Unveiling the Path Forward: Addressing the Southport Incident – GOV.UK

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement regarding the Southport murders.

None of us will ever forget the events that transpired on 29 July.

The summer break had just begun. Young girls were attending a dance class, seeking joy through movement and song.

A moment of happiness transformed into the bleakest of horrors.

Our thoughts are particularly with the three young girls, Elsie Dot Stancombe, Bebe King, and Alice da Silva Aguiar.

Their cherished smiles and the aspirations their families held.

We also consider the heartache of their families, who have had their futures tragically shattered.

They remain in all our hearts and prayers…

…as do those who survived the assault but now bear both physical and emotional wounds.

Nothing can ever erase their suffering and loss, and we will ensure they receive the assistance and care they require in the years ahead.

We also think of the police and emergency responders who rushed into that scene of unimaginable horror. Their bravery and the lives they salvaged represent public service at its pinnacle.

Yesterday, Axel Rudakubana entered a guilty plea to all charges.

He is accountable for one of the most heinous crimes in our nation’s history: a despicable and cowardly attack on innocent children who could not defend themselves, executed in the most dreadful and traumatic manner.

The CPS has labeled him “a young man with a revolting and sustained fascination with death and violence” who has “demonstrated no sign of remorse.”

On Thursday, prior to sentencing, the prosecution will outline events from that day and discuss the nature of the offences.

Mr Speaker, now that the conviction has been secured, the families, the residents of Southport, and the entire nation deserve clarity on how such a horrific attack could possibly occur.

The government has been limited in what we could share thus far concerning Rudakubana’s past to prevent any influence on a jury trial, following the standard protocols of our British legal system.

Nothing was more crucial than ensuring justice was served.

However, we can now begin to reveal that background.

A multitude of agencies had engaged with Rudakubana and were aware of his violent history.

He was referred to Prevent on three occasions between December 2019 and April 2021, when he was 13 and 14 years old.

From October 2019 to May 2022, Lancashire police responded to five calls from his residence regarding his conduct.

He was repeatedly brought to the attention of the multi-agency safeguarding hub.

He had interactions with Children’s Social Care, the Early Help Service, and Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services.

He had been convicted of a violent assault against another child at school and was referred to the local Youth Offending Team.

He was expelled from one school and experienced prolonged absences from another.

All these agencies had interactions with him.

Yet collectively, they utterly failed to recognize the severe threat he posed.

How did he slip through so many cracks?

It is simply intolerable to contemplate that more could and should have been done.

There are serious questions regarding how this network of agencies neglected to identify and respond to the dangers.

There were numerous indicators of his escalation to danger. Yet the responses to him were far too lenient.

Families deserve the truth about why the system inadequately addressed his violence for such an extended period.

This is why we are establishing an independent public inquiry. Much like the Angiolini inquiry into Wayne Cozens, it will initially operate on a non-statutory basis to facilitate swift action, with statutory powers to be added later as needed. We will define the terms of reference and appoint the chair following consultation with the coroner and offering families the opportunity to provide input.

Alongside investigating what went awry in this tragic case, I am also requesting the inquiry to examine the broader issue of increasing youth violence and extremism.

I have been profoundly alarmed by the rising number of cases involving teenagers becoming embroiled in extremism, severe violence, and terrorism—including Islamist extremism, far-right extremism, an amalgamation of ideologies, and a fixation on violence and horror.

In the last three years, there has been a threefold increase in individuals under 18 investigated for terrorism-related involvement.

One hundred sixty-two individuals were referred to Prevent last year regarding fears surrounding school shootings.

The Metropolitan Commissioner has cautioned about “young men who are obsessed with violence…perusing extremist and terrorist content.”

Five Eyes counter-terror partners have raised alarms about the increasing radicalisation of minors, exacerbated by the exposure of our children and adolescents to ever-more disturbing materials online. An online environment that is radicalising our youth while safety measures are increasingly eroded.

The Online Safety Act illegal content codes of practice will take effect in March, and the child safety codes are expected to be in place by this summer; however, companies should assume responsibility prior to that.

The prosecution will release more details on Thursday regarding material Rudakubana searched for online, but I can assure the House that this week the government is reaching out to technology firms to request the removal of hazardous materials he accessed. Companies must not profit from hosting content that jeopardizes the lives of children.

Let me outline four additional areas where we are taking proactive measures ahead of the inquiry.

Firstly, concerning Prevent.

The government and Counter Terrorism Policing have jointly ordered an immediate review of prevent learnings over the summer, and I will disclose the comprehensive findings following the sentencing.

The three referrals occurred between three and four years before the Southport attack, particularly after indications he was showing interest in school shootings, the London Bridge attack, the IRA, MI5, and the Middle East.

On each occasion, Rudakubana’s case was evaluated by Counter Terrorism Policing, but there was no further referral to specialized channel support each time.

The learning review concluded that those referrals should not have been closed and that cases such as his, given his youth and complex needs, should be directed to the channel.

It indicates that insufficient consideration was given to the absence of ideology while failing to recognize vulnerabilities to radicalisation and neglecting whether he had a “fixation on mass murder or extreme violence.” Additionally, the combined importance of those three repeated referrals was not accurately acknowledged.

Mr Speaker, the Prevent program is integral to our national security. Its personnel operate with tremendous commitment to keep us secure.

Nonetheless, we require it to be effective.

Some changes have been enacted since 2021, including new Prevent duty guidance, enhanced training for frontline staff concerning radicalisation, and a more robust policy on repeated referrals.

In September 2024, a novel Prevent assessment framework was introduced, supplemented with substantial training for all Prevent law enforcement officers.

However, these modifications are insufficient.

Given the significance of the program, it is incomprehensible that it has been allowed to function for such an extended period without adequate independent oversight.

This is why I announced prior to Christmas the introduction of

a new autonomous Prevent Commissioner endowed with the authority to assess cases and guarantee standards are upheld.

I am today designating Lord David Anderson KC as the temporary Prevent Commissioner, who will commence work right away, with his inaugural task being to perform an extensive examination of the Prevent background in this instance to pinpoint necessary alterations to ensure critical cases are not overlooked, especially those involving obscure and conflicting ideologies.

I have also instructed my department to undertake a comprehensive assessment of Prevent thresholds, particularly regarding Islamist extremism, where previous referrals have been alarmingly low.

We are additionally reviewing cases where mental health issues or neurodiversity play a role. Furthermore, we are establishing new protocols with other organizations that may not fulfill the criteria for channel support but require urgent attention for violent conduct.

Secondly, two shocking realities concerning knife crime have come to light from this case.

The Prevent learning review revealed that Rudakubana confessed to carrying a knife on more than 10 occasions.

However, the measures taken against him were woefully inadequate.

Moreover, despite being convicted of violence at the age of 17, he was able to easily procure a knife on Amazon.

This is utterly disgraceful. It must be rectified.

We will implement tougher regulations to combat online knife sales within the Crime and Policing Bill this spring.

Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister has articulated this morning, we must ensure that our legislation evolves in accordance with the shifting violent and extremist threats we confront.

It is the responsibility of the police and CPS to determine if specific cases align with the definitions established in the Terrorism Act 2000 when pursuing charges, but in light of the increasing instances where offenders aim to terrorize without a clear ideology, we must ensure that the laws, powers, and penalties are sufficiently robust to withstand these challenges.

Consequently, I have requested the Independent Reviewer of terrorism powers to assess the legislation in this domain considering the contemporary threats we encounter.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, allow me to address the matter of contempt of court. The British system of justice dictates that information is presented to the court by the police and CPS, with limitations on prior disclosures to ensure that jurors do not receive biased or prejudicial information beforehand, thereby ensuring a fair trial and the delivery of justice.

Social media challenges these long-established principles, particularly when biased or erroneous information surfaces online. The Law Commission is scrutinizing the contempt of court regulations in this context.

However, let me be unequivocal: where police, government, and journalists receive explicit guidance from the CPS regarding contempt of court and the non-disclosure of information before the trial, failing to heed that advice and allowing a killer to escape justice would be unforgivable.

Mr. Speaker, there are instances when something so incomprehensibly horrific occurs that our words seem tragically inadequate.

Such is the sentiment following the Southport attack.

Let there be no uncertainty: the accountability for this atrocity rests entirely with the assailant.

Likewise, in the aftermath of such a horrifying event, we must pose every question, regardless of how challenging. Where reform is necessary, we must take action.

This is now our responsibility.

We owe it to the victims and their families.

And we owe it to our nation…

…as safeguarding the public is the foremost obligation of the government and the collective aim of this House.

I submit this statement to the House.