Southport attack: next steps
Source: gov.uk (2025-01-21)

The Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has given an update on the actions the government will take including the creation of an independent public inquiry.

With permission Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on the Southport murders.

None of us will ever forget the events of 29 July.

The school holidays had just started. Little girls were at a dance class. To have fun, dance and sing.

A moment of joy turned into the darkest of nightmares.

We think especially of 3 little girls, Elsie Dot Stancombe, Bebe King, and Alice da Silva Aguiar.

Their precious smiles, the dreams their families had.

And we think of their families’ agony to have that future so brutally destroyed.

They are in all our hearts and prayers…

…as are those who survived the attack but live with the physical and emotional scars.

Nothing will ever take away their trauma and loss and we will ensure they receive the support and care they need in the years to come.

We think too of the police and first responders who ran into that scene of unspeakable horror. The courage they showed and the lives they saved is public service at its very best.

Yesterday Axel Rudakubana pled guilty to all charges.

He stands responsible for one of the most barbaric crimes in our country’s history. The most vile and cowardly attack on little children who could never defend themselves, carried out in the most horrific and traumatic way.

The CPS has described him as “a young man with a sickening and sustained interest in death and violence” who has “shown no sign of remorse.”

On Thursday before sentencing, the prosecution will set out what happened that day and the nature of the offences.

Mr Speaker, now that the conviction has been secured, the families, the people of Southport and the entire country need answers about how this horrendous attack could ever have happened.

The government has been constrained in what we could say up to this point about Rudakubana’s past to avoid prejudicing any jury trial in line with all the normal rules of our British justice system.

Because nothing was more important than securing justice.

But now we can start to lay out that background.

Multiple different agencies were in contact with Rudakubana and knew about his history of violence.

He was referred 3 times to Prevent between December 2019 and April 2021, when aged 13 and 14.

Between October 2019 and May 2022, Lancashire police responded to 5 calls from his home address about his behaviour.

He was referred repeatedly to the multi-agency safeguarding hub.

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

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

He was excluded from one school, he had long periods of absence from another.

All those agencies had contact with him.

Yet between them they completely failed to identify the terrible danger that he posed.

How did he fall through so many gaps?

It is just unbearable to think that something more could and should have been done.

There are grave questions about how this network of agencies failed to identify and act on the risks.

There were so many signs of how dangerous he had become. Yet the action against him was far too weak.

Families need the truth about why the system failed to tackle his violence for so many years.

That is why we are setting up an independent public inquiry. Like the Angiolini inquiry into Wayne Cozens, it will begin work initially on a non-statutory basis so that it can move quickly into action, but with statutory powers added later as required. We will set out the terms of reference and appoint the chair once we have consulted the coroner and given the families the opportunity to comment.

In addition to examining what went wrong in this horrific case, I am also asking the inquiry to consider the wider challenge of rising youth violence and extremism.

I have been deeply disturbed at the number of cases involving teenagers drawn into extremism, serious violence and terrorism – including Islamist extremism, far right extremism, mixed and confused ideology, and obsession with violence and gore.

There has been a threefold increase in under 18s investigated for involvement in terrorism in just 3 years.

One hundred and 62 people were referred to Prevent last year for concerns relating to school massacres.

The Met Commissioner has warned about “young men who are fixated on violence…grazing across extremist and terrorist content”.

Five Eyes counter-terror partners have warned about growing radicalisation of minors, happening as so many of our children and teenagers are being exposed to ever more disturbing materials online. An online ecosystem that is radicalising our children while safety measures are whittled away.

The Online Safety Act illegal content codes of practice come into force in March and the child safety codes should be in place this summer, but companies should take responsibility before then.

The prosecution will provide more detail on Thursday about material Rudakubana searched for online, but I can tell the House that the government is this week contacting technology companies to ask them to remove dangerous material he accessed. Companies should not be profiting from hosting content that puts children’s lives at risk.

Let me set out 4 other areas where we are taking action in advance of the inquiry.

Firstly, on Prevent.

The government and Counter Terrorism Policing jointly commissioned an immediate prevent learning review during the summer, and I will publish detailed findings following the sentencing.

The 3 referrals took place between 3 and 4 years before the Southport attack, including following evidence he was expressing interest in school shootings, the London Bridge attack, the IRA, MI5, and the Middle East.

On each occasion, Rudakubana’s case was assessed by Counter Terrorism Policing, but in each instance, there was no onward referral to specialist channel support.

The learning review has concluded that the referrals should not have been closed, and that cases such as these, given his age and complex needs, should be referred to channel.

It concludes that too much weight was placed on the absence of ideology, without considering the vulnerabilities to radicalisation, or taking account of whether he was “obsessed with massacre or extreme violence.” And the cumulative significance of those 3 repeat referrals was not properly considered.

Mr Speaker, the Prevent programme is vital for our national security. Its officers work with huge dedication to keep us safe.

But we need it to be effective.

Some changes have already been made since 2021 including new Prevent duty guidance, new training for frontline workers on radicalisation, and stronger policy on repeat referrals.

In September 2024, a new Prevent assessment framework was launched, supplemented by robust training for all Prevent police officers.

But these changes do not go far enough.

Given the importance of the programme, I cannot understand how it has been allowed to operate for so long without proper independent oversight.

That is why I announced before Christmas the introduction of a new independent Prevent Commissioner with power to review cases and ensure standards are being met.

I am today appointing Lord David Anderson KC as the interim Prevent Commissioner, to start work immediately and his first task will be to conduct a thorough review of the Prevent history in this case to identify what changes are needed to make sure serious cases are not missed, particularly where there is mixed and unclear ideology.

I have also tasked my department to conduct an end-to-end review of Prevent thresholds including on Islamist extremism where referrals have previously been too low.

We are also looking at cases where mental ill-health or neurodivergence is a factor. And developing new arrangements with other agencies which may not meet the threshold for channel support but where violent behaviour urgently must be addressed.

Second, 2 shocking facts around knife crime have emerged from this case.

The Prevent learning review found that Rudakubana admitted to having carried a knife more than 10 times.

Yet the action taken against him was far too weak.

And despite the fact that he had been convicted for violence and was just 17, he was easily able to order a knife on Amazon.

That is a total disgrace. And it must change.

We will bring in stronger measures to tackle knife sales online in the Crime and Policing Bill this spring.

Third, Mr Speaker, as the Prime Minister has set out this morning, we also need to ensure that our laws keep up with the changing violent and extremist threats that we face.

It is for the police and CPS to decide whether individual cases meet the definition set out in the Terrorism Act 2000 when making charges but given the growing numbers of cases where perpetrators are seeking to terrorise, even without a clear ideology, we need to ensure that the law, powers and sentencing are strong enough to cope.

I have therefore asked the Independent Reviewer on terrorism powers to examine the legislation in this area in light of the modern threats we face.

Finally, Mr Speaker let me address the issue of contempt of court. The British way of justice means information is presented to the court by the police and CPS with restrictions on what can be said beforehand so that the jury does not get partial or prejudicial information in advance, to make sure the trial is fair and justice is done.

Social media puts those long established rules under strain, especially where partial or inaccurate information appears online. And the Law Commission is reviewing the contempt of court rules in that light.

But let me be clear, where the police, government and journalists are given clear advice from the CPS about contempt of court and not publishing information in advance of the trial, if we did not respect that and a killer walked free, we would never be forgiven.

Mr Speaker, there are times when something so unfathomably terrible happens that whatever words we find feel grossly insufficient.

That is how it feels over the Southport attack.

Let there be no doubt: responsibility for this outrage lies squarely with the perpetrator.

Equally, in the wake of such a monstrous atrocity, we have to ask every question no matter how difficult. And where change is needed, we must act.

That now is our task.

We owe that to the victims, their loved ones.

And we owe it to the country…

…because protecting the public is the first duty of the government and the shared purpose of this House.

I commend this statement to the House.