Southport Attack

Chris Philp Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement and for the briefing she kindly arranged.

First, let us remember the three young, innocent victims of this savage and senseless attack: Bebe King was just six years old, Elsie Dot Stancombe was seven and Alice da Silva Aguiar was nine years old. Their lives were cruelly cut short as they attended a Taylor Swift dance class. It should have been a time of joy, part of a precious and innocent childhood to be cherished and remembered, and yet the darkest of shadows fell over Southport that day as those girls were robbed of their young lives. Let us not forget that eight more children and two adults were seriously injured on that day as well. Many of us in the House are parents or grandparents, and many people listening today will be too. We can only begin to imagine the pain and grief the parents and family of Bebe, Elsie and Alice must now be feeling. We should recognise and thank the first responders who arrived at the scene.

We owe it to the memory of those children and to their bereaved parents to learn the lessons from this terrible incident and to take steps to make sure it does not happen again. In that spirit, I welcome and support the inquiry announced yesterday. Will the Home Secretary confirm that it will be placed on a statutory footing as soon as possible, to ensure its independence and to enable it to compel disclosure of the evidence it may need? It is vital to get to the truth about the opportunities that may have existed to stop the evil perpetrator, Axel Rudakubana, from committing those sickening murders.

Rudakubana was encountered multiple times, as the Home Secretary has said, by the police, social services, the school system and the Prevent programme over a period of several years. The inquiry will find out, I hope, whether mistakes were made or whether the law needs to change. The Home Secretary mentioned some areas that will rightly be looked at, and I support that. Will the Home Secretary confirm that the inquiry will include consideration of whether the Mental Health Act 1983 was adequate for this case?

The Home Secretary has rightly referred to Prevent. A review of Prevent was conducted by Sir William Shawcross and the last Government responded to that in February 2024. Will the Home Secretary now commit to implementing all the recommendations of the Shawcross review?

I now turn to what happened after the murders and to the importance of openness and transparency. First—this is a serious and important question—will the Home Secretary confirm that the inquiry will also cover the Government, police and CPS response to the murders and especially the handling of public communications and the appalling riots that followed? It is a very important question, and I will be grateful if the Home Secretary answers that directly in her response.

The Prime Minister this morning acknowledged that he knew about the background to the case and to Rudakubana himself, including that he had been referred to Prevent on three separate occasions and that he had been found to be in possession of ricin—a highly toxic chemical—and a manual detailing al-Qaeda terrorist methods, which is itself an offence under the Terrorism Act 2006. The Prime Minister also said this morning that he did not disclose any of that to the public in the days and weeks after the murders for fear of prejudicing the subsequent murder trial.

It is, of course, important for journalists, politicians and this House to do nothing that might prejudice a trial. However, Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, said this, in the context of the case, on the “Today” programme in October:

“The Government has to be aware…that if there is an information gap…then there are other voices, particularly in social media, who will try and fill it.”

He went on,

“if there is any information you can give, put it in the public domain, and be really careful that you don’t fall into the trap of saying ‘we can only say zilch, because there are criminal proceedings’.”

He continued:

“Quite often, there’s a fair amount…that can be put into the public domain”.

Jonathan Hall concluded by saying that that police realise now

“that just saying ‘there’s a charge, we can’t say any more’, is not going to cut it these days.”

The independent reviewer is therefore saying that the Government and police can put some material into the public domain without prejudicing subsequent trials.

In fact, on 29 October, Rudakubana was charged with possessing the ricin and the terror manual, and that was then made public. If that can be made public in October without risking prejudice of the murder trial, it follows that it could have been made public in August without prejudicing that same trial. Background facts on other cases over the years have been made public after arrest and before trial without prejudice—the shields relating to two of those cases are in this Chamber. Why, therefore, did the Prime Minister not make public some of that background information in August when he knew it, when later disclosure of that information in October demonstrated that such disclosure could be made without prejudice? Why, too, did the Deputy Prime Minister, on 31 July, dismiss as “fake news” those saying that there may be further facts to come out?

Briefly, before concluding, let me explain why that is important. As Jonathan Hall said, if there is a void, misinformation can fill that void, especially online. That appears to be what happened here and some of that information, it is said, originated overseas from hostile states. It is possible—indeed, even likely—that that misinformation that was put into the void fuelled the totally unacceptable riots we then subsequently saw. Will the Home Secretary therefore accept, given what Jonathan Hall and I have said, that there should and could have been more openness and transparency, as I just set out, without prejudicing the trial, and that disclosing more of that truth openly and transparently would have helped combat the damaging misinformation that circulated and which, arguably, fuelled the riots? Will she confirm the inquiry will look at that aspect of events?

This was an appalling tragedy: young girls, murdered, with their whole lives ahead of them. Let us all learn the lessons from this tragedy in honour of their memory.

[Yvette Cooper]

The shadow Home Secretary raised a series of points, which is obviously a substantial shift in position for him and his party from the one they took in government. He asked about the status of the inquiry. I can confirm that it will start quickly on a non-statutory basis, in the same way that the Angiolini inquiry did. However, I can also confirm that it will be given whatever powers it needs, including on a statutory basis, so that it can get any information that it needs.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Shawcross review. I can confirm that the Government have implemented 33 out of the 34 recommendations. I will gently point out, however, that the approach that the Shawcross review took was to say that the Prevent programme should be narrowed and should focus particularly on the cases around terrorism. That could have risked including fewer cases like this one, where ideology is less clear.

The shadow Minister then raised the issue about the information that was provided. He will know that the Contempt of Court Act was set out in 1981. Jonathan Hall has highlighted the problem of disinformation online, with social media actors not bound by the same rules that the police, the media and the Government follow. He refers, for example, to the name and nationality being provided, which in practice they were in this case after misinformation appeared online. Ultimately, he has also said that all that is governed by the Contempt of Court Act 1981, and the Law Commission is reviewing that. However, it is not for the Government to ignore the law or the advice that we are given when justice for families is at stake.

I will point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the previous Conservative Government did not publish information before the trial about the Prevent referral for the perpetrator who killed Sir David Amess. None of us criticised them for that because none of us wanted to put at risk justice for Sir David’s family. Nor did they publish information before the trial on the Prevent referral of the asylum seeker who killed Tom Roberts. In fact, they did not even publish that after the trial; it only came out in the inquest. Further, the Minister, who even after the trial refused to answer my questions on whether they knew that the asylum seeker was wanted for murdering two people in Serbia when he was allowed to enter the country, was the current shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick).

We have been keen to publish the information on Prevent referrals from the start, but the advice to us has been clear throughout. If we had ignored the advice that we were given about the case that was put to us and about the information that the police and the CPS were working through in order to get justice, and if, as a result, a killer had walked free, no one would ever have forgiven the Government or anyone else. The most important thing is to get justice and then, once justice is secured, to make sure at this point that the questions are answered about what went wrong and why three young girls’ lives were lost. That is the question the shadow Home Secretary should be focusing on right now.