Dan Jarvis

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.