police do their job properly.

Will the Home Secretary confirm that the Prime Minister was also told that a ban was likely in advance of the announcement? The Home Office and No. 10 were in touch according to the official documents. Was she told of the intelligence of 5 September that armed Islamists intended to attack the Israelis? On the point about operational independence, I worry she is overstating things: it is obviously wrong for politicians to tell police officers who to investigate or arrest, but for public order situations there is often a role for the Home Secretary when the planning work is under way before the operation. That is recognised in law and it is why the Prime Minister himself has called for particular policing decisions in public order situations in advance. Will the Home Secretary therefore confirm that, when she was told that the police would seek a ban on away fans, she did not ask to see the intelligence to justify the ban? Did she test the logic? Is it really true that she did nothing at all?

The hon. Gentleman is presenting a particular picture of operational independence, which he knows is a difficult line to tread for all Home Secretaries and something that is guarded very closely by police. It would have been wholly inappropriate for me to try to carry out my own risk assessment, and if I were to challenge West Midlands police on the basis on which those decisions were made—as I was subsequently able to do once a decision was made—I would have been dependent on what they were telling me in the first place. I was not told that they would seek a ban on visiting fans; I was told that all options were on the table and that that was one of the things that was being considered. I was not told that it was going to be done. I refer the hon. Gentleman to Sir Andy’s letter: the first paragraph of the final page of that letter sets out what actually happened and I absolutely refute any suggestion that I was told definitively on 8 October in the way that the chief constable has suggested. That did not happen.

On contact between the Home Office and No. 10, that would have happened in the usual way, but the first any of us were aware of the decision being brought forward and being made earlier than anticipated and that a ban was going to be pursued was on 16 October. I was not aware of any intelligence about any planned armed attacks by local people; that was never put to me.

As a member of the Home Affairs Committee, I asked Chief Constable Guildford on two occasions whether AI was used in the preparation of the police report and he denied it both times, so I am pleased the truth has emerged and he is now considering his position. However, may I press the Home Secretary on the use of AI? I hear what she said, but while we await the Home Office’s guidance, will she issue preliminary instructions to chief constables asking them not to use AI in such circumstances?

I thank the hon. Gentleman particularly for his assiduous work on the Home Affairs Committee in relation to the hearings on this matter. I would hope that all police leaders have heard loud and clear the issue in relation to AI. I do not think any of them would want to fall foul of an AI hallucination. At best that is a deeply embarrassing finding, but it is also pretty damning of the overall approach taken in this case, and I am sure all police chiefs will want to make sure they do not get into the same position. The Home Office will set out our broader vision for how AI should be used in policing, because it clearly has a role to play, and how the police should hold themselves to account and the regulations under which the use of AI should be monitored, so that we can all have confidence that it is being used appropriately.

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. Any procedural failings by our police force or any public authority must be investigated, corrected and prevented. The letter from Sir Andy Cooke mentions that certain risks were overstated and understated, and that should be weighed, but statements in this House that incidents in Amsterdam were “completely fabricated” are also fabricated statements. Sir Andy acknowledges:

“There is evidence that Maccabi Tel Aviv fans targeted Muslims and pro-Palestinians”

in Amsterdam. A report by Kick It Out Israel identified 118 incidents of racist chanting by Maccabi Tel Aviv fans during 2024 and 2025, which is the highest for any club in the Israeli premier league. UEFA fined Maccabi Tel Aviv €20,000 and imposed a suspended away fan ban for their match against—

Order. I ask the hon. Member to sit down while I am standing. There needs to be a question to the Home Secretary.

My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker.

It is open season on Islamophobia in this Chamber. I am completely against any kind of racism, and antisemitism must be quashed, but so too should Islamophobia. Will the Home Secretary confirm that there is no reference to antisemitic decision making by the police in Sir Andy Cooke’s report and that there is no mention of any Islamist influence in his report? I have the report in front of me—

Order. I call the Home Secretary.

I say to the hon. Gentleman and all Members of the House that we should be led by the findings of the independent inspector, who has been very clear on where evidence was overstated and where it was understated. He has said that he believes that confirmation bias was at work and that there have been significant failings by West Midlands police in this matter. That is why I have said what I have said in my statement today.

I reiterate more broadly to the hon. Gentleman and everybody else that there are people in this country who want to set our minority communities against one another. Every Member of this House should want to police that boundary and to make sure that that does not take hold in our country. We can only be confident that we are subject to the same law, wherever we are in this country, if we all trust that the police will apply themselves without fear or favour. It is in everyone’s interests to make sure that these issues are dealt with properly. Every citizen deserves the same sort of response from the police, so that when they tell us that something is true, we can believe them. That has not happened in this case and it needs to happen in the future.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance on whether it is appropriate for Members of this House to call into question the intentions of Members when asking questions of the Home Secretary on this issue and to accuse us all of peddling Islamophobia.

I remind all Members to be careful and moderate in their language and to treat this Chamber and Members within it with respect. If we do so, we cannot go far wrong. Although that is not a point of order, it is a matter for the Chair and I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising it. That concludes the statement.

I will now announce the result of today’s deferred Division on the draft Public Order Act 2023 (Interference With Use or Operation of Key National Infrastructure) Regulations 2025—[Interruption.] Order. The Ayes were 301 and the Noes were 110, so the Ayes have it.

[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]