The Prime Minister has questions to answer over Southport

Axel Rudakubana’s decision to plead guilty to his evil crimes saved him questioning from the prosecution, but it will not stop the questions hanging over the Prime Minister’s handling of this tragedy.

The horrendous murders of Alice da Silva Aguiar, Bebe King and Elsie Dot Stancombe rocked the nation. The little girls had their lives stolen from them in the most unimaginably cruel way.

At moments of national crisis like this, the Prime Minister’s judgment is tested. In the aftermath, Merseyside Police released a statement saying they did not believe the incident to be terror-related. Days later, on the 1st August, the Prime Minister gave a press conference at the time to reassure the nation. For months, no updates followed from him.

Today, the truth has finally emerged. Rudakubana pleaded guilty to two terror-related offences: possession of Military Studies in the Jihad Against Tyrants: The Al-Qaeda Training Manual and the biological toxin, ricin, which was found during a search of Axel’s home back in early August.

It also emerged that Rudakubana was referred to the Prevent programme multiple times: in 2019 when his teachers became concerned with his obsession with school massacres; and in 2021 when staff were concerned about his interests in the terror attacks in London in 2017. This dataset would have given the Prime Minister an answer in minutes.

I find it highly unlikely that the Prime Minister and Home Secretary would not have been informed immediately of these developments. As the two individuals responsible for keeping the public safe – and leading the response to the ensuing disorder – they will have been amongst the first to know. In my experience of working within Government, the civil service are very good at keeping ministers informed during national security incidents.

So it is completely understandable that there is a widespread perception that crucial information was withheld from the public.

The only way we will find out the truth is if the Prime Minister is transparent. After the sentencing on Thursday there is no impediment on him being open about what he knew and when. If there is nothing to hide, then a simple account would end the speculation immediately.

But let us assume they were made aware of this information, as in previous incidents of national importance, and they chose to withhold it. There will be some that argue in favour of doing so for two reasons: to prevent further disorder, or to prevent a forthcoming trial from being jeopardised.

That reasoning would place Starmer and the authorities at odds with the independent reviewer of terrorism laws, Jonathan Hall KC, who said at the time that “if there is information you can give, put it in the public domain, and be really careful you don’t fall into the trap of saying ‘we can only say zilch because there are criminal proceedings’”. He added “Quite often, there’s a fair amount of information that can be put into the public domain.”

If this was indeed Starmer’s strategy, it failed badly because the public could tell they were not being told the whole truth, and that contributed to the anger which spilled into riots. In the social media age, sunlight really is the best disinfectant.

Left unanswered, the sense of a cover-up will permanently damage trust in the criminal justice system. As Kemi Badenoch has said, after Thursday’s sentencing we need a complete account of who in Government knew what and when. The public need to know that the people in the centre of Government acted honestly and transparently.