Provisional Police Funding Settlement 2026-27

Sarah Jones Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2025 Written Statements

[The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)]

Total funding for police forces, including Counter Terrorism Policing, will be up to £19.5 billion in 2026-27, an increase of up to £798 million compared to the 2025-26 police funding settlement. Total funding to territorial police forces will be up to £18.3 billion, an increase of up to £746 million compared to 2025-26. This equates to a 4.2% cash increase and a 2.0% real terms increase for police forces. For police and crime commissioners in England the council tax referendum threshold will be £15 for a band D property.

Funding for Counter Terrorism Policing will increase by at least £52 million to £1.2 billion in 2026- 27. Police and crime commissioners will be notified separately of force-level funding allocations for Counter Terrorism Policing, which will not be made public for security reasons.

We will publish a police reform White Paper in early 2026 which will set out a vision to bring policing into the modern age with the technology, innovation and structures they need to ensure policing can focus on the crimes that matter to the public and to drive out waste and inefficiency. As with previous years, a copy of the “Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 2026-27” will be laid before the House by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in the new year.

An accompanying table that outlines policing bodies’ proposed total funding for 2026-27 can be viewed online: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2025-12-18/HCWS1216/

[HCWS1216]

Draft Public Order Act 2023 (Interference With Use or Operation of Key National Infrastructure) Regulations 2025

Sarah Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 General Committees

[The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Public Order Act 2023 (Interference With Use or Operation of Key National Infrastructure) Regulations 2025.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I will begin with the context in which we are bringing forward this statutory instrument. The life sciences industry is vital to this country. It provides crucial research, particularly in the medical sphere, and plays a central role in pandemic preparedness capabilities. The experience of recent years has demonstrated that that risk cannot be ignored, and we must be prepared at all times to respond to such a crisis.

The Government’s goal is for the UK to become a global beacon for scientific discovery. The life sciences sector employs more than 350,000 people and generates almost £150 billion in turnover annually. It is integral to the development of new treatments and, crucially, the safety-testing of new medicines and vaccines. The importance of that activity in responding to the covid-19 outbreak cannot be overstated.

Recent protest activity has deliberately targeted the life sciences sector, threatening the UK’s sovereign capability to produce vaccines and therapies, and disrupting supply chains vital to research and national health protection. The legislation before the Committee will address that by amending section 7 of the Public Order Act 2023, to add the life sciences sector to its list of key national infrastructure. That will make it a criminal offence to deliberately or recklessly disrupt life sciences infrastructure or interfere with its use or operation. Anyone convicted of that offence will face a penalty of up to 12 months’ imprisonment, a fine or both. In turn, this change will strengthen the ability of the police to respond to disruptive protest activity that is undermining our national health resilience.

The legislation will cover infrastructure that primarily facilitates pharmaceutical research or the development or manufacturing of pharmaceutical products, or which is used in connection with activities authorised under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. That will include, for example, pharmaceutical laboratories, medicine and vaccine-manufacturing facilities, suppliers of animals for research, and academic laboratories carrying out research involving animals.

Hon. Members may be aware of the Government’s recently published strategy setting out a vision for a world in which the use of animals in science is eliminated in all but exceptional circumstances. We are absolutely committed to that goal, but at the same time we will not hesitate to fulfil our duty to protect the citizens of this country and our national health infrastructure and resilience.

Peaceful protest is a cornerstone of our democracy. We have debated it many times in this House and will continue to do so. We will always defend that right, but where disruption threatens medical progress and risks undermining our sovereign capability to prepare for and respond to a public health emergency, we must take action to protect key infrastructure and supply chains. As a Government, we have a duty to protect the UK’s ability to innovate, respond and save lives. This instrument will aid us in that effort, and I commend it to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. I am not surprised that there is so much interest in the debate. Animal welfare and the right to protest are two of the most fundamental values of being British, and two things we fight for: we love our animals, and nobody wants unnecessary animal testing—indeed, it is against the law—and of course the right to protest is absolute. As the shadow Minister said, when was were in opposition, much legislation went through about protest, and there was much debate. There is more debate to come on how we manage protest.

I want to consider the two issues separately. The first, animal testing, is obviously a Home Office matter where it involves protest, but I will veer into topics about which hon. Members who have had many years of work in this area will know more than I do. The Home Office is responsible for the licensing of testing; there are 135 places around the country where we allow testing, and there is a very rigorous regime.

As some Members have mentioned, the three Rs system operates under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act. There is also a three-tier licensing regime whereby we license the establishment itself, we license the project—the thing that that establishment is doing—and we license individuals. Across the country, thousands of people are licensed. In licensing a project we do a harm/benefit analysis. If it is possible to use any testing other than on animals, it is the law that that should be done. We are really clear on that.

It was mentioned that we have some of the strongest legislation in this space, and we have some of the strongest animal welfare legislation in any country. I am very proud of that, and this Labour Government will continue to protect and defend animal welfare. The reality at the moment, though, is that testing is done on animals in order to produce medicines or vaccines. During the covid pandemic, dogs—which have been mentioned a lot—were not tested for the vaccine, but monkeys, rats and mice were. In that moment of national crisis, we had to produce a vaccine that saved lives. As hon. Members can appreciate, ensuring that we are prepared for a second pandemic is very high on this Government’s risk register. We must ensure that we have what we need in this country; as has been said, if we do not, those things will be done elsewhere—potentially in countries where there are not the stringent rules and laws around animal welfare that we have.

[Rachael Maskell]

It is my recollection that we were locked down during the pandemic when much of this science was being undertaken, so people would not have been able to protest anyway. When we face such extreme circumstances, I think the country understands, but this provision is far broader in scope, and if that is the Government’s intent, I have to press the Minister on why that is not written in the legislation.

[Sarah Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and for her powerful speech, which I respect; I understand where it is coming from. During the covid pandemic there was separate legislation that stopped people gathering, which is why people could not protest at the time. We have had conversations—I know that Lord Vallance in his work has had multiple conversations—with industry in which it has explained that it cannot, in some cases, function and do the things we currently need it to do because of the levels of protest. Some protests are more high-profile than others, but all 135 sites potentially are subject to protests of different degrees.

My fundamental point on animal welfare is that we only use the testing where we absolutely have to. The research that this Government are funding to deliver alternatives, and the strategy that Lord Vallance has brought in, will take us towards a virtual dog that we can use. There is new technology that will get us to where we need to get to, but we are not there yet, and in the interim we need to protect those who are working, so that we can continue to do what we need to do in terms of the production of medicines.

The second element is protest and rights.

[Kerry McCarthy]

As I mentioned, 10 years ago in this place there was a high-profile piece of campaigning particularly about testing on beagles, and I seem to remember that it got quite a lot of press coverage. Assurances were given then that we were on a journey to phasing that out, but we have no idea what has happened in that interim decade. That is the problem. The Minister can reassure us now that we are on that pathway again, but how can we have any confidence that it will not take another decade—or several? As the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) said, it has been 40 years since he started pushing for this.

[Sarah Jones]

I hope that my hon. Friend sees that we have had a change of Government; this Labour Government have published a document about replacing animals in science, which is a serious piece of work. As she will know, our manifesto stated that

“we will partner with scientists, industry, and civil society as we work towards the phasing out of animal testing.”

That is what we want to do; we want to do this together with scientists and civil society, and this is our opportunity to do so. I know that Lord Vallance is absolutely committed to getting this right and to going as fast as we can, obviously within the parameters of ensuring that we can still produce the medicines we need.

[Irene Campbell]

I very much welcome the strategy, but it contains no timeline whatsoever for when testing on dogs will end, so I would welcome the Minister’s comments on that.

[Sarah Jones]

It is important that Members help us with the strategy; if they have not done so already, I suggest that they sit down with Lord Vallance to talk about this.

[Irene Campbell]

I have.

[Sarah Jones]

I am sure my hon. Friend made her points with the same passion that she has spoken with this afternoon.

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

I am a fierce defender of animal welfare— I always will be—and I believe that we are not moving quickly enough to phase out animal testing, but does the Minister agree that the pace is not what the draft regulations are principally about? They are quite tightly drafted Home Office regulations on the powers for police to respond to disruptive and illegal activity at our vaccine sites, which affects our pandemic preparedness.

We in Teesside have a Fujifilm facility near Stockton— the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West will know it well—and Teessiders were very proud to produce the vaccine there during the covid pandemic. As we phase out animal testing, we must not hamper that ability—that is what today’s debate is all about.

[Sarah Jones]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; perhaps he is telling me to get a move on with my speech and address the public order aspects, which I want to cover, as they are so important.

The draft regulations were laid on 27 November. Members have raised concerns about that, saying that we are going too fast. I wrote to the Home Affairs and Science, Innovation and Technology Committees, as is the right thing to do, so we are following a process. The draft regulations will also go to the Lords, after which they will be agreed, if Members vote for them.

We are amending the 2023 Act, but we are not changing the thresholds of anything; we are just adding an additional category to the list of key infrastructure. We are not changing what can or cannot be done under the existing law, or the level or threshold of police intervention. We are just adding life sciences to the list.

[Olivia Blake]

Given that many of these institutions are universities with licences, and hundreds of scientists and labs work under the 135 licences that the Minister has described, many of which have nothing to do with vaccines, is this not a knee-jerk reaction to a concern that is yet to be fulfilled, given the extra emergency legislation that was brought in when we needed the vaccine?

[Sarah Jones]

I do not think it is knee-jerk at all. It is right and proper that this Government make sure that we are prepared for a future pandemic and that we have sufficient resources in this country. Also, we must protect the life sciences sector and the huge contribution it makes to our national wealth. A vast number of people work in the life sciences sector, which brings huge innovation and leading-edge technology to the UK.

Where the Public Order Act has been used to date, most of the cases where people have been charged are ongoing. We are carrying out a post-legislative scrutiny process, in which we will send a Command Paper to the Home Affairs Committee that sets out how the legislation is being used. The process started in May, and we will publish the paper next year. Hon. Members will be able to read it, and of course, we will always continue to debate the boundaries of public order legislation. The Home Secretary asked for a review of our existing legislation, and that is being done at the moment, as there are other huge debates ongoing about the right to protest and how we make sure we get the balance right. We are not on any level stopping people peacefully protesting through this change; we are responding to a challenge in which legitimate industries are being prevented from producing the medicines and vaccines that we need. That is the change that we are introducing.

To be clear, section 7 of the 2023 Act makes it a criminal offence to interfere

“with the use or operation of…key national infrastructure”.

That is the defined scope. It does not include, for example, intimidation as a threshold. Interference is defined as an act that prevents or significantly delays the infrastructure being used or operated to any extent for its intended purposes. People will not stop protesting. They are absolutely within their rights to protest. It is absolutely a fundamental right that this Government will always allow. We are responding to an issue where people are being stopped from developing the medicines and vaccines that the country needs.

[John McDonnell]

Sorry, but I am slightly bewildered. If the Minister is saying that the Government are undertaking a review of existing powers, I welcome that. That will not be published for a number of months, but this is how the police are exercising their powers at the moment. To be frank, many people who have been involved in protests and negotiations with police are critical about how the police have interpreted those powers, and we believe they have sometimes gone well beyond the legislation. The Minister is saying that the Government share some of those concerns and are reviewing the use of those powers, but at the same time, in advance of the publication of that review, we are extending powers to the police in other areas. I find that baffling. All that I think hon. Members are asking for is for this to be properly debated before we rush ahead with giving police powers that could result in people being imprisoned for 12 months and having a criminal record for the rest of their lives.

[Sarah Jones]

My right hon. Friend has debated these issues for years, and he is right to defend the right to protest. I know that there have been many years of protests at Heathrow, and that is a way for people to get their voices heard. We are introducing this legislation now because our sovereign capability needs to be protected. We are adding life sciences, but we are not changing any of the thresholds. We are also reviewing legislation across the board on protest and hate crime. Lord Macdonald is doing that for the Home Secretary. That review was prompted in part by recent protests and the conversations we have had with many different groups, including the Jewish community, about protests and how we police them in a measured way.

Members are concerned about how this measure will be implemented and where it will end. That has been raised quite a lot, but this is a relatively small amendment to the legislation. We are not curtailing the right for people to protest peacefully. There will be operational guidance on how it will work through the authorised professional practice from the College of Policing and guidance from the National Police Chiefs’ Council.

It is important to say that we want to work with our police colleagues on this legislation, and that the vast majority of protests are policed brilliantly. Ministers have said in this place before and we will say it again. Where there is interaction between the police and the community groups that are protesting, it is agreed what the route will be, what the parameters will be and what the timescales are. The vast majority of the many protests that happen across the country are peaceful.

There are contentious protests, and it is problematic when where a protest will go has not been agreed with the policing community, but our police are very well trained in this. They will take this legislation and interpret it, but they will be trained to interpret it as well. Public order training is very comprehensive, and I will be monitoring—as will Parliament—how this legislation is implemented.

[Rachael Maskell]

I have to say that, after listening carefully to her speech, I now have even greater concerns about trade unionists taking legal industrial action outside facilities. That would clearly disrupt the infrastructure and the operation of that infrastructure, which would fall under the wording of this legislation. Therefore, we could end up criminalising trade unionists for taking legitimate industrial action because of the disruption it causes—protest does cause disruption, after all.

As a result of that, I think that, as the Labour party—the party of the trade unions—we need to take this incredibly seriously. I am sure that is an unintended consequence, but that is a problem that comes with poorly drafted legislation. I therefore really do ask the Minister to review the detailed wording of the legislation to ensure that that situation could never occur.

[Sarah Jones]

That would not occur. The right to strike is protected in legislation, and it is a defence for a person charged—as it is under the existing legislation. As I have said, this has not changed the parameters of the existing legislation; it has just added a definition. It is a defence for a person charged, and the right to strike is one that people have. I am very happy to write to my hon. Friend with more detail about the specific way that this legislation will work, but I want to reassure her that that is not what would happen in that context.

The two aspects of this debate are the testing of animals and peaceful protest. The parameters of this statutory instrument are about protest. To reiterate, peaceful protest is completely fundamental to our society, and a right that this Government will always defend.

[Matt Vickers]

When in opposition, the Labour party said that this stuff was already covered by the legislation. Now, Labour is saying that we need to extend that legislation. Are there any examples of protests that will be covered by this measure that are not covered by existing legislation?

[Sarah Jones]

Yes; that is why we are introducing it. The powers that the police have now, and the powers that they will have when this is added to section 7 of the 2023 Act, will mean that it will be a criminal offence to interfere with the use or operation of key national infrastructure in England and Wales. That is not a power that we had before. Where disruption or interference risks undermining our sovereign capability to prepare for and respond to a pandemic, we have a responsibility to act. The life sciences industry is of vital importance to this country, and it must be protected. That is why we have brought forward this instrument, which I commend to the Committee once again.

Question put.

Knife Sellers Licensing Consultation

Sarah Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Written Statements

[The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)]

As part of the Government’s aim to halve knife crime within a decade, and in line with their manifesto commitment, the previous Home Secretary commissioned Commander Stephen Clayman, the National Police Chiefs’ Council knife crime lead, to conduct a review of online sales of knives.

The “Independent End-to-End Review of Online Knife Sales”¹ was published on 19 February and made a number of recommendations, including the introduction of a registration scheme for sellers and importers of knives. The Government accepted the most important recommendations immediately, and this included legislating in the Crime and Policing Bill for stronger age checks for online sales and delivery of knives, and the reporting by retailers of bulk purchases of knives online. The Government also committed to launching a public consultation to explore whether registration for sellers, in the form of a licensing scheme, should be put in place for anyone selling knives, whether online or offline.

The consultation will launch today, and it will run for a 10-week period, closing on 24 February 2026. A copy of the consultation and related options assessment will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament and published on gov.uk.

¹Independent end-to-end review of online knife sales: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/independent-end-to-end-review-of-online-knife-sales

[HCWS1178]

Forensic Information Databases Strategy Board: Annual Report

Sarah Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Written Statements

[The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)]

I am pleased to announce that I am, today, publishing the annual report of the Forensic Information Databases Strategy Board for 2024-25. This report covers the national DNA database and the national fingerprints database.

The strategy board chair, Assistant Chief Constable Simon Wilson, has presented the annual report to the Home Secretary under section 63AB(7) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Publication of the report is a statutory requirement under section 63AB(8) of the 1984 Act, as inserted by section 24 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

The report highlights the continued, fundamental value of DNA and fingerprints in the provision of vital evidence and intelligence to support police investigations and the criminal justice system in bringing offenders to justice, protecting and supporting victims, and preventing harm to potential future victims.

I am grateful to the strategy board for their commitment to fulfilling their statutory functions.

The report has been laid before the House and copies will be available from the Vote Office and also on gov.uk.

[HCWS1142]

Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban

Sarah Jones Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

(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.

[The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)]

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.

Sport is a source of joy and excitement for millions of people around the world. Football supporters should be able to follow their team, whatever their nationality, faith or background. That has been the clear and unequivocal stance of the Government throughout this episode, and it will remain so.

[Nick Timothy]

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?

The police are accused of fabricating evidence to justify a predetermined outcome demanded by Islamists. They have had weeks to defend themselves and have failed to do so. This is fatal for public confidence in the police and in justice, and in my opinion the chief constable must go.

[Sarah Jones]

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.

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

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?

[Sarah Jones]

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.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

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.

[Sarah Jones]

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.

[Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)]

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?

[Sarah Jones]

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.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

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?

[Sarah Jones]

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.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

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?

[Sarah Jones]

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.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.

[Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

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?

[Sarah Jones]

Of course, the mistakes that have clearly been made played out in the evidence to the right hon. Member’s Select Committee. The mistake about that particular match does seem to be alarming, as does the subsequent apology.

On access to the intelligence and what was said and when, I know that the right hon. Member will find this frustrating, but I repeat that I want HMICFRS to go through its proper process and to come to a conclusion. It would not be right for me to base my conclusion on the evidence I have before me. It is absolutely right that HMICFRS looks at this matter thoroughly and comes back to us, and we will take whatever action is required afterwards.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call Chris Murray, a member of the Select Committee.

[Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her answers and her evidence at the Select Committee last week. It is shocking and deeply concerning that evidence from senior police officers at a Select Committee can fall apart within a week. This was a highly sensitive fixture, and this decision has had a significant impact on the Jewish community in the context of rising antisemitism. Policing in this country depends on the principle of consent and the idea that all communities are treated fairly and equally. I know that the Minister does not want to prejudge the outcomes of this specific case, but can she tell us her thoughts on the impact that this whole issue is having on the principle of policing by consent and on different communities in the country?

[Sarah Jones]

Policing by consent is the bedrock of our policing, and I think everybody across the House would agree with that—those Peel principles drive everything we want our police to do. There are a number of areas where that model of policing by consent has been tested in recent years, and public order and protest are a case in point. It is hard for the police, and I praise them for virtually every decision they make when it comes to public order. Most protests go ahead well and are policed well. There are good relations between the protesters and the police, and the routes are discussed, debated and agreed. The vast majority of protests happen in a way that we do not even notice because the policing is done brilliantly—there are some absolutely excellent police who deal with this. But when we get something wrong, of course the public question what is happening and question that confidence. That is why it is so important that we in this place do not jump to conclusions and that we get the right answers in a careful way, so that can give the right response.

[Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) on securing an urgent question on this important matter. Does the Minister agree that it is not only the Jewish community who have been seriously let down by this sequence of events, but all of us in the royal town of Sutton Coldfield and across Birmingham? Does she accept that it is not right to blame the SAG, which will always go—on the whole—with the police evidence that is put before that committee? That might well be an argument for looking again at the structure of how these decisions are taken. Does she also agree that this looks like a maladroit political decision rather than a policy decision, and does she understand that many local people are very disappointed in the role of the police and crime commissioner, who is supposed to stand up for local communities and has not done so in this case?

[Sarah Jones]

I was in Birmingham last week to launch our winter of action: police working in our town centres and closely with retailers and other organisations to stamp down on and prevent crime. I was with the police and crime commissioner, who is doing a good job in the policing of the community. For the 4 million people who go through the Birmingham Christmas market, it will be a lovely experience. I will not condemn anybody in this place. There are questions to answer, and I know that the right hon. Gentleman’s community, like everybody here, wants answers. We want to get to a point where we can celebrate the fact that Villa won at the weekend. That should be the only story in town, but unfortunately it is not because of this situation. We need to get to the bottom of it, and the Government will do so and respond appropriately.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

When making these sorts of decisions, it is important to have several points of information. Can the Minister confirm whether UEFA was present at the safety advisory group meeting when the decision to ban Maccabi fans was taken, and, if so, what was its advice? More broadly, can she say what UEFA’s general advice is on banning any fans from any match?

[Sarah Jones]

As far as I am aware, UEFA was not in the SAG meeting. Of course, there would have been conversations with Villa, which ultimately had to make the decisions. It is a complicated decision-making process, as the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) said. The SAG sits to consider advice. The police give their evidence and opinion. The right hon. Member was right to say that, on the whole, the SAG will take the police advice, but there are other views in the room. It is then for the local authority to decide whether to allow the event to have the correct licence, and for Villa, in this case, to decide what that means and whether to allow fans to come. It is quite a complex picture. UEFA’s oversight of the whole league is important, but the decision about whether the event should go ahead was taken locally. We are trying to get to the heart of whether that is the right model for events of such national significance, or whether we should have a different model.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

This really is a catalogue of disaster, and it raises a range of issues, some of which the Committee will consider when we kick off our inquiry into major events tomorrow. In the previous Parliament, the Committee looked at the safety of sporting events and concluded that safety advisory groups have, at best, a fairly dubious record on seeking out and considering the necessary perspectives to inform better decision making. May I invite the Minister to look at our recommendations from a couple of years ago on amending the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 so that police and safety advisory groups have no choice but to engage properly from the outset on such cases?

When considering the competence of the West Midlands chief constable, might the Minister start by asking him to respond to his correspondence? The Select Committee wrote to him about the ban on Maccabi Tel Aviv fans, but we still have not received a response.

[Sarah Jones]

I will certainly look back at and read that report, which I very much welcome. It relates to some of the wider questions about nationally significant events and how SAGs operate. I am sorry that there has not been a response to the Committee; I encourage everybody to respond as quickly as possible. The hon. Lady is right to raise wider questions about how SAGs operate; we need to get to the heart of that.

[Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

This quagmire needs much greater scrutiny, and to be brought out into the disinfectant of daylight. Let me repeat the question: why have no safety advisory group minutes been produced? How many times did the SAG meet on this issue? Will the Minister ask whether there was a UEFA representative at the safety advisory group meeting, and what their advice was?

[Sarah Jones]

I cannot answer my hon. Friend’s question. As we mentioned at the Select Committee, how many times the safety advisory group was meeting was slightly unclear to us at the Home Office, because our relationship with the safety advisory group is through the UK football organisation. We were receiving information in a slightly ad hoc way, according to when we asked for that information, and that is one of the things we need to look at. Of course, I am very happy, as my hon. Friend is, to go back and ask questions about who was there.

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

After hearing the Policing Minister, I am slightly incredulous. In her last reply to a perfectly reasonable question from her own side of the House about the roles of UEFA and the safety advisory group, she said she is happy to go back and ask questions. She said in her statement that the mistakes were “alarming”—that is the phrase she used.

This has been going on for weeks. The Minister has had a letter back from West Midlands police that she has not shared with the House before replying to this urgent question. She is saying that we will not have all the answers until the end of March, yet the Prime Minister is saying that this is a really high priority. Why is it taking so long to get simple answers on something that is of concern across the House?

[Sarah Jones]

I completely reject the right hon. Gentleman’s framing. We have been clear, and the Prime Minister has been clear, from the minute this decision was made that we believe it to be the wrong decision, and we worked tirelessly from that point to try to ensure that the match went ahead with the fans present. There was a weekend of activity to try to enable the match to go ahead in a safe way with whatever resources were required. There were lots of conversations across Government, and locally as well. Of course, Maccabi Tel Aviv then decided that they would not bring their fans, so the need for that process ended.

We then asked HMICFRS to look at this properly so that we can shine a light on what happened and what has gone wrong—we have been very clear about that, and it is completely right. I am not making up my mind on the hoof, but doing this through a proper process. I hope the right hon. Gentleman agrees it is a proper process. We are also looking at whether we need to change the wider structures so that an issue like this does not arise again.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

It is fairly clear that my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) is right that this was a predetermined decision, and that the evidence was something for which West Midlands police scrabbled about later, but whatever the outcome of the Minister’s inquiries, whether it turns out, heaven forbid, that there was an antisemitic element to this or—in my view, more probably—that the police thought they would have a quieter life if they went down this road, will she guarantee to the House that whatever lessons are learned will be communicated in the strongest terms to the chief constables of all the other police forces so that they do not follow a bad example?

[Sarah Jones]

Yes, I can absolutely assure the right hon. Gentleman that we will learn whatever lessons we need to learn and take whatever action we need to take. Of course, that applies across all forces, not just West Midlands police.

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

Is the Minister aware of any representations made by UEFA in advance of this fixture?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

I was not a party to conversations between Aston Villa and UEFA, nor was I a party to the decision- making process. The Government have no political involvement whatsoever in the safety advisory groups—we do not feed into that process at all. That is one of the questions we are looking at, because perhaps that is not the right model for the future.

[Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)]

Right across the political spectrum, I think everyone feels that this was a poor decision and a bad decision, which is why it has unravelled so quickly. Can the Minister reassure the House that there was absolutely no local political interference in making this decision?

[Sarah Jones]

The right hon. Gentleman knows that I cannot tell him the motivation for any of the decisions that were made. The Prime Minister’s clear view is that the decision made by the safety advisory group was the wrong decision and that we must ensure that this does not happen again. Safety advisory groups are local groups, with local representatives. The police advise those groups on the safety of events and a licence is then given for that event. Perhaps that structure needs to be looked at, particularly if there are issues of national significance, when there may be a role of national politicians. The operational independence of the police is really important and we have to make sure that we do not ride roughshod over that. That said, we also have to get to the bottom of what happened in this case.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for her thoughtful answers. Last week, Chief Constable Craig Guildford told the Home Affairs Committee that the decision “was not taken lightly” and that the police had “taken a careful approach” when making the decision. Once again, I want to raise a concern about how this so-called “careful approach” made people feel and the message that it sent about exclusion. What assessment has the Minister made of the choice that was made and of the steps that should have been taken to ensure that all international football fans were treated fairly, based on correct evidence and information?

[Sarah Jones]

We have been very clear all the way through that we believe that the wrong decision was made. The message that it sent to the wider world risked being the message that Jews were not welcome in the west midlands; that is one of the most awful things that could be received by Jewish people around the world. We want to get to the bottom of why the decision was made and what we can do to ensure that this does not happen again.

Biometrics, Facial Recognition and Similar Technologies in Law Enforcement: Legal Framework

Sarah Jones Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2025 Written Statements

[The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)]

The Government are committed to giving the police the tools, clarity and confidence they need to keep the public safe in a fast-changing world. Facial recognition technology is one such powerful and effective tool, and the Government want to support its adoption with a clearer legal framework.

Over the past year, we have taken time to listen carefully to all sides of the debate about facial recognition and evaluate the available evidence. We have heard how this can be a valuable tool in tackling serious crime. However, we have also heard legitimate concerns about this powerful technology. There are questions we must address about the state’s powers to process its citizens’ biometric data proportionately, maintaining public confidence, and how we balance this with ensuring the police are able to utilise technology within a clear, easy-to-understand framework.

That is why I am pleased to announce that the Government are today launching a public consultation titled, “Consultation on a new legal framework for law enforcement use of biometrics, facial recognition and similar technologies”.

The consultation seeks views on a wide range of issues, including which technologies should be covered by the new framework—such as biometric, inferential, and object recognition tools—and which organisations it should apply to. It also explores when and how these technologies should be used, what safeguards are necessary to protect privacy and other rights, and how to ensure their use is demonstrably proportionate to the seriousness of the harm being addressed.

Throughout the consultation, we hope to hear a broad range of views from the public, experts, and stakeholders to help shape a legal framework that will enable confident, safe, and consistent use of facial recognition and similar technologies at significantly greater scale.

This consultation will play an essential role in helping the Government design a framework that means law enforcement can properly harness the power of this technology while maintaining public confidence over the long term.

The consultation will run for 10 weeks and provides a valuable opportunity for the public to have their say. A copy of the consultation will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and published on gov.uk.

[HCWS1129]

FIFA Men's Football World Cup 2026: Licensing Hours

Sarah Jones Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2025 Written Statements

[The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)]

I am pleased to launch a consultation on extending licensing hours in England and Wales for the semi-finals and final of the FIFA men’s football world cup next summer, contingent on any of the home nations teams—England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland—reaching those stages of the tournament. The consultation is aimed at members of the public, local licensing authorities, licensed premises, and other interested parties in England and Wales where these proposals apply.

Depending on the outcome of the consultation, the Government propose to make a licensing hours order under section 172 of the Licensing Act 2003 that would contingently extend opening hours for matches that kick-off at 9pm or earlier on the days of the semi-finals (14 and/or 15 July) and/or final (19 July), so that they would end at 1am at the latest—i.e. early in the morning following the match, rather than 11pm on the day of the kick-off in the UK—for the sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises in England and Wales.

The extension would enable communities to come together to celebrate this achievement and support their national team, as well as provide a welcome boost to pubs and other on-trade businesses. The tournament will be held across several US states, Mexico, and Canada, which are 5-8 hours behind UK time, and matches could continue well into, or not kick off until, the early hours of the morning. In those cases, licensed premises will be able to use the temporary event notice process to extend beyond 1 am, should they wish to do so. The TENs process allows police to object or place conditions on a notice, thus ensuring additional safeguards for the public where venues may wish to stay open later.

The extension would be contingent on one or more of the home nations reaching those stages of the championship, and would not take effect should none of these teams reach those stages of the tournament.

I am seeking to use a contingent order to extend licensing hours for the semi-finals and the final to ensure that there is sufficient time to consult publicly on the proposed extension and follow the required parliamentary procedure.

A copy of the consultation will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and published on gov.uk. The consultation will run until 15 January 2026.

[HCWS1130]

Catapults and Antisocial Behaviour

Sarah Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) on securing the debate.

There is clearly a problem. It is not my job to defend the status quo; it is my job to consider what we can do about the problem. This debate has brought forward that problem in a good-natured way, setting out a number of ideas, which we can talk through today but need more thought. The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), referred to existing laws, and the need to look at how they are implemented. Other suggestions, from this place and beyond, may also help. The starting point is that there is clearly a problem. Although the national data is not great on this subject, it appears to be a rising problem, as borne out by the Kent statistics.

I will say a couple of things about the broad approach to governing. Most of the public want police in their neighbourhoods, with the time and space to tackle physical crimes. The Government are working on a White Paper on police reform, which we hope will do exactly that. We are not only putting in more money—already bearing fruit in funding neighbourhood police in local communities—but looking at the time police spend on bureaucracy. Artificial intelligence can help to free up time, with new technology such as live facial recognition or drones playing a role, to enable the police to do what we want them to do.

We are also spending a lot of time on outlining plans for a national centre for policing, which could do what the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) suggested: bring together national aspects of policing, so that local police can deal with the problems that face them. The hon. and gallant Member for Spelthorne also talked at some length about the good youth engagement activities in his constituency, and pointed out the cuts to youth work. I think we would all agree that policing is one thing, but activities are very much another. We have a brilliant ambition for a 30% increase in the number of cadets by 2030, which would ensure that people are gaining skills, learning about being a good citizen and occupying their free time. Hon. Members will have examples of great youth clubs and sports groups, which we want to support where we can. Those are the two principles that I would start with.

The hon. and gallant Member described very vividly some of the injuries to wildlife, which are very upsetting. Concerns were also expressed about where that violence would escalate to over time. Something that is increasingly taking up Government time is thinking about people who are obsessed with violence. Where does it come from? How do we stem it? I suspect that people who are attacking wildlife are on some path that we would want to stop. Interventions at that point are necessary, too.

The hon. and gallant Member set out his arguments and made a very compelling case that we need to take this issue seriously. I was in a meeting just before the debate, and I said to those I was meeting that I was coming to this debate, and they said, “Oh, Dennis the Menace!” The hon. and gallant Member made exactly the same point. This is how people perceive catapults; that is not the nature of what is happening here. The letter he read out paints that picture very clearly.

My hon. Friends the Members for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna) and for Dartford (Jim Dickson), who I was pleased to meet recently, made very good points about the challenges in their communities. My hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey talked about the urban nature of this problem, and the churches and high streets that have been damaged. This is clearly a problem that is affecting a number of areas. We heard that from Northern Ireland as well. My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford talked about TikTok and the role of social media, and this strange new habit that seems to be to commit these violent offences and put them on social media, which is obviously also very worrying.

In terms of what the Government want to do in response, as I set out, reforming our police so that our police can do what we want them to do and they can implement the legislation that is already there because they have more time is a major priority. That is, in part, about funding neighbourhood police and making sure that we tilt resources in that direction. It is also about freeing up people’s time, so they can get on and do what they need to do.

The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent, made the sensible point that there is no point in having legislation just for the sake of it, but there are some changes that we do want to see. As we heard, Spelthorne borough council has a PSPO that includes catapults. That is a really good thing. The Crime and Policing Bill will increase the upper limit on fixed penalty notices for breaches of PSPOs to £500, which gives some more power to that function. People have mixed views about PSPOs—some work; some do not—but making sure that they have teeth is important.

Tackling antisocial behaviour generally is a big priority for this Government, and we are doing that in a number of ways, one of which is being much more savvy when it comes to data—looking at hotspot policing and targeting policing in the areas where crime occurs the most. For that to work, we have to have people reporting crime. So please can the message to all our constituents be: “Do report any crime you see; report it online if that is easier.” We are being increasingly sophisticated in the way that we are responding to crime, and data drives that. If we do not have the data, it makes it harder.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

The Minister raises a really important point about data. I say the same whenever I am out in my constituency doing Q&As—report, report, report—but there is always a reticence from my constituents, who say that they feel like they are reporting all the time, then they never hear back from the police and they are not sure where the information goes. Also, when they are talking about antisocial behaviour, there is always a concern that it is going to come back on them and they will be identified as the people who are actively reporting these crimes. Can the Minister provide any advice for those constituents who feel anxious about consistently reporting and feel like they are being a burden or a nuisance?

[Sarah Jones]

They are very much not a burden or a nuisance; they are doing their civic duty, for which we are very grateful, and we encourage them to continue to do so. Reporting is absolutely key. I have had similar conversations to the ones that she and, I suspect, all of us have had, particularly when things have gone on for a very long time and people feel there is no point in reporting any more. We now have in each neighbourhood a named officer, who is your person, and you can contact that person. That will hopefully make it a bit easier for people to get in touch.

Crime can be reported online. We would not always want people to ring 999; there are lots of different ways to report crime. As we go on, there need to be better ways to do it. We need to have apps and technology that help people to do things simply when they are reporting, for example, repeat behaviour. Even though it is difficult, and I understand the case made by the hon. Lady in terms of people feeling nervous, the best result is for the people who are committing the crime to be stopped, and they will not be stopped unless the police are there to intervene.

[Lincoln Jopp]

I am grateful to the Minister and conscious of time. Does she agree that, when people are concerned about intimidation and identification, they can ring Crimestoppers anonymously and report in that way?

[Sarah Jones]

The hon. and gallant Member is absolutely right; people can, and I would encourage them to do that.

Respect orders are part of the legislation that we are bringing in. We do not have time to get into this because I want to let the hon. and gallant Member wind up at the end, but respect orders will have a place in terms of repeat antisocial behaviour offenders. We will introduce them in the Bill, pilot them and roll them out. It will be a tougher measure in terms of tackling antisocial behaviour more widely.

On the hon. and gallant Member’s point about whether we should expand the age group eligible for community protection notices, he said that it was a way of intervening without criminalising children, but he also said that, if they breach it, they are then criminalised. The question is: what is the most effective way to get people out of that kind of behaviour? Is it to criminalise them at that point, or is it to intervene in ways that might be more effective, as he said in other parts of his speech?

Of course there need to be consequences, and there is the issue of whether we should list this as a banned weapon. We looked in our meeting at the list of weapons that are banned, and there is a strange mix of slightly peculiar weapons that clearly have been an issue at some points in time. It is an interesting list for people to look at. That is one aspect, but as a Minister who has been in post for less than 100 days, I want to look at this issue more. There is clearly a problem, and we need to consider how we tackle it.

Thames Valley police were mentioned by name. I was with Thames Valley police recently, and they have massively reduced hare coursing through the use of really effective policing. They are using gators—these vehicles that zoom around the country—and drones to see where the hare coursing happens and get there, so I can reassure people that, when the police put their mind to it, they can do incredible things, despite the challenges. I am therefore optimistic that we can tackle this problem together.

Bike Theft: Loughborough

Sarah Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Stringer, and to take part in this debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher) on securing this debate and on leading the charge in Parliament for more action for his constituents on bike theft. He was right when he said that if cars were being stolen to the same degree that bikes are, there would be more of an outcry. It is right that he and other Members raise this issue, because it is deeply personal to many of our constituents.

There is not just the inconvenience, the cost and the burden of having a bike stolen, but the fear of further crime and the feeling that someone will have about their community and their safety within it when it appears that people can get away with such crimes without any consequence. I want to support my hon. Friend’s campaign and to help where I can.

As always in such debates, it is a shame that we cannot have a dual debate with multiple Ministers saying what they are doing, because I know that my colleagues in the Department for Transport, for example, would be keen to explain how they are looking at cycling and bike theft. We are working with them and other Government Departments. I will set out some of the things that we are doing in the Home Office, however, which I hope my hon. Friend will support and which I hope will help in the fight against knife theft—sorry, bike theft.

I will set out our approach to crime and policing. For too long, what is often seen as lower-level crime has been accepted and not pursued in the way that we would want it to be. I have many conversations with policing colleagues—I was having some today about knife crime, hence my mis-speak just now—and there are really interesting connections between what is perceived as lower-level crime and more significant organised crime. The more that our police gather intelligence about where there are connections and where thefts are more systematic and linked with serious organised crime, the better our policing will be.

The first principle is that no crime is too small. Across the piece, whether it is retail crime or bike theft, we and our communities expect the police to investigate and to do what they can. People do not always expect there to be an outcome to such investigations, but they want crimes to be investigated. They want the evidence to be used where it can be, and they want to understand and to be kept informed about what is happening with their case.

The second principle is that policing is best done locally. We can prevent crime if we create a climate where it is very clear that there is policing in our neighbourhoods and on our streets that will not tolerate theft. My hon. Friend talked about different types of bike theft. In some cases, kids might steal a bike and then discard it when they have had their fun, as they see it. Others are stealing to order for a higher value and have more links to criminal networks. We need to tackle those things differently, but the principle of having police in our communities who are policing our streets, being vigilant, understanding what is going on and building up an intelligence picture of their local community is key. That is why we will make sure that there are 3,000 extra police on our streets by next April, and why we are spending £200 million on top of the multibillion-pound settlement for our police forces.

Leicestershire police has plans to grow its neighbourhood team by 56 full-time equivalent officers in this financial year. That physical presence—being where the crime takes place—will make a real difference. We are also looking at the data. In fact, we are doing lots of work to map the areas of significant crime and where the risks are, and we are making sure that the police intervene where we need them to.

My hon. Friend talked about working with the local authority and there are things that we can do. We can improve street lighting and CCTV, and we can design our streets with better technology that helps us to catch criminals.

My hon. Friend mentioned the new powers that we are introducing, and I will touch on two of them. The first concerns the way that criminals override locking systems to steal vehicles, including motorbikes and cars. We know that that electronic compromise is now the predominant method of vehicle theft, so in the Crime and Policing Bill we are introducing a ban on having any of these electronic devices. At the moment, if someone uses them to steal something, it is a crime, but just having them is not. However, there is no reason to have these devices other than to steal things, so we will be changing the law to criminalise the possession, importation, making, adapting, supplying or offering to supply an electronic device that can be used to steal a vehicle.

The second thing we are going to do will make a real difference. Indeed, I was on a visit with Thames Valley police last week, and we spoke about the difference this change will make in tackling bike theft. Officers should be able to enter and search premises where they reasonably believe that stolen items, such as GPS-tracked bikes, are located. At the moment they need to get a warrant before they can go in, but we know that that takes time, and by the time they have done that the bike might have been moved on. Where GPS tracking shows that an item is behind closed doors, we will facilitate the swift seizure of what we know to be stolen property, and the police will be able to go in and get it without needing a warrant. That will be a valuable tool for tackling bike theft.

What happens to those bikes after they have been stolen is also really important and we need to tackle that piece of the pie as well. Ministers in other Departments are looking at using the Online Safety Act 2023; I am very interested to see how that plays out. There are now duties on social media and tech companies to prevent the advertising of stolen goods. If people are selling bikes online that turn out to be stolen, there is a duty on social media companies not to allow that. It is relatively early days to see how the Online Safety Act will play out, but we should all be monitoring how it works to prevent the sale of stolen goods online. That applies not just to bikes, but more widely; I was in a retail crime meeting earlier where we talked about how items from shops more generally are sold and how we tackle that in the online space.

My hon. Friend talked about the campaign that his local police have done, which sounds as though it was very successful, using drone teams and the road policing unit, with everybody working together. In the few weeks that I have been in this role, my experience has been that when the police put their mind to tackling a problem, they are supremely good at doing it. The problem is that our police struggle with resourcing and huge bureaucracy, so they do not have enough time to do the things that we want them to do—but once they decide that something is a priority, they get results really successfully. That operational policing response is really important.

That example from my hon. Friend’s local area also speaks to the need to ensure that our police have new technology. For 14 years, there has been a lack of investment in policing; through those years of austerity, we lost not just police officers, but any investment in new infrastructure. We know that drones can be revolutionary in policing, but we need to ensure that the police are funded in the right way to buy the kit that they need, so we will be bringing out a police reform White Paper, building on our decision already to save £100 million through the police and crime commissioner model.

We will shortly introduce a police reform Bill, which I hope will enable our police officers to do what we want them to be doing—focusing on physical crime in their communities and spending less time on bureaucracy, using AI and other new technology that can free them up to do other things. A central policing function will deal with some of the crime that is best tackled at a national level, so that the police can deal with issues such as bike theft in a targeted way.

Using that intelligence-led approach with policing locally is important. Some good work is shared through a couple of national bodies that come together to look at some of these issues. For example, the motorcycle crime reduction group brings together Government and representatives from all the different sectors—manufacturing, insurance, the police, the security industry and rider interest groups—to reduce theft. That is a useful place to spread best practice. The national vehicle crime working group, which is led by the National Police Chiefs’ Council and their vehicle crime lead, brings together vehicle crime specialists to look at emerging trends in response to this kind of crime and to talk about good practice and strategies to dismantle the wider criminal groups that are responsible for that level of crime.

Across the piece, I reiterate that bike theft is a significant crime. We should take it seriously, treat our communities with the respect that they deserve and expect better. We can do more in terms of the design of bikes to design out crime. We want members of the public to do what they can; my hon. Friend talked about the need to make sure that bikes are properly locked and that any theft is reported, and that is crucial.

Bike marking is also important, so that people know the model number. The police—in Thames valley, say, since I was talking about Oxford—often talk to me about the number of cases where bikes are stolen, but the people who report the theft to the police do not know the number on the bike, so there is no way of marking it. People should ensure that they take a picture of their number or that the bike is marked in some way so that they can tell the police. There are a couple of online spaces, such as BikeRegister, where bikes can be registered. That can also help if the bikes get stolen.

We need to bring our policing back to our neighbourhoods and make sure that we are following the evidence in terms of emerging patterns of bike theft, which can be linked to more serious organised crime. We need to have the right legislation in place so that the police can act when they need to and work across Government Departments to make sure that we are pulling every lever we possibly can to design out and reduce this kind of crime.

I conclude by thanking my hon. Friend for securing this debate. It has been a useful opportunity to talk about some of the challenges that we face. As ever, I welcome more ideas and suggestions from his constituents and from him on what else we could do.

Question put and agreed to.

Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban

Sarah Jones Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to make a statement on the intelligence used by West Midlands police that led to the ban on Maccabi Tel Aviv fans from attending Villa Park on 6 November 2025.

[The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this urgent question. Let me begin by acknowledging the concern and disappointment felt by supporters affected by the decision regarding attendance at Villa Park on 6 November; I recognise the strength of feeling in this House and the wider communities on the matter.

As Members will appreciate, operational decisions regarding public safety at football matches are a matter for the police, working closely with local partners and events organisers. In this case West Midlands police, in consultation with the club and the local safety advisory group, made the recommendation that away fans should not attend based on their assessment of the intelligence available to them at the time. I am sure the House will understand that I am limited in what I can say about the specific intelligence underpinning this decision; these are sensitive matters and it is vital that the police act on information received to protect public safety. West Midlands police issued a statement in response to the latest media reporting on the intelligence they used, are carrying out a debrief of the events leading up to the match and will be publishing the timeline of events, the decisions taken and the rationale for the recommendations provided to the SAG.

In light of recent events and to ensure robust oversight, the Home Secretary has commissioned His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services to review how police forces in England and Wales provide risk assessment advice to local SAGs and other bodies responsible for licensing high-profile public events. This inspection will consider whether police advice takes proper account of all relevant factors, including the impact on wider community relations and whether the balance between public safety and community consideration is being struck effectively.

I want to assure Members that understanding the series of events that occurred in the period before the match was played remains of keen interest to me and of course the Home Secretary. The Government are clear there is no place for hatred or discrimination in football or indeed in wider society. We are committed to ensuring that fans can attend matches safely, regardless of background or affiliation.

[Nick Timothy]

The ban on Israeli Jewish supporters was a disgrace and the justification given by West Midlands Police was, it turns out, based on fiction. The police said that their intelligence came from Dutch counterparts after the Ajax against Maccabi Tel Aviv match last year. West Midlands police called the Israeli fans “highly organised” and “co-ordinated” and

“experienced fighters…linked to the Israel Defence Forces”.

They said they intentionally targeted Muslim communities and 5,000 officers were deployed in response, but that was contradicted by an official Dutch report and the Dutch police themselves. They called the West Midlands police claims “not true” and “obviously inaccurate”. In some cases, such as the Israeli victim thrown into the river, the facts were inverted with Israelis presented as aggressors.

West Midlands police repeated their claims to the Home Affairs Committee Chairman on Friday and refused to answer specific questions from The Sunday Times or to justify their claims, so will the Minister ensure the publication of all intelligence material relating to the ban? It is mostly not sensitive; it can be redacted where necessary. Will lists of individuals and organisations consulted by West Midlands police and the safety advisory group and all those who submitted evidence be published? Can the Minister confirm that no organisations linked to the Muslim Brotherhood or subject to Government non-engagement participated? Will she confirm that Hind Rajab Foundation submitted a paper and that this was accepted by West Midlands police?

What intelligence was shared by West Midlands police with the United Kingdom football policing unit and the National Police Chiefs’ Council? Which information was given to Home Office Ministers and officials, and when? Officials were told about the options under consideration on 2 October, two weeks before the ban was announced, so what did Ministers do in the intervening period?

Under pressure from Islamist agitators, local politicians and thugs, an English police force is accused of fabricating intelligence and misleading the public. This could hardly be more serious. We need Ministers to hold the chief constable to account and give the country the truth.

[Sarah Jones]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. I know that he understands the principle of police operational independence, and that we need to ensure that we reflect that correctly when such decisions are taken. Stepping back, there are wider lessons that we need to learn, which is why the Home Secretary has written to the inspector to ask him to look at how the SAG process occurs and how the group makes decisions. Members will know that the SAG process was set up following the Hillsborough tragedy as a means by which we can make decisions and secure safety at football matches and other large-scale events.

The Home Secretary has asked the inspector to consider the degree to which the police take into account intelligence and the degree to which the SAG process takes into account wider community impacts. That speaks to the hon. Gentleman’s question, which I cannot answer now, about who was giving the information and on what basis the police were making their recommendations. The review will look at whether the balance of those factors is being struck correctly, and I hope we will come back through that process. We wrote to the inspector at the end of October to ask him to undertake the work. We have asked him to provide his initial conclusions by March next year and made funding available for the additional inspection.

On the specific chronology of events, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that Home Office officials asked the United Kingdom football policing unit for an update on the match on 2 October. They were told that force gold was considering and it would go to the SAG for decisions, and several different available options were laid out at that time.

I have written to the chief constable of West Midlands police to ask for clarity following yesterday’s newspaper article. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I cannot tell him about the truth of those claims—it is a newspaper article and we want to get to the bottom of it—but there are questions within it that we need to understand. I have written to the chief constable to answer those questions. I am happy to share more information as I get it, and the Home Affairs Committee has already taken a lead in asking West Midlands police some of those questions.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

As a local MP, I have previously expressed my concerns about the decision-making process. I welcome the Minister’s commitment today that a review is being carried out about how such risk assessments are made. I understand why some information may not be suitable for placing in the public domain, but can the Minister assure the House that the Government’s view is that as much information as possible should be made available for public scrutiny?

[Sarah Jones]

Of course we want to ensure that as much information as possible is in the public domain. We do not yet know the truth about some of the statements in yesterday’s article and we need to get to the bottom of that. I know that Members of the House will be very interested in hearing about where the inspector gets to in his work, as well as ensuring that we have answers to the questions that Members are raising today.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

Last month, Maccabi Tel Aviv fans were banned under the threat of antisemitic mob violence and a highly politicised anti-Israel campaign. Let me be clear: we must never allow the threat of mob violence to dictate policy. West Midlands police cited concerns about the Tel Aviv fans based on a previous game in Amsterdam, but the Dutch police have now shown that those concerns were completely false. There was no mob of 500 fans targeting the Muslim community in Amsterdam. In fact, many Maccabi fans were themselves attacked. Nobody was thrown in a river, apart from one Maccabi fan. The Maccabi fans were not skilled and organised fighters; that was just made up. What will the Government do to hold West Midlands police to account for providing that false information? Unless they have a good explanation, the chief constable should resign.

Disturbingly, two members of the safety advisory group, Waseem Zaffar and Mumtaz Hussain, both previously expressed vehement anti-Israel views, so they were not impartial. We have seen the Palestine solidarity campaign in Birmingham trying to hunt down Maccabi players before the game—that is despicable. When my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) went to the game, he was abused and called a “dog” by pro-Palestine protesters, thereby revealing their true colours.

We have now discovered through a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich and Evesham (Nigel Huddleston) that the Home Office was made aware of the possibility of the ban as early as 2 October—a full two weeks before the decision was taken. Why did the Home Office then do nothing to ensure that Maccabi fans could be properly protected? Do the Government really think it is acceptable that the threat of antisemitic mob violence can dictate policy? That is morally wrong and should never be allowed to happen in this country.

[Sarah Jones]

I agree entirely with the shadow Home Secretary that we should not allow the threat of mob violence to stop matches going ahead. With respect, I think that he is jumping the gun a bit with some of the phrases he has used, saying that it was “just made up”. We are not clear on that at this point, and I do not want this House to take what was in the newspaper yesterday and jump to conclusions. That is not to say that we do not want to get to the bottom of what happened; I can reassure hon. Members of that.

Antisemitism has absolutely no place in our society, and we are taking a strong lead in tackling it in all its forms. The Prime Minister made his view about the decision on this match very clear, as did the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she came to this place to speak of it in previous weeks.

We have a duty to find the right balance between operational independence and ensuring that all our communities are protected in exactly the way that we need them to be. Lots of hon. Members here will know of the work of lots of Jewish organisations, in particular the Community Security Trust, which help us in that task. We will not shy away from that or from what we need to do.

As I said, the SAG process was set up following Hillsborough for a different purpose, and we find ourselves in a different world with a different set of situations. If changes to the SAG process are needed, we will make them.

As I also said, I have written to the chief constable of West Midlands police to ask some questions of him, and we have asked the inspector to conduct a review. The Home Secretary is right—[Interruption.] The shadow Home Secretary is right—

[Chris Philp]

It is only a matter of time!

[Sarah Jones]

I think not, but there we are. He is my constituency neighbour in Croydon, so best wishes to him always.

The 2 October was the point at which the Home Office asked officials in the United Kingdom football policing unit for the update, and we were told that a range of different options were being considered. That is certainly true, and I will not shy away from that. It is now important we ensure that where there are lessons to be learned, we learn them.

[Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

At high-risk football matches, including several local derbies, away fans have been given tickets only once they are on the coaches. Those buses have been taken in by a police escort, removing any fan clashes. Does the Minister agree that questions should be asked about why that tried and tested method was not used?

[Sarah Jones]

The SAG looked at lots of considerations in terms of what the options were. Should it have been a closed match, for example, with no fans? That sometimes happens. Should the match not have gone ahead at all? As my hon. Friend says, should it have been a match with a limited number of tickets? Many options were being weighed up, but a SAG will not just look at the policing advice when it makes its recommendation; it will also look at other factors. That is why we want to get to the heart of how the SAG process is working, what kinds of decisions are being made and how it operates.

I should also tell the House that although there was concern that there would be problems at the match itself, with significant protest and different groups coming to the match, those concerns were not realised, which was a good thing. However, I certainly take my hon. Friend’s point.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

It is alarming that the decision made by West Midlands police was based on intelligence parts of which the Netherlands national police force has stated is not true, according to reports in the national press this weekend. The public should be able to trust the authorities to base decisions on credible, well-sourced and proportionate intelligence. Will the Minister set out where this intelligence came from, if not the Dutch police, and if she cannot, is that one of the questions she is asking West Midlands police? Who was ultimately responsible for sourcing that intelligence? What investigations has the Home Office asked for to ensure that any circulation of misinformation and the use of that misinformation by police was not prompted by antisemitic sentiment?

West Midlands police have continued to defend their decision, and to say that the threat was related to a specific sub-group of fans, not the wider fanbase. Will the Home Secretary ensure that senior West Midlands police officers come back to Parliament to appear before the Home Affairs Select Committee, to defend their decision and explain why a total ban on all supporters was justified? Finally, with antisemitic incidents remaining at record highs, what steps are the Government taking to reassure the Jewish community of their safety and tackle the root causes of antisemitism? This Government promised a community cohesion strategy last year following the Southport attacks. Part of that strategy must focus on anti-Jewish racism, so when will the Minister commit to publishing it?

[Sarah Jones]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. At this point, I cannot give him the answers he wants about intelligence—the root of it and the truth of it. We are responding simply to the information that we got yesterday, and we have asked the appropriate questions to get to the bottom of that. He is right to say that the Home Affairs Select Committee has a strong role in this space, and can be quite helpful in helping us to unpick some of these challenges.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the support and signals that we as a Government are sending, and intend to send, to our Jewish communities to reassure them that we take their safety incredibly seriously. I can reassure him that I have met Jewish community leaders, including the Community Security Trust, as has the Home Secretary. As a response to the Manchester attack, we are making more funding available for our Jewish synagogues and other buildings. We have also commissioned an independent review of our public order and hate crime legislation, and Lord Macdonald of River Glaven KC— a former Director of Public Prosecutions who is well known to this House—has been appointed to carry out that review. It will examine whether the existing legislation within the wider parameters of public order and protest is effective and proportionate; whether it adequately protects communities from intimidation and hate; and whether it strikes a fair and sustainable balance between the freedom of expression and peaceful protest and the need to prevent disorder and keep our communities safe.

The hon. Gentleman also referred to the wider review that is being undertaken. That work is not being done within my Department, but we are working with the relevant Department on it, and the review will be published as soon as it is ready.

[Joani Reid (East Kilbride and Strathaven) (Lab)]

As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group against antisemitism, I know that with British Jewish communities facing an unprecedented rise in antisemitic attacks and hatred of Jews being spread with impunity online, many Jews are fearful that the events in Birmingham are just the first step towards excluding them from British public life. There can be no doubt that there are many people in this country who would be only too happy for that to happen. Is the Minister able to take this opportunity to make clear to Israelis coming to the UK to take part in our cultural, sporting and academic activities that they will be treated just as we treat any other visitor coming from any other friendly country?

[Sarah Jones]

I can definitely give my hon. Friend that assurance—she is absolutely right, and I thank her for the work she is doing as chair of the all-party parliamentary group against antisemitism. I have been involved with that group and with Danny Stone for many years; they do a fantastic job, and I recommend that all Members of Parliament do their training session on antisemitism—it is incredibly insightful and really worth investing the time in. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If Israelis want to come here, they are very welcome, and there should be no question about that. Through the reviews that we are undertaking on public order and through the work we are doing to put money in to tackle antisemitism and to protect our Jewish friends in synagogues and other places, we hopefully will be sending the right message. There will always be extra work to do, because antisemitism is a rising issue and we all need to work to tackle it.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.

[Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

Will the Minister provide any information about the work done by the Home Office from the point that it found out that the away fans may be banned to when the decision was taken—or was the work that could be done to enable the match to go ahead with the away fans there done only after the decision had been taken?

[Sarah Jones]

There were a series of different interactions and communications between the different groups in that period, as Members would expect. There is a balance to be struck with the operational independence question, and we need to get that right; it is not for the Home Secretary to march in and demand that the police say a certain thing or act a certain way. There were communications—I am sure we could help by outlining them—between the period of 2 October, when the Home Office first asked the question of the United Kingdom football policing unit, and 16 October, when the decision was made. To be clear, the Department found out about the decision when it broke on the news; we were not told in advance.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)]

Our police forces in this country have dealt with violent fans from other countries for a long time. I do not expect my hon. Friend to be familiar with the Bad Blue Boys of Dinamo Zagreb—probably the worst fans in Europe, responsible for deaths and imprisonments—or the ultras of Roma, Inter Milan or Lazio, but they have been dealt with. The only conclusion I can draw from the information before us is that the West Midlands police and the local authorities in Birmingham, following fictions about the fans of Maccabi Tel Aviv, created a no-go zone for Jews in one of our major cities. Is she, like me, ashamed of that?

[Sarah Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for the work that he did supporting colleagues and his constituents after the Manchester attack. He is right to point to the 1980s, when we had a completely different era of huge violence in football. We are very glad that that has, in the main, subsided. He says that there should be no no-go areas for Jews. That is absolutely right; I completely agree with him.

[Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

The Minister knows the Birmingham and Sutton Coldfield area well, so she will understand why so many of us locally are deeply troubled by this unpleasant episode. The initial decision to ban the Israeli fans was clearly wrong, and that is compounded by the information that has now come to light. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) on securing this urgent question. Birmingham is a welcoming and tolerant city, and community relations in Britain’s second city are truly excellent. That is not because of the politicians, but because of the work that faith communities have done over many years.

[Sarah Jones]

The right hon. Member is right. I am very familiar with Sutton Coldfield—and my husband is a Villa season ticket holder, as are my twin boys. It is in some ways the bane of my life, because I never see them as they are always at Villa. It is worth saying that Villa fans are lovely and it is a lovely club. They are devastated that there would be any of this controversy. They just want to play football, watch football, support football, support their players and get on with it. Having talked to lots of them, I know that they have found the whole thing upsetting. They just want to watch the football.

As the right hon. Gentleman says, Birmingham is a great city. I pay tribute to the faith communities in his area and, I suspect, in many of our constituencies where the Faiths Together groups meet and bring different leaders together to ensure that we are all learning from each other and living side by side in peace.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

According to the response to the Home Affairs Committee by the West Midlands police and crime commissioner, the Home Office was fully briefed in advance on the likely recommendation to ban visiting fans from the match, so can the Minister explain why the Government failed to offer additional support for the match to go ahead until after the ban was finalised?

[Sarah Jones]

We were not fully briefed in advance of the decision; we were told when the decision was made. As we have already said, we knew that options were being considered. This is the way in which these processes work: a safety advisory group makes recommendations, and the local authority responds accordingly. In response to what has happened, we are asking the inspector to look at the safety advisory groups and tell us whether we need to make some changes.

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

As vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group against antisemitism, I can attest to the fact that many British Jews do not feel safe, especially in Birmingham. I take the Minister at her word that she takes this very seriously. When I stood up and spoke about the issue, I received torrents of abuse for doing so, but I did so because I thought it was clear that the decision was wrong: it was bad for the people of the west midlands, bad for Aston Villa fans, bad for British Muslims—some of whom wrote to me expressing concern that they had been dragged into it—and, of course, terrible for British Jews.

The Minister said that she could not comment on the evidence having been made up. Has she read the Dutch report, does she knowledge that the stories over the weekend have further upset British Jews, and will she ensure that West Midlands police are held to account?

[Sarah Jones]

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there are Jews in this country who do not feel safe. In Croydon we have a small community who visit a synagogue very close to my house, and I have spoken to them many times about how they feel. It is true that people do not want to go into central London at weekends, which should be completely unacceptable to all of us. We are reviewing the public order legislation to establish how we can balance people’s right to express their views and protest in a way that is appropriate with the reality of the impact that that has had over quite a long period.

I am aware of the matters that the hon. Gentleman has raised about the information. I have written to West Midlands police to ask them a series of questions, and I do not want to comment until I have those responses. I know that the Home Affairs Committee has written to them as well.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

As a west midlands MP, I find this deeply troubling. There are clearly questions that need to be answered. Specifically, in the light of the significant inaccuracies that have now been confirmed by Dutch law enforcement, does the Minister agree that there are also questions that should be asked of the political leadership in the west midlands and, in particular, the police and crime commissioner, who—however we look at it—is supposed to be representing our communities?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

I am not going to make a slightly political point about the right hon. Lady’s decision to attack the police and crime commissioner; I think that he does a good job and has served well for many years. As for the wider point that she made, as a west midlands MP, about what has happened and what it means, I absolutely share her concern.

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that the information that came to light over the weekend seems to suggest that a very worrying bias has entered the decision-making process, and that this has cast a stain on Birmingham’s reputation as a welcoming city as well as raising serious questions about the senior leadership of West Midlands police ?

[Sarah Jones]

I am not going to draw that conclusion today, but the hon. Gentleman can be assured that I am going to ensure that we get to the bottom of yesterday’s reporting and what happened. We often ask the police to make decisions that are almost impossible, and—here I am setting aside this particular case—we ask them to police protests in such a way that we are almost asking them to make political decisions on a day-to-day basis, which is very difficult for them. I should pay tribute to the many excellent public order police officers, who are very well trained and who work in such difficult circumstances. We ask a great deal of them, and I am grateful for the work that they do.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

After the incident with Maccabi Tel Aviv fans in Amsterdam, the Government’s independent assessor on antisemitism, Lord Mann, visited the city, did a fact-finding mission and compiled a report. It was passed to the Government in January, and to the Government and the police again in June. Can the Minister tell us what consideration, if any, was given to this report in the decision making?

[Sarah Jones]

I would very much like to talk to Lord Mann about the work that he has done, which was prior to me being in post. I will pick that up.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

Let us cut to the chase: Jew hatred in this country has been on the rise for over a decade. It was given a safe space in the past, and that has grown. I have a significant Jewish population in my constituency, who will tell you that Leeds sometimes feels like a really threatening place because of the protests. But the reality is that the protests that take place are okay under freedom of speech, which I support, as long as they do not break the law.

These fans were not breaking the law, and they should have been allowed to go to the match, but it appears that there were people—for example, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) outlined, in the safety advisory group—who had a biased intent. Will the Government start to analyse and audit these groups, which are supposed to be independent? We have seen bias at the BBC and a rise in antisemitic language and incidents in the NHS—which, despite the Health Secretary saying they are unacceptable, the General Medical Council clears. It is reported that 51% of students in Russell Group universities feel that it is okay to insult Jews. Can there please be a root-and-branch review from the Government to make sure that bodies are truly independent and are not hiding their blatant antisemitism?

[Sarah Jones]

To the right hon. Gentleman’s first point, the Prime Minister’s view was very clear: the wrong decision was made. That is our position. We believe that the decision made was the wrong one.

On the safety advisory groups, we have asked the inspector to look at them, their role and their function. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman is right to point out that across all our public bodies, we need to stamp out antisemitism in all its forms, wherever we find it and wherever we see it. I will certainly support him in that.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Confidence in the police is very important, and the Jewish community have every justification for not being confident in the police—whether it is some of the policing we have seen here in London or in the west midlands. Given that the reports in The Sunday Times seem to contradict totally what the police in the west midlands said, is it not accurate to say that their recommendations on which Israeli fans were to be banned from the Aston Villa match were nothing but a tissue of lies? If they had really wanted accurate information, would they, as experienced investigators, not just have lifted the phone or sent an email to the police in Amsterdam to find out the facts about the match that occurred there?

It appears that the West Midlands police have given in to pressure from Muslim politicians and Muslim thugs. As a result, the Jewish community are once again left feeling that they are the disadvantaged people. Will the Minister assure us that the inquiry will look very clearly at what political pressure was put on the police in the west midlands to reach their decision?

[Sarah Jones]

The right hon. Member is right to say that confidence in policing is incredibly important. We need that confidence across all our communities, and we know that there is a lot of work to do in some areas in particular. I am not going to comment on what appears to be the case, but I can reassure him that, as I have said, the Prime Minister believes it was the wrong decision in the first place. We want to understand what happened, and we want to take a wider look at the safety advisory groups, which, as I said, were set up in response to a problem of safety within our football venues. We recognise that things have moved on, and we need to look at whether the SAGs are working in the way that they should be.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

It sounds as though the Minister is getting to grips with this, and I am very grateful for that. Will she accept that the counterpart or corollary of operational independence for the police is their political impartiality, and does she agree with me that the last thing we want is a poisonous cocktail of football hooliganism infected by the hatreds arising out of the middle eastern conflict?

[Sarah Jones]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to talk about political impartiality. It is absolutely crucial that our police are not making decisions based on politics. We ask them every day to almost do that, even though we are very clear that they must not. It is difficult and complicated, and when they are policing—for example, in London or our big cities—protests with multiple causes, and protests in response to events around the world that are deeply interesting to a lot of citizens of this country, we do ask a lot of them. We need to appreciate that, in the vast majority of cases, they make the right call, and they also do things behind closed doors that we do not see. For example, there is lots of negotiation with lots of protest organisations about changing the route of a protest, and making sure that it is moving in the right way to avoid more conflict. In the main, they do a very good job, but we need to make sure that we get to the bottom of this case.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

This whole sorry episode will have had a very corrosive effect on the confidence and trust that the Jewish community places in policing. What will the Government do to ensure that confidence is restored in the long term? Whether we are talking about this instance at Villa Park, or disorder following pro-Palestinian marches, can the Minister tell me and the House why, far too often, the Jewish community is made to feel that it is the problem?

[Sarah Jones]

The hon. Member raises a good question. Of course, we need to work with the Jewish community to make sure that relationships with police are strong. The Community Security Trust has a really good relationship with police. It works very closely with them, and it obviously has a huge infrastructure, for which we are very grateful, that helps it to monitor synagogues and other spaces. As probably many Members have done, I have been to its head office and seen the work that it does. Indeed, it has a police officer embedded in the operations centre some of the time. Those relationships are good, but the wider Jewish community of course needs to feel that it can go to the police and report crimes. I would encourage all members of that community to do so whenever they are affected by any kind of hate crime, so that we can make sure that the figures are accurate. I will of course keep working to make sure that we get this right.

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

The whole House recognises the challenge posed by football hooliganism, but anyone with the slightest knowledge of football would accept that this hooliganism is restricted to a very small minority of fans of clubs and countries across the world. Will the Minister work with colleagues in the Home Office and police forces across the country to ensure that next time an Israeli club draws a British club in a European competition, or the Israeli national side draws one of the home nations in a qualifying competition—or, indeed, if Israel were to qualify for Euro 2028—those fans would be welcome in the United Kingdom to enjoy our football and our hospitality?

[Sarah Jones]

Of course, we want to ensure that all fans from all parts of the world are welcome in this country. The hon. Member is absolutely right to say that the problem of football hooliganism is nothing like what it was in the 1980s. There was a football match at Villa from which fans were banned in 2023, but I think that decision was made in response to activity in the immediate vicinity of the match. He is right to say that this is not a large problem any more—thank goodness—in part because of great policing, and in part because we have changed how football matches work. They are much more family affairs than they used to be, and there is less alcohol—all things that have helped us with these issues. He is right: we of course want to welcome Israeli fans, whenever they come.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister very much for her answers, and for the confidence that she is trying to instil across the nation. On the so-called confidential intelligence that West Midlands police claims to have seen about Israeli fans engaging in significant hooliganism, I am very concerned, as others are, about the message that sends about exclusion, and about how the Government deal with intelligence in this country. What steps have been taken to ensure that international football fans are treated fairly and are not excluded from events based on incorrect information and dishonest claims, and that lessons can be learned to prevent similar incidents in the future?

[Sarah Jones]

I agree with the premise of the hon. Gentleman’s question. Where we can, we want to ensure that intelligence is correct, that decisions are made on the basis of a wide range of factors, and that football, a sport that this country loves so much, carries on in the way that we all want it to.