To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of alleged inaccuracies in a report produced by the West Midlands police force on the alleged activities of Maccabi Tel Aviv fans ahead of Maccabi’s recent match against Aston Villa.

I am sorry, it is me again. The Government are limited in what they can say at this time about the intelligence used by West Midlands Police following alleged inaccuracies reported in the media, but I can tell my noble friend that the Policing Minister has written to the chief constable of West Midlands Police requesting an urgent response on the intelligence his force relied on and his confidence in it. Obviously, we have noted the press reports. As the Prime Minister has made clear, the Government remain committed to ensuring that all fans can attend football matches safely, regardless of their background.

My Lords, we have a situation where the police force stands accused of fabricating evidence while under pressure from a bunch of bigots and racists—as well as, it pains me to say, a number of Labour councillors—all with one aim: turning Britain’s second-biggest city into a no-go area for Jewish people; and they actually succeeded in that. I am glad to hear about the review; how soon will it deliver its findings? Also, will the Government undertake to hold an inquiry to find out what the hell is going on in Birmingham city hall and, if necessary, suspend the council and kick out any Labour councillors engaged in this evil plot?

I thank my noble friend for that question. I will deal first with the issues surrounding the football match. Obviously, the police are operationally independent of government, and officials routinely engage with operational partners to support public safety and effective policing. The Home Office does not publish operational intelligence or risk assessments. To address my noble friend’s question, on 31 October the Home Secretary commissioned His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services to review how police forces in England and Wales provide risk assessment advice—of course, that is what is being contested here—to local safety advisory groups and other bodies responsible for licensing high-profile public events. I know that the Policing Minister hopes for earlier feedback from HMI on the situation in the West Midlands and what happened in relation to the intelligence that was available from the Netherlands. But we hope the report from HMI will be ready by March, and I am sure the problems at Birmingham City Council will continue to receive much attention.

My Lords, further to the excellent Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Cryer, the chief constable of Greater Manchester does not need to wait for this report because he said that, as a matter of course, Israeli fans would be welcome to come and support their team in Greater Manchester, at Manchester United or Manchester City. Why is it that the chief constable of Greater Manchester can say that, yet the West Midlands Police has acted in this terrible situation? Given that the Prime Minister said it was the wrong decision, when did the Home Office know about this and what did it know?

I will deal first with the question about the timeline and then perhaps respond on the other matters, because it is important that the facts are in the public domain. The United Kingdom Football Policing Unit informed Home Office officials on 2 October that there was a significant risk of disorder involving Maccabi Tel Aviv fans and that one of the options under consideration was to ban Maccabi fans from attending the match. On 16 October, two weeks later, Birmingham City Council, on advice from the safety advisory group, announced its decision, and this was when the Government found out. On 17 October, the West Midlands Police and Crime Commissioner asked the safety advisory group and West Midlands Police to convene a special safety advisory group meeting at the earliest opportunity. However, as I think everybody knows, on 20 October, Maccabi Tel Aviv announced its formal decision to reject any allocation for the Aston Villa fixture. The Government have expressed our disappointment. On the noble Lord’s initial question, of course we would have preferred it to go ahead, and the Prime Minister has made that clear.

My Lords, we have had a long and unpleasant experience of football violence in this country, going back a long way. We also have set drills for keeping fans safe and getting them to and from grounds. For a midweek game, there cannot have been any shortage of available forces to support them. Can it be made quite clear that what happened here is totally unacceptable and that anybody who takes information from a foreign police force that has not been verified will not have that position tolerated in the future?

I thank the noble Lord for that question. I have already made it clear that the Policing Minister has written to West Midlands Police to find out precisely what intelligence it received about what happened in Amsterdam and how that is reflected in the various press reports. On a wider scale, we are looking at how intelligence is provided to safety advisory groups, through a review by HMI. On the noble Lord’s other point, of course, we deplore all kinds of public disorder at football matches.

My Lords, this was a disgraceful decision. First, can the Minister tell me why it is going to take HMI five months to come back with a review? It cannot take that long. Secondly, he will know that the inspectorate looked last year at the powers of Intervention of the Home Secretary and said that legislation and guidance do not

“clearly define the boundary between police operational independence and appropriate external influence or accountability”.

Will he look again at a government response to that report?

I thank my noble friend. On his first point, I have already said, but I am happy to stress, that we do not intend that feedback on the intelligence received from the Amsterdam match and HMI’s assessment of it waits until the overall report, which is due in March; the Policing Minister should have some information before that. We think it is very important that we review the safety advisory groups overall and how they are handled. On his second point, the Government do not interfere in operational police matters, except in very particular circumstances, but frankly, on this occasion, we were prevented from intervening because Maccabi Tel Aviv decided not to take its ticket allocation.

My Lords, I am very pleased to hear that the Policing Minister has written to the chief constable for an explanation. Like all noble Lords, I am sure, I look forward to hearing what he has to say. Andrew Gilbert, vice-president of the Board of Deputies, said:

“This decision has sowed distrust, particularly for Birmingham’s Jewish community, and undermined community cohesion”.

Does the Minister agree that for the concept of policing by consent to work, people must have the confidence to know that police use accurate information and are held to account when they do not?

Unlike on the previous Question, I do agree with the noble Lord. I want particularly to emphasise that this is not just about who attends football matches, this is about community cohesion and tolerance in our society, and it is absolutely right that people should use reliable evidence and should be held to account if they do not.

My Lords, the Minister constantly stresses the operational independence of the police, yet a Jew-free zone was created in the West Midlands—with, it appears, official sanction. Does the Minister understand that while the Government say they will not tolerate antisemitism, it seems that antisemitism was not only tolerated but officially endorsed, although not necessarily by the Government? Unless the Government act very strongly on this, it implies that officialdom thinks that Jews are not welcome in a major city in this country, and it is shameful.

I do not recognise the noble Baroness’s characterisation of any part of the United Kingdom as being “Jew-free”; that is a highly emotive way to describe it. However, I share the concerns of those who want to ensure that people of all religions—but, particularly in the current climate, Jewish people—can go about their lives without fear of intimidation. I am not sure that emotive rhetoric about Jew-free areas is helpful in this conversation.