Southport Attack

14:57:00

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement updating the House on the Government’s response to the Southport murders. The attack in Southport in July last year was one of the most appalling and barbaric crimes committed in this country. For young children and adults to be attacked in this way, and three young girls killed, is utterly heartbreaking. The Home Secretary and I would like to thank those people who showed great bravery in attempting to stop the attack. For this foul act of violence to happen while children were enjoying themselves at a dance class at the beginning of the school holidays is beyond comprehension. Our thoughts and prayers are with the families of the three girls, and with all those injured as they continue to live with the trauma of that dark day. No one should have to go through what they have, and we are steadfast in our commitment to ensuring that they get every possible support. Responsibility for this abhorrent attack lies with the perpetrator. Axel Rudakubana has been sentenced to life imprisonment. He will serve a minimum of 52 years in prison, and Mr Justice Goose said it is highly likely that he will never be released. When the Home Secretary addressed the House on this case last month, she outlined the multiple interactions that the perpetrator had with state bodies in the years before the attack. Those included police, social services and mental health services. There are serious questions about how various agencies failed to identify and collectively act on the warning signs. All those questions must be answered—we owe that to the families who deserve the truth about what went wrong. That is why the Government are committed to understanding and addressing the failings in this tragic case through a comprehensive public inquiry. It will examine the issues raised in this case, but also wider challenges around rising youth violence. We are moving swiftly to set up the inquiry. We will consult the families to ensure that all critical issues are addressed, while remaining sensitive to the needs of those most affected. We expect to announce further details about the inquiry next month. Although we do not pre-empt the conclusions of the inquiry, there are areas where action can and must be progressed immediately. Prevent is a vital part of our counter-terrorism system. We must endeavour to identify those susceptible to radicalisation early and before they go on to commit terrorist acts. Prevent receives nearly 7,000 referrals every year, and our hard-working frontline staff have supported nearly 5,000 people away from terrorism since 2015. We must get Prevent right. That is why the Home Office and counter-terrorism policing commissioned a rapid Prevent learning review immediately after the attack. These are usually internal technical reviews intended to identify swift learning and improvement for Prevent. However, the importance of the families needing answers has meant that today, following close engagement with them, we are taking the unusual step of publishing the Prevent learning review. I can update the House that the perpetrator was referred to Prevent three times between December 2019, when he was aged 13, and April 2021, when he was 14. Those referrals were made by his schools. The first referral reported concerns about him carrying a knife and searching for school shootings on the internet. The second referral was focused on his online activity relating to Libya and Gaddafi. His third referral was for searching for London bombings, the IRA and the Israel-Palestine conflict. On each of those occasions, the decision at the time was that the perpetrator should not progress to the Channel multi-agency process, but the Prevent learning review found that there was sufficient risk for the perpetrator to have been managed through Prevent. It found that the referral was closed prematurely and that there was sufficient concern to keep the case active while further information was collected. The review is clear on the concerning behaviours that the perpetrator demonstrated. It highlights his interest in the Manchester Arena attack and that he talked about stabbing people, and it flags that some of the grievances that could have been a motivation were not fully considered. The review also highlights the perpetrator’s clear vulnerabilities and complex needs, which may have made him more susceptible to being drawn into terrorism. The review concluded that too much focus was placed on the absence of a distinct ideology, to the detriment of considering the perpetrator’s susceptibility, grievances and complex needs. There was an under-exploration of the significance of his repeat referrals and the cumulative risk, including his history of violence. There were potentially incomplete lines of inquiry. At the time, the perpetrator could have fallen into a mixed, unclear or unstable category for Channel, due to his potential interest in mass violence. Indeed, the overall conclusion of the review is that he should have been case-managed through the Channel multi-agency process, rather than closed to Prevent. That would have enabled co-ordinated multi-agency risk management and support. The Prevent learning review made 14 recommendations for improvements to Prevent. We have accepted those findings and rapid action has been taken to implement the recommendations. Counter-terrorism policing has conducted in-depth assurance visits to every region to determine whether the issues identified in this case have been resolved by operational improvements made since 2021. Urgent work is underway to address the findings. The Prevent assessment framework was launched in September and is now in place across all regions. It was developed by experts and is being used to triage and risk-assess all Prevent referrals. It will improve decision making at all stages of the Prevent system. Roll-out of this tool has been accompanied by rigorous mandatory training. We have begun an end-to-end review of Prevent thresholds to ensure that Prevent can deal with the full range of threats we see today, from Islamist extremism, which is the most significant terrorist threat the UK faces, through to the fascination with mass violence we saw in the Southport case. This internal review will complete in April and further strengthen the approach to repeat referrals and ensure that clear policy, guidance and training are in place. We have completed the first stage of a policy review into how Prevent supports referrals who have mental ill-health or are neurodivergent. Actions for improving the operational approach have been identified and will be implemented swiftly, with oversight from the new Prevent commissioner. We are also strengthening our approach to the oversight of referrals that do not meet Prevent thresholds to make sure that people receive the right support. Next week, a pilot starts in several local areas to test new approaches to cases that are transferred to other services. The Government have appointed Lord Anderson as interim Prevent commissioner. This is the first time in its history that Prevent will have dedicated independent oversight. That will help ensure that Prevent is always held to the highest standards. Lord Anderson’s first task is to review the perpetrator’s Prevent history, drawing on the Prevent learning review. That will identify whether there is further learning, examine improvements made to Prevent since 2021 and identify any remaining gaps that require further improvement. He will complete the review within his term as interim commissioner, which will end with the appointment of a permanent commissioner this summer. However, it is simply not enough to focus only on this case. We need to take an even more robust approach to identifying learning swiftly and driving that learning through the Prevent system. The Prevent commissioner will be tasked with overseeing a new approach to Prevent learning reviews that enables rapid debriefing and urgent action after incidents, but also that provides a clear framework that binds other agencies into the joint learning process. Transparency and enabling public scrutiny are also fundamental. That is why we will take steps to publish the findings of other independent Prevent learning reviews where there has been an incident of national significance. Next week, we will publish the Prevent learning review into the appalling attack on Sir David Amess, to enable further public scrutiny of this important programme. The first duty of Government is to ensure the security of our country and the safety of our people, because nothing matters more. While we can never undo the hurt and pain caused by this unthinkably wretched attack, we can, we must and we will do everything in our power to prevent further atrocities. As the Prime Minister said, Southport must be “a line in the sand” for our country. If that means asking difficult questions about shortcomings or failures, so be it. If it means holding institutions and processes to account, we will do so without fear or favour. If changes are required to protect the public and combat the threats we face, this Government will not hesitate to act. I commend this statement to the House.

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

15:08:00

I thank the Security Minister for providing a copy of the statement so early, and for providing a copy of the rapid learning review. I am grateful to him for his courtesy and consideration. Let us keep in mind the three young innocent victims of this savage attack: Bebe King, just six years old; Elsie Dot Stancombe, who was seven; and Alice da Silva Aguiar, who was nine. Their lives were cruelly cut short at a Taylor Swift dance class. These young girls had their whole lives in front of them—lives they will now never lead. Their parents and families will suffer forever from the unimaginable grief caused by their loss. I know that they will be in the thoughts and prayers of every single Member of this House. As the Minister said, it is vital to learn the lessons. I welcome and support the inquiry announced by the Home Secretary a couple of weeks ago. The Security Minister described it a moment ago as a public inquiry. Will he confirm that it will be a statutory inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005? It is important that it has powers to compel witnesses to attend, take evidence under oath and obtain documents. It is vital that we get to the truth about the opportunities that may have existed to stop Rudakubana committing these sickening murders. I am pleased that the Security Minister said that Prevent thresholds are being reviewed. Page 35 of the lessons learned review highlights a number of areas for further investigation. The first of those is mental health interventions, which he referred to. Will he confirm that the inquiry will consider what mental health interventions may have taken place, and whether powers should have been used to section and detain the perpetrator in this case? That is particularly relevant because just today we saw the NHS report into the psychotic triple murderer Valdo Calocane, which raised similar mental health detention issues. Both Rudakubana and Calocane could have been sectioned and detained under the Mental Health Act. If that had happened, perhaps these murders could have been avoided. The Government announced the new mental health Bill in the King’s Speech. Pages 83 to 85 of the accompanying notes state that the Government have plans to increase the threshold for detention under the Mental Health Act—that is to say, make it harder to detain people. It goes on to note concerns about black people being more likely to be detained under mental health powers. Does the Security Minister share my worry, especially following these six murders committed by Rudakubana and Calocane, that making it harder to detain dangerous people under the Mental Health Act because of racial sensitivities is not the right thing to do? Will he raise that point with his colleagues in the Department of Health to ensure that dangerous people such as Calocane and Rudakubana can be sectioned and detained when that is needed to protect the public? I am sure that he would share my view that misplaced political correctness about racial quotas cannot be allowed to endanger the public. Let me say a word about wider concerns regarding Prevent. Does the Security Minister agree with William Shawcross that we cannot lose focus on the main threats that we face, besides the important threats that he discussed in his statement, with which I generally agree? Since 1999, 94% of terrorist-caused deaths have been caused by Islamists, yet only 13% of referrals to Prevent relate to Islamist extremists. Does the Security Minister share my concern about this disparity? What steps will he take to make sure that those at risk of committing acts of Islamist terrorism are properly identified and handled? Let me turn to the question of openness and transparency. In the aftermath of the murders, basic information about Rudakubana’s identity and the fact that he was found in possession of ricin and an al-Qaeda terrorist manual were not made public, even though in other cases such information has been made public. Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, has said that it should have been made public. The information about the ricin and the terror manual was made public in October, well before the trial and without risk of prejudice, and Merseyside Police has subsequently said that it wanted to release more information but could not do so. That created an information vacuum that was filled by untrue rumour, which arguably fuelled the subsequent riots. Will the Minister confirm that the inquiry into the Southport tragedy will cover communications to the public afterwards, and whether more should have been disclosed more quickly? That is a vital aspect of this case and the inquiry must cover it. I would be grateful if the Security Minister confirmed that it will.

I thank the shadow Home Secretary for his questions. He is absolutely right to focus our thoughts on the victims and the unimaginable pain that their families will continue to suffer. I am grateful for his support for the public inquiry. Let me confirm that it will begin on a non-statutory footing. That is deliberate, in order to get it up and moving as quickly as possible, but I can assure him that it will then be moved to a statutory footing. The right hon. Gentleman made an important point about mental health interventions, which will have been on the minds of hon. Members across the House. The inquiry’s precise terms of reference are still being agreed, because we need to agree and discuss that with the family members, but I understand why he has made that point and why he referenced the terrible attacks that took place in Nottingham. He may know that this Government are supporting an inquiry into those attacks. More generally, I assure him that we will always do what is necessary and right to safeguard the security and protection of the public. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned William Shawcross; as I have said from this Dispatch Box previously, we have now implemented 33 of the 34 recommendations of the Shawcross review. He also asked me about the review of Prevent thresholds, which the Home Secretary has referenced on a number of occasions. We are reviewing the thresholds—in short, because we think that they have been too low in previous times. That is why we are looking very carefully at them again. I understand why the right hon. Gentleman sought to make the point about transparency. The Home Secretary, myself, and all the Ministers in the Department and across Government, followed very carefully the guidance from the Crown Prosecution Service. I know that he will understand, as a former Minister in the Home Office, that our absolute priority was delivering justice for the victims. We could not have got ourselves into a situation where we put ourselves in contempt of court, which would have undermined the judicial process. Rightly, we would never have been forgiven for that. We were incredibly careful to ensure that we did not do that, while at the same time respecting the obvious requirement for transparency. The inability to answer certain questions in the aftermath of the attack did give rise to the questions asked at the time, and they require careful consideration. We will shortly confirm arrangements for independent expert analysis of these particular issues, because I understand why he raises them. I assure him that the one thing that we did not want to do was prejudice ongoing legal proceedings.

I thank the Minister for his statement, and his Department for the sensitive way in which the families were consulted prior to its publication; I have spoken with several of the people most intimately impacted over the last few days, and I know full well how much it is appreciated. Some of the details in the review beggar belief. I will mention just one. There were spelling mistakes in the Prevent database. Each time Rudakubana was referred to Prevent, his name was recorded with a different spelling. The review states that it is possible that previous referrals did not show up in searches. Can this House have confidence that, where such issues and training needs are identified, the recommendations of the review will be implemented rapidly to make sure that the failures of the Prevent programme between 2019 and 2024 are not repeated?

I thank my hon. Friend for the exceptional job that he has done representing his constituents and constituency through the darkest of days. I can give him the assurances that he seeks. The public inquiry will seek to get to the heart of the issues that he raised, but I can say to him and to the House that we will not hesitate to act in the meantime. It is vital that our response is joined up locally and nationally. The measures that the Home Secretary has announced and that I have reiterated today should ensure that that is the case, but we will not hesitate to act further if that is required.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. The events in Southport were horrifying—a brutal, senseless act of violence—and my thoughts, like those of others, remain with the families of Alice, Bebe and Elsie, whose lives were taken. We owe it to these three girls and to their families, friends and communities to ensure that an act of such hideous brutality is not allowed to be repeated. We should all be deeply troubled that warning signs were missed in the lead-up to the attack. The Liberal Democrats have long raised concerns about the failures of Prevent. We welcome the publishing of the Prevent learning review, and indeed the introduction of a dedicated Prevent commissioner to give an independent view, but would welcome any details from the Minister on the powers the commissioner will have to enforce improvements on the Prevent system—will the role be on a statutory footing, for example? More broadly, we must ensure that our national security strategy accounts for a wide range of threats. As this case has made clear, perpetrators may be motivated by a fascination with violence, but not a particular ideology, which may allow them to slip through the net. How will the Minister ensure that future strategies, both counter-terrorism and otherwise, are watertight to prevent such awful acts from happening again? Protecting communities must be at the centre of this approach, so what is being done to reassure the public that they remain safe from these threats? What will be done to ensure that incidents of this type are not exploited by extremist groups? The Minister is right to say this must be a line in the sand, but it must also be a turning point. We owe it to the victims and their families to ensure that the failures that led to this tragedy are not repeated.

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the constructive tone of her remarks. She asked about the independent Prevent commissioner. We have appointed Lord Anderson on an interim basis, ahead of a permanent appointment this summer, and we will work closely with him to establish the role. He has unique experience and is hugely respected across this House and in the other place, and I am confident that he will do what needs to be done to provide the assurances that hon. Members are looking for. The hon. Lady made an interesting point about seeking to ensure that the national security apparatus that keeps the public safe is watertight. The assurance that I can give her—I hope this also provides some reassurance to the public, which was her next point—is that we are fortunate in this country to have extraordinary men and women serving in our national security agencies, operational partners, police and across Government who work tirelessly to keep the public safe. I hope that she, and the whole House, can find some reassurance in the commitment of this Government and all those who work tirelessly to keep the public safe. It is our No. 1 priority, and we will use every tool at our disposal to do so.

I thank the Minister for his statement. It makes me deeply angry to listen to the litany of errors by different agencies across the public sector, not just in failing to realise the level of threat that Rudakubana posed in each instance of encountering him, but in failing to join the dots and realise the common pattern they were all seeing—not least because in 2020, my constituents Jan and Gary Furlong lost their wonderful son, James, in the Forbury Gardens attack. As in the Southport attack, there were systematic failings in the system. The perpetrator had four Prevent referrals and was known to mental health services, and nobody joined the dots. Will the Security Minister ensure that whatever else the inquiry into these tragic and preventable deaths examines, it looks closely at how the agencies talk to each other and assess threats together? Agencies and Departments can no longer be allowed to work in silos. Given the Minister’s statement that the Government will take steps to publish the findings of other independent Prevent learning reviews where there has been an incident of national significance, may I ask whether that will be extended to the Forbury Gardens attack?

My hon. Friend has been a tireless champion for her constituents. It was humbling to meet Gary and Jan Furlong recently with her; they are incredible people whose decency is inspiring. As she knows, the terrible Forbury Gardens incident occurred before the formalisation of the learning review process. However, thorough scrutiny was given to the Prevent case management of the perpetrator through the coronial process. The Government are committed to learning from these previous failings and from the experience of Gary and Jan Furlong. The Home Secretary has written to the Furlongs and the other families of the victims of the terrible Forbury Gardens attack, and I know she will want to meet with them soon; I recommend that Lord Anderson does so too, so that collectively, as a Government, we can learn everything possible from that terrible attack.

I call the Father of the House.

May I press the Minister further on the issue of transparency? He says that Ministers did not wish to prejudice the trial, but the murderer’s possession of the ricin and the terror manual was revealed before the trial. There is a suspicion that this information was not released within days because there was a feeling in Government that it might inflame racial tensions, but this lack of transparency unfortunately simply fed conspiracy theories. Will the Minister confirm whether Ministers took a conscious decision not to reveal that information, and have they learned the lesson so that in future, should such an outrage occur—which we all hope will never happen again—we can be completely transparent?

I can certainly give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that Ministers did everything mindful of the absolute need to avoid contempt of court and interfering with ongoing legal proceedings. He specifically mentions the issue of ricin. The Home Secretary and I were close to this investigation throughout, and the Home Secretary was informed of that fact on 2 August. Police investigations are fast moving, and it is important that facts are established as they relate to the prosecution of an individual; it is not for Ministers to provide a running commentary on any or every aspect of an investigation. I can say to the right hon. Gentleman that we take these matters incredibly seriously. We are thinking about how these terrible incidents can be managed in the future with regard to the passage of information, but I can give him the assurance that we acted in the best interests of securing justice for the victims throughout.

I thank the Minister for his important update. As an aside, I hope that he will keep the definition of extremism under review. Turning to the case today, I am sure the Minister will agree that we have a collective responsibility to ensure that young people do not develop a world view that leads them to a life of violent extremism. We know that a lot of the grooming of young people starts online, and that the perpetrator in this case viewed harmful content online, which stayed online for months on end. What conversations has the Minister had with the social media companies, which have to take some responsibility over the content that is generated and then amplified on their platforms?

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. The Government are crystal clear that content which is illegal must be taken down by the tech companies. We have the power to compel companies that fail to co-operate on such content. I think it is not a controversial thing to say that the tech companies have an absolute responsibility, both legal and moral, to keep their users safe, and that particularly applies in the context of younger people. As I think she will know, from March, under the Online Safety Act 2023, they will be required to identify and remove terrorist content swiftly and prevent users from encountering it. The Government have again been clear: should that not prove to be sufficient, we will consider all mechanisms, including legislative ones, to go further.

Will the Minister consider making available to interested colleagues on both sides of the House a presentation of what actually happens on Prevent and Channel courses? In the absence of that, may I ask him, from his personal knowledge of what happens on those courses, am I right in thinking that they are primarily therapeutic? Would he therefore accept that there are some people, not primarily motivated by ideology but psychotic, extremely narcissist and possibly using or abusing mind-altering drugs, who, no matter how much therapy they had, would still go on to commit atrocities; in which case, what powers exist, in mental health legislation and anti-terrorist legislation, to prevent them from committing such acts?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, as I always am, for his very sensible and reasonable question. I am very happy to arrange a presentation in the way that he has described, if he and other right hon. and hon. Members think that that would be useful. I think it would be and I think it is a helpful suggestion. The truth of the matter is that, in the context of the Prevent programme, we will be dealing with a wide range of different threats. We have spoken previously about our increasing concern with regard to the number of young people who are presenting for a variety of different reasons, but those reasons do include very significant concerns that relate to mental health, autism and neurodivergence. We are looking at those things incredibly carefully. As I know that he will understand, the public inquiry will of course look at them as well. I referenced earlier on in my remarks some pilot trials that we will be launching next week. They are about looking at how we can manage data in a more effective way and how we can ensure that those people who currently do not meet the thresholds for referral into the Prevent programme can be guaranteed the support that they obviously require in order to mitigate the risks that they are exposed to. I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s approach. I will think on it further and come back to him with thoughts about a presentation.

It is right that the Prevent system is reviewed in detail to ensure that any failings can never happen again, and I thank the Security Minister for his important and constructive statement. Our judicial system and the rule of law are at the very heart of British values, yet we have seen repeated attempts by some opposition to demean our values. The Government’s insistence on following legal advice has ultimately led to a successful prosecution. Imprisoning murderers and terrorists should never be put at risk, so does the Minister agree that the House should unite on national security issues, as it has done in the past, instead of playing political games?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. I agree with him. I hope the House knows that the Government will always want to work in a constructive, co-operative and cross-party way with regard to matters relating to national security. That is, I think, the right approach. I can give him an assurance that in the aftermath of the terrible attack back in July last year, the Home Secretary and I were absolutely determined to ensure that we did nothing and said nothing that would interfere with ongoing proceedings. We would, rightly, never have been forgiven had we interfered with that process in a way that might have undermined a trial. That was our motivation: securing justice for the victims and their families.

I thank the Minister for his statement, and particularly for the intention to review and reform Prevent. May I ask him to look at the role of social media, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq) did earlier, but to do so in the context of the tragic killing of Harvey Willgoose at All Saints Catholic high school in Sheffield on Monday? My sympathies go out to Harvey’s family, his friends and those at the school, particularly those who witnessed this tragic and awful incident at first hand. South Yorkshire police have told me that after the incident, many comments and speculations about what had happened appeared online—some downright misleading, while some, as in the Southport case, could have prejudiced a future inquiry and future trial. The social media companies have a responsibility in this regard. Worse still, perhaps, the police told me that immediately after the attack, there was a video on social media of Harvey receiving CPR in the school. I found that absolutely appalling. When South Yorkshire police approached social media—I understand that Meta was the platform—and asked them to take the video down, their answer was that because there was no violence in the video, it was not their policy to take it down. What can the Minister and his colleagues do to get the social media companies to behave responsibly in a situation such as this? Imagine how Harvey’s family and friends must feel seeing that video online.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the circumstances of this awful case, and I join him in sending our condolences for the terrible loss of life in Sheffield earlier in the week. He has made an important point, and has made it in a very powerful way. The tech companies do have a responsibility to keep their users safe, and where there is content such as that which he has described, I do not think any right-minded person thinks it should be available to be viewed. The Government have a working relationship with the tech companies, and I have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend has had to say. I will raise it with colleagues across Government, and we will see what we can do about it.

The Prevent learning review of the Southport horror is shocking. It reveals a series of massive failures, to the point of gross negligence by people in Prevent. However, it also uses some crucial words: it refers to factors that “make him susceptible to being drawn into terrorism.” That appears to indicate that the review has found that the killer was a terrorist. I therefore think that the Government and the Crown Prosecution Service need to be crystal clear with the British people. Are they now accepting that the action of this monster was a terror incident?

The hon. Member has asked me to be crystal clear, so I will be. The perpetrator has been found guilty of a terrorism-related offence, and will therefore be considered to be a registered terrorist offender. He will be subject to the associated sentencing procedures, and will be treated as a person convicted of an offence under the Terrorism Act 2000.

I am speaking on behalf of my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh (David Burton-Sampson), who has been working closely with the Home Office and, most important, with the family of the late Sir David Amess. It makes me angry to listen to the litany of errors that occurred when agencies were not necessarily talking to each other, but I welcome this announcement nevertheless. The Amess family and the city of Southend deserve it, and more. Can the Minister assure me that the Prevent learning review will provide the much-needed answers and, crucially, the learnings that the family of Sir David Amess deserve?

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter. Sir David Amess is a much-missed colleague, and his family continue to be in our thoughts. The Home Secretary met Lady Amess recently, and we are very grateful to the family for the important representations that they have made. Next week, as I have said, we will publish the Prevent learning review of the appalling attack on Sir David. We will never forget him.

None of us would wish to pre-empt the public inquiry before it has even started, but based on what the Minister has told us, it seems inevitable that we will face the issue of different state agencies failing to speak to each other about an individual who is coming up on their systems. If they had spoken to each other, they might have realised the serious danger that the Southport attacker posed. My constituent Zara Aleena would have been alive today if agencies had talked to each other two years ago. Will the Minister ensure that inter-agency communication is at the heart of any lessons learnt from this inquiry?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking his question in the way that he has, and I am dreadfully sad about what happened to his constituent. He makes a very important point about inter-agency co-operation and working. That is one of the things that we will look very carefully at, and it is certainly one of the things that the public inquiry will focus on. We have to ensure that there is a joined-up response at local, regional and national levels, and we will do so. With your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will clarify one point that I made to the shadow Home Secretary earlier. He made some good points about transparency, and I want to be clear with him that it is the Law Commission that will review the contempt of court rules.

The tragic events in Southport were horrific, and I welcome the Government’s review of the Prevent policy. The murderer should have been monitored better. We must implement steps to ensure that this never happens again. The tragic incident set off civil unrest across the country, and it found its way to Plymouth. In that moment of extreme societal emotion, the community in Plymouth came together as one and, in the end, our streets saw minimal public disorder. Does the Minister agree that we must tackle the root causes of that civil unrest, which include disinformation online?

My hon. Friend makes a very important point, and I can give him the assurance that he seeks about tackling disinformation online. He makes an important point about the response from his constituents in the city of Plymouth. Looking back at the aftermath of the terrible attack in Southport, in those dark days of July last year, we saw the worst of our country in that certain people seemed to think that it was acceptable to throw rocks, bricks and missiles at the police, but we also saw the best of our country, exemplified by decent people who stood against that. In that context, it is also important to remember the members of the police force—those brave men and women—who stood against the threat. We should send them our heartfelt thanks for all their work.