Shabana Mahmood
MP for Birmingham Ladywood · Labour · United Kingdom
“I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. I know how deeply affected he and other parliamentarians who represent the local area have been by what has happened, and I pay tribute to their ability to give voice to what their communities are experiencing.”
“That will build on existing operations, including the “clear, hold, build” approach, which is tough both on serious crime and on the causes of serious crime, and has been shown to work across the country.”
“It is a reactive process, in the sense that they are responding to content being flagged—it has then, for the most part, been removed from their platforms—but from the middle of next year there will be a duty on those platforms to act proactively, not just reactively. However, as I have said to the hon.”
“People should be in no doubt that any attempt to instigate public disorder or to break our laws will be met with the full force of the law, and the Government will support the police as they carry out that incredibly important work.”
“We have increased funding for policing by £2 billion since being elected, and all forces will receive a real-terms uplift in their funding this year as part of an overall £18.5 billion package. Funding to Cleveland has increased by £18.3 million since 2024, and that is a real-terms increase of 4.4% over two years.”
“That is being provided, but the Policing Minister will continue to talk to the chief constable and others to ensure that our officers are being supported and looked after. I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend on the need for fundamental change in the way that we do the funding formula for policing.”
The complete record
Every one of 601 lines we hold for Shabana Mahmood, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 13.
“As Sir Andy says, the shortcomings detailed in his report are “symptomatic of a force not applying the necessary strategic oversight and not paying enough attention to important matters of detail, including at the most senior levels.” The ultimate responsibility for the force’s failure to discharge its duties on a matter of such national importance rests with the chief constable. It is for that reason that I must declare today that the chief constable of West Midlands police no longer has my confidence. It has been, as I understand it, over 20 years since a Home Secretary last made such a statement, but on the evidence provided by Sir Andy Cooke, the chief inspector of policing, that is now the case.”
“Sir Andy’s report does not argue that the entire force is failing, but it is clear from the report that on an issue of huge significance to the Jewish community in this country, and to us all, we have witnessed a failure of leadership that has harmed the reputation of and eroded public confidence in West Midlands police, and policing more broadly. Faced with a game of such importance, the chief constable of the force, Craig Guildford, should have ensured that more professional and thorough work was done.”
“He shows that the police overstated the threat posed by the Maccabi Tel Aviv fans, while understating the risk posed to Israeli fans if they travelled to the area. The term “misleading communications” also extends to the words of the chief constable himself at his appearance in front of the Home Affairs Committee; he claimed that artificial intelligence tools were not used to prepare intelligence reports—a claim since refuted by one of his own officers, who blames incorrect evidence on “an AI hallucination”. I know better than most that West Midlands police officers do their duty bravely, day in and day out.”
“The summary provided as evidence to the safety advisory group ahead of its crucial meeting on 24 October was inaccurate. Claims including those about the number of police officers deployed, the links between fans and the Israel Defence Forces, the targeting of Muslim communities, the mass tearing down of Palestinian flags, and attacks on police officers and taxi drivers were all either exaggerated or simply untrue. In his report, Sir Andy is clear that the force’s validation of intelligence was a cause for “significant concern”, and that record keeping within the force was “poor”. He was “especially concerned” about the handling of sensitive information that should never have been shared without redaction. Sir Andy also points to a series of public statements from West Midlands police that we now know to have been misleading.”
“As Sir Andy says, it is no excuse to claim, as the force now does, that high holy days during the relevant time prevented engagement. Most concerningly, Sir Andy describes, in the approach taken by West Midlands police, what he characterises as “confirmation bias”. This means that rather than following the evidence, the force sought only evidence to support their desired position, which was to ban the fans. This saw West Midlands police speaking to Dutch police following a game in which there had been fan violence, while failing to speak to police in other countries—Greece, Ukraine and Denmark—where Maccabi Tel Aviv had played more recently, and where things had gone more peacefully. The West Midlands police engagement with the Dutch police is one of the most disquieting elements of Sir Andy’s report.”
“In the days that followed, it was clear to me that an external review of the decision was required, as well as a review of wider questions around safety advisory groups. On 31 October, I commissioned a rapid review by His Majesty’s inspector of constabulary and fire and rescue services, Sir Andy Cooke, and on 27 November, as the intelligence that the force provided was called into doubt, I asked him to look specifically at that issue. Today, I have received Sir Andy’s interim report, and a copy has been placed in the Library of the House. Sir Andy’s findings are damning—there is no other way to describe them. The force, we now discover, conducted little engagement with the Jewish community, and none with the Jewish community in Birmingham, before a decision was taken.”
“This came, lest we ever forget, just two weeks after the most horrific antisemitic terrorist attack this country has ever known. On 16 October, the day the decision was taken, the Prime Minister and I both voiced our considerable concern, setting out our belief that the game should go ahead with all fans present. The Government sought further information from West Midlands police and offered the resources required to ensure that the game could go ahead. A subsequent meeting of the safety advisory group was then arranged, on 24 October. At that moment, its chair requested “a wholly fresh consideration of the issue”, at which point the intelligence provided by West Midlands police hardened, and the recommendation to ban fans was upheld.”
“As the minutes of the meeting show, a ban on fans was one of the options under consideration. Such policing decisions are subject to operational independence. Politicians cannot dictate how the police choose to manage risk, so although my Department sought information thereafter on what decision was to be taken, I did not seek to influence it. I did not because I could not while a range of options were still under consideration. All options remained on the table until a decision was eventually taken by the safety advisory group on 16 October. The decision taken that day to ban the travelling fans was clearly of considerable national and even international importance. Maccabi Tel Aviv fans who sought to travel to this country to enjoy a football match were told that they could not, because the game’s safety could not be guaranteed.”
“With permission, I will make a statement on the decision to ban the travelling fans of Maccabi Tel Aviv from attending a game at Villa Park in November last year. The decision was taken by Birmingham city council, following the advice of the safety advisory group, which acted on a recommendation by West Midlands police. The House will be familiar with much of the detail, not least as the Home Affairs Committee has applied itself to the matter with its customary forensic focus, but it is important to begin this statement by laying out the facts. On 8 October, at a meeting with a number of chief constables from across the country, I was informed that West Midlands police force was considering its options to ensure the game could be conducted safely.”
“Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) drafted and approved them when he advised the former Home Secretary, Baroness May, so he will be aware of what is in them. They say: “The Secretary of State does not have power to direct a police and crime commissioner to suspend or remove a chief constable.” That is the law passed by the previous Conservative Government.”
“Let me first say to the shadow Home Secretary that I have long and very personal experience of standing up to extremists in Birmingham, not least in the last general election campaign. I think my track record speaks for itself, and I am a woman who knows of what she speaks—clearly unlike him. He appears to be unfamiliar with the law, and indeed with Sir Andy’s findings in his report. Let me remind him of a few things. First, it was the Conservative Government who removed the Home Secretary’s direct power to remove a chief constable. That power used to be in section 42 of the Police Act 1996, but it was repealed by the Conservatives; the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 explicitly removed the power. I will quote from the explanatory notes to that Act. I suspect that the hon.”
“The next thing that we or anybody else knew about it was when the decision was taken on 16 October. It is important that all hon. Members stick to the facts on this matter. As Sir Andy has made clear in his factual findings in his report, there will be those who wish to play politics with this matter, but I am afraid that does not meet the test of evidence as set out in the report. I recommend that the shadow Home Secretary pays some attention to the detail.”
“The chief constable did not say to me, or indeed to anybody else in that room, that West Midlands police had already made the decision to reduce the allocation of tickets for Maccabi Tel Aviv fans to zero but that it was ultimately a decision for the safety advisory group when it next met—that is categorically untrue. If that had been the case, given the seniority of everybody who was in the room and heard what was said, that would have elicited a reaction not just from me and my officials but from many of the other senior policing officials present. What was made clear to me was that the ban was a possibility but it was one of a number of options being considered. As late as 15 October, the football policing unit made it clear to Home Office officials and the Policing and Crime Minister that all options were still on the table.”
“Let me give the House a bit of context. That was a meeting of police chiefs that I called following the attack in Manchester on 2 October. I had already announced that I was going to look at police protest powers and I had asked the most senior chief constables in the land, the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the College of Policing and, indeed, Sir Andy Cooke to attend a meeting with me. Towards the end of that meeting, we did some horizon scanning of other difficult decisions coming up that might have public order consequences, and this was one such matter. It was mentioned briefly by the chief constable, and his recollection of it is absolutely untrue.”
“If the shadow Home Secretary made himself familiar with how the law is to be interpreted and implemented, he would well know that section 40 of the 1996 Act, which remains in force following the 2011 Act, cannot be read in isolation. When such matters are litigated before a court, a court would be aware of the direct powers removed by the repealing of section 42—we cannot read the two sections in isolation. If he paid any attention to the detail, he would know that, and he would know that the Home Secretary does not have the power that he claims I have. Secondly, I suggest that the shadow Home Secretary and other hon. Members, in their own interests, pay attention to what Sir Andy has written in his report of today. On page 11 he deals with what the chief constable has suggested was the reading of the meeting that took place on 8 October.”
“On the use of artificial intelligence by police forces, I will be returning to these matters when I publish—I will come to the House to make a statement—the policing reform White Paper. This is important because AI is an incredibly powerful tool that can and should be used by our police forces, but regulating it to make sure it is always accurate is a matter of legitimate concern to us all, and I will be saying more about that in due course.”
“On the IOPC, I expect that the police and crime commissioner will consider his position on this matter and approach the IOPC if he deems it necessary, but that is a judgment for him. I also expect the IOPC to consider whether these findings mean that it should use its own power of initiative to conduct an investigation. The hon. Member will know that it is independent, and it would be improper for me to seek to direct it in any way, but it does have those powers and I believe it has already indicated that it will consider the position again, once it has had a chance to absorb the findings of Sir Andy’s report. I agree with the hon. Member that this case proves why we need a duty of candour on all public officials, and I look forward to the Hillsborough law becoming an Act of Parliament at the earliest opportunity.”
“I thank the Lib Dem spokesperson for his remarks. I have, as a matter of courtesy, informed the police and crime commissioner in advance of making this statement that I would be saying that I do not have confidence in the chief constable of West Midlands police. I have also reiterated and made it clear that any statutory process, and any decision under the statutory process on further action against the chief constable, would be a matter for the police and crime commissioner himself. He must consider that on his own terms, and I am sure that he will be making his own statement once he has had a chance to absorb the findings of Sir Andy’s report. Given that there could be a statutory process, I will not be commenting on what may or may not be happening, in order to respect the independence and integrity of any future decisions.”
“Having commissioned Sir Andy to investigate these matters, I think it is important that we reflect on his findings. He found that there was no evidence that police officers were motivated either by antisemitism or as a result of political interference, or were otherwise behaving with malign intent. It is important that I follow those findings from the independent inspector and act accordingly.”
“I will tell him what every Brummie, and indeed every citizen of our great country, needs and deserves: that when the police carry out a risk assessment, we can trust it and rely on it, and that they will always be open and frank about what is really going on. That is not what happened in this case, but it is what we all should expect and deserve, whichever community we belong to. It is what we all need for our collective safety and for the cohesion of our country.”
“You would think that the hon. Member, who I believe used to be a barrister, might be more cognisant of the actual facts in this matter. I am responding to findings made by His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services—that is, the independent inspector of policing. It is a sad day for all those who believe that policing should occur without fear or favour. I would encourage him to read the letter from Sir Andy Cooke, published today, in detail and reflect on whether he believes that we as a country should be able to rely on and trust all information put out by the police. The hon. Member purports to speak for every Brummie in the city, but I think other Brummies in this Chamber know that is simply not the case.”
“My hon. Friend will know that it is not for me to make decisions on prosecutions. I am sure that the IOPC will consider all the findings made by Sir Andy Cooke and act upon them, once it has had a chance to make that assessment. The IOPC is independent and it would be inappropriate for me to say anything further from the Dispatch Box about what it, or indeed any other prosecutorial authority, might do. That is not a power that the Home Secretary has.”
“I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we will be pursuing the policy that I have set out, which is to abolish the post of police and crime commissioner. I will return to the House with a White Paper and will make an oral statement in the not-too-distant future, setting out what we consider to be the best mechanism for oversight of policing at local level, as well as a reset of where some of those powers sit and another reconsideration of the Home Secretary’s powers. I am sure that we will be discussing these matters in detail in the weeks to come. Sir Andy makes some of his own remarks in relation to the police and crime commissioner, but I think it is known that the commissioner was not briefed in the way that we might have expected on these matters.”
“It is why I set out what I have said about losing confidence in the chief constable and why I believe some powers for oversight of policing need to return to the Home Secretary directly.”
“I thank my hon. Friend and fellow Birmingham colleague for her question. That is exactly why I have made the statement I have, because I believe all of us in this country need to be able to trust the police when they come forward and say that they have risk assessed an upcoming event and come to a professional judgment as to whether the event can take place safely. We all need to be able to trust that they have gone about making that risk assessment in a way that is robust, consistent, in line with the law and, frankly, just plain old truthful. That is not what has happened in this case. It is why it has been debilitating to public confidence in policing in our great city and across our region, but also across the country.”
“I think all the conversations that have happened were set out by one of my officials and by the Policing Minister when they gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee. I am not aware of any other discussions, certainly not from the Home Office. I can write to the right hon. Member in case there were discussions in other Departments that might also have had an interest.”
“Sir Andy Cooke will return to the wider questions as to how safety advisory groups function, who is on them, the role they play and the way in which they should carry out their duties, so we will return to that part of my hon. Friend’s remarks in a later session in this House when the rest of Sir Andy’s report is completed and he makes his final findings on safety advisory groups. But I share his concern that it is incumbent on us to ensure that the arrangements we have in place are capable of delivering a dispassionate, fact-based finding as to what risk an event poses and that other political agendas are not brought into play when what we are talking about is the proper functioning of the cultural life of our country.”
“That is why it is so important that when the police carry out their duties, they follow the facts and that when they make their risk assessments, they do so on the basis of facts and their professional judgment as to whether something can go safely ahead. We all need to be able to trust the police when they assert what their risk assessment has told them. That has not happened here. Sir Andy will come back with further findings about the functioning of safety advisory groups. I am happy to discuss those with the hon. Member and others in this House, as well as wider policy measures that we will need to take as a Government and as a country to stamp out antisemitism once and for all.”
“Antisemitism is a terrible stain upon our country, and it is incumbent on all of us to work together to stamp it out wherever it occurs. Sir Andy’s findings, of course, do not suggest that anybody at the police force level acted because they were motivated by antisemitism or with malign intent, but it is undoubtedly the case that some individuals making representations to the police may well have been motivated by antisemitism. I also know others made, or wanted to make, good faith representations to the police about the fear of public disorder on the night, but some individuals will have been motivated by antisemitism.”
“I expect to receive Sir Andy’s further findings, particularly in relation to how safety advisory groups function and what changes we might need to make, within the next couple of months—no later than that. I will return to the House to enable all Members to take part in a debate once those findings are out. I agree with my hon. Friend—in the end, we are all safer when we know that we can rely on the police to do their job without fear or favour. We do none of our ethnic minority communities, or indeed any minority community of any description, any favours if we allow a suggestion to take hold that the police change their responses to things based on which community is involved. Everybody is safe when we know we can trust the police to follow the facts and do their jobs properly.”
“That is exactly what I am trying to achieve with protest powers and with wider thresholds in relation to the Public Order Act where I have asked for an independent review by Lord Ken Macdonald KC, which will report soon. My intention is to ensure that every citizen of our country knows when it comes to all matters of law and order that we are all on exactly the same footing, and that is right for all our citizens.”
“The incident of banning a Jewish Member of Parliament from the school is obviously disgraceful, and the right hon. Member will know that other senior members of the Government have already spoken out about this case. It is unacceptable. I hope he will see that the approach I have taken since I have been Home Secretary is to ensure that the law of our land is applied equally without fear or favour and in a consistent manner that gives every community across the country a sense of what they can expect from their local police, without feeling that they are in a postcode lottery and that it very much depends on the nature of the particular chief constable and the approach they take locally.”
“This matter has been of interest to all policing leaders across the country, and it is why I addressed the final remarks in my statement to policing leaders everywhere because it is important that we learn the lessons from this event, and I hope that everybody will hear that message loud and clear. Operational independence will always be respected, but we all as a country—every citizen and every one of us as parliamentarians and members of the Government—need to know that when the police make a risk assessment, we can trust that assessment and rely on it.”
“I direct the hon. Member to Sir Andy’s findings about what the police and crime commissioner knew—in fact, he was not kept up to date—but I am sure that once he has absorbed Sir Andy’s findings, he will set out himself what he thinks on these matters and what he intends to do next. It is not for me to put words into his mouth.”
“My hon. Friend makes that point very powerfully. That is why it is so important that all police forces always do everything they can to ensure that matters of great cultural and sporting significance in this country can go ahead safely, and that people are not prevented from going to and enjoying a game just because of who they are or their faith.”
“I will be saying more in just a few weeks’ time in the policing reform White Paper, which will set out the Government’s approach and expectations of the roll-out of AI to policing more broadly.”
“The contents of that letter have now been superseded by Sir Andy Cooke’s august report and findings. I hope that everybody who asserted that there was no problem here, and that everything worked exactly as it should, will now reflect on what they have said and done and give the rest of us confidence that these mistakes will not happen again. AI is an incredibly powerful tool and has a big role to play in assisting the police, particularly when it comes to sifting through evidence at speed and improving other productivity measures so that they can get on with the job of finding criminals and bringing them to justice. It is important that it is used accurately, does not lead to misleading statements, as we have seen in this case, and protects the validity of evidence, which ultimately has to be strong enough to hold up in a court of law.”
“I thank my fellow Birmingham Member of Parliament for his comments and questions. There is no broader finding of systemic failure in Sir Andy’s report. The failures that have been highlighted in the approach to evidence and the way in which the risk assessment was carried out relate to this specific event. He gave us no cause for concern about broader West Midlands police practice. However, I am sure that the police and crime commissioner and others, myself included, and all Birmingham MPs will want to assure themselves of the robustness of the procedures that the West Midlands police have in place. I am sure that we will return to these matters as this case develops further.”
“I am sure that he will have to ask questions about that. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is no conflict of interest simply because I have set out a view. It is important that I set out my view in the House, having commissioned a report from the independent inspector, but the police and crime commissioner is unfettered in how he approaches things. That is a matter for him, as I have made clear to him and as I am sure all his legal advice will tell him.”
“The right hon. Gentleman is right about community relations. Many people acting in bad faith and with malign intent across our country want to set Britain’s Muslims against Britain’s Jews. It is incumbent on all of us to ensure that we do not allow those efforts to succeed. On the police and the approach to community relations, I am clear that all of us, whoever we are and wherever we are in the country, must be able to rely on the police when they tell us that the foundation of their risk assessment is robust and secure. If we cannot trust the police on that, we have lost much more than just good and effective policing. The right hon. Gentleman will know that I do not want to comment from the Dispatch Box on what the police and crime commissioner might wish to do; that is a matter entirely for him. He will make that choice independently.”
“Let me assure my hon. Friend that all matters of community cohesion are under intense discussion across Government. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government has already set up a taskforce to deal with antisemitism. I am sure that the Prime Minister and I will have more to say in the coming weeks about how we might take a fresh approach, but this is a question for wider Government, because although the Home Office interest is in countering extremism, as it should be, our broader interest in community cohesion sits across the rest of Government. I can assure her that it is a cross-Government effort.”
“The hon. Gentleman will know that we do not generally use retrospectivity in our legal system, and to take such a step would be a new innovation. He should wait for the full proposals, which I will publish in the policing reform White Paper. The next decision—if a further decision is made—is for the police and crime commissioner. It would be completely wrong for me to try to influence, comment on or get ahead of that decision from the Dispatch Box. As we have discussed, the police and crime commissioner has those powers under the 2011 Act, and it will be for him to reflect on whether he wishes to use them.”
“I thank my hon. Friend for her point, which was well made, about the stain of antisemitism in our country and the breadth and depth of ways in which it presents itself. I am well aware of those problems and working hard to resolve them. A cross-Government effort is under way, and we will have more to say in due course. I assure her that, as Home Secretary, my duty is to ensure that our legal system—law and order, and policing—is robust enough to withstand attempts to frustrate or improperly influence that system. It is important to remember that Sir Andy Cooke did not find that antisemitism was a motivating factor for the police officers who made the decisions in this case—nor were they subject to improper political interference or acting with malign intent.”
“Let me reassure the right hon. Gentleman that the Government are taking action across a range of different Departments—Education, Health and the Home Office—to drive out antisemitism in every way it presents itself. I am particularly cognisant of the impact on our institutions and of how the democratic underpinning of our society can be overcome, frustrated and thwarted by antisemites undermining the very basis on which we run our country. I assure him that every effort is being made. As someone who has suffered racism and discrimination because of my faith and race background, I think I can speak for most ethnic minority people on the view that we generally take on these matters, which is that none of us is safe until all of us are safe. There has to be solidarity across our country and for every one of our communities.”
“If the system works well, local politicians can bring a local perspective with knowledge that only they have, but if that turns into an improper attempt to force their own political agenda, it cannot be tolerated. I hope that when Sir Andy publishes his findings, we will be able to return to where policy or legislative change is needed.”
“I thank my hon. Friend and other members of the Home Affairs Committee for their work on this and other matters. There are question marks over the way in which safety advisory groups function. As she remarks, there have been other incidents in which people have asked questions about how controversial decisions came to be made. That is why I asked Sir Andy to look more broadly at the functioning of safety advisory groups and to come to a view on their make-up, the transparency required of them, and the process by which they should make decisions. It is a little early to make determinations about whether any politician should be represented on those groups.”
“It was for him to set a culture in which all the risk assessments were done properly and where confirmation bias could not have taken hold, and it is he, of course, who made assertions and gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee in the way that he did. It is now for him to reflect on that; he may have things to say in the coming days. It is now for the police and crime commissioner to consider what further actions he might wish to take, including under his broader responsibilities to make sure that the force is functioning as it should.”
“I know Villa Park well because, until the general election, it fell within my constituency boundary. After the decision was made, the Government and I—through my officials—asked West Midlands police whether the match could be policed in other ways to enable it to go ahead. We were clear that banning fans is an extreme action and that, in the general run of things, we should want cultural events in our country to take place. I recognise the picture that the hon. Gentleman paints. The findings are damning, as many hon. Members have said. On the wider issue of other officers, I made the remarks today about the chief constable because he is the individual who leads the force. These events have happened on his watch.”
“I have set out in my statement what I think. Others will need to reflect on their positions and what further steps they might take. I agree with my hon. Friend, however, that the findings of Sir Andy Cooke’s report are damning and devastating, and once the bond of trust between a community and the police breaks for one community, it breaks for every community, which is why these findings are so serious and why I have had to say today what I have said about confidence in the chief constable.”
“It is why I stand by what I said in my statement: community relations in this country are not served by overstatements and understatements and by hiding the full picture in order to keep things calm; the truth is what helps us all to stay safe, and that is what the police should have held to in this case.”