PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Southport Inquiry - 13 April 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Southport inquiry. I must thank all who participated in the inquiry and the chair, Sir Adrian Fulford, and his team. Today, Sir Adrian published the report of the inquiry’s first phase. This summer, the Government will provide a full response. That will also cover Lord Anderson’s Prevent review. Today, I will provide the Government’s initial reaction to an inquiry that exposes a series of tragic failures from which we must learn.

We do so in the shadow of the events of 29 July 2024. I will not name the perpetrator, nor dwell on the details of the crimes that saw three beautiful young girls murdered, the attempted murder of eight other children and two adults, and lasting physical and psychological harm to many more. I know that I speak on behalf of the whole House when I say that my thoughts today are with all those affected. In honour of them and the memory of three murdered girls, Elsie Dot Stancombe, Bebe King and Alice da Silva Aguiar, we must now act to prevent similar attacks. It was for that reason that my predecessor appointed Sir Adrian Fulford to lead a full statutory inquiry.

The inquiry’s work has two parts. The first, which reported today, considered the decisions made by the agencies and services that interacted with the perpetrator. That included a range of institutions in the criminal justice system, as well as in education, healthcare and local government. It also considered the actions of the perpetrator’s parents.

The findings of the inquiry are unsparing. Sir Adrian has uncovered systematic failures across multiple public sector organisations. The recording and sharing of information were poor. None of the agencies involved had a full understanding of the risk that the perpetrator posed, and many did not take steps to assess the risk he posed to others. There was a failure by the agencies involved to take responsibility, and nobody was clear as to who was in charge; so the failure, because it belonged to everyone, belonged to no one. Where individuals missed opportunities to intervene, lessons must be learned, but they did so within organisations that repeatedly passed the risk to others and where systemic failings existed.

The perpetrator came into contact with the state on countless occasions. Lancashire police responded to five calls to his home address. The police were called when he was in possession of a knife in a public place. He was referred on several occasions to the multi-agency safeguarding hub. He came into contact with children’s social care, the Early Help service and children’s mental health services. He was referred to Prevent on three occasions. He was convicted of a violent assault and referred to a youth offending team. All failed to identify the risk that the perpetrator posed, and so he fell through the gaps. The warning signs were missed: a growing history of violence, and a clear and continuing intent to commit harm.

In the Home Office, the focus falls on Prevent and policing. Sir Adrian is clear that police should have progressed the perpetrator to the multi-agency Channel programme. Channel could have actively assessed and managed his risk. Instead, he was not deemed suitable because he had no fixed ideology. That ran counter to the guidance at the time, but the thresholds were unclear and the guidance was applied inconsistently. The perpetrator’s multiple referrals were also considered individually, when they should have been seen as a cumulative and compounding risk. The perpetrator did not receive the correct interventions, and his autism diagnosis meant that professionals focused far too much on his vulnerability and far too little on the threat that he might pose to others.

The horrific attack was itself evidence of the ease with which it could be conducted. There were no restrictions to stop the perpetrator watching the violent content that inspired him, downloading instructions to make poison, or viewing terrorist materials online. He was also able to bypass the safeguards that should have stopped him buying and receiving dangerous weapons. These findings are devastating, but they are not surprising. Findings like these have been heard before in inquests and inquiries. This time, however, they must be a spur for change. The inquiry makes 67 recommendations. The Government are reviewing them and will respond to those which relate to national government this summer, and I expect local agencies to do the same.

Since this awful crime, the Government have already acted. That begins with Prevent. Since the Southport attack, the Home Office and counter-terrorism policing have reviewed historical cases to ensure that similar instances were handled correctly, with cases reassessed for any change in risk and managed accordingly. The Government have reviewed the Prevent thresholds and published updated guidance. We have introduced a new Prevent assessment framework, with mandatory training for counter-terrorism case officers. Oversight of repeat Prevent referrals has been strengthened, ensuring that cumulative risk is not missed and senior sign-off is required before a case is closed. To provide independent oversight of the whole system, we have created an independent Prevent commissioner. I thank Lord Anderson, whose term ends today, for so ably taking on that position on an interim basis. I am pleased to say that I have appointed Tim Jacques as the new Prevent commissioner, and he begins his role tomorrow.

This Government have also begun to place greater controls on a dangerously unregulated online world. The Online Safety Act 2023 requires companies to remove illegal content from their platforms. The Act is intended to limit children from encountering content that is legal but poses a risk of significant harm, although that is just the beginning of what can and must be done. The internet remains a dangerous place for children, and we are clear that tech companies have a moral responsibility to keep their users safe. The House should be in no doubt that, when they fail to do so, the Government will intervene. That is why we are consulting on whether to remove children’s access to social media entirely.

I can also announce today that we will legislate to prevent the spread of extreme violent content online. We have also made it harder for people to purchase weapons. The Crime and Policing Bill places new controls on the online sale and delivery of knives. We have banned the manufacture, purchase and possession of ninja swords and zombie-style machetes, and earlier this year we published new guidance mandating that any child caught with a knife must be referred to a youth offending team.

In the aftermath of the attack, the Government commissioned Jonathan Hall KC—the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation—to consider the legislative gaps exposed by the attack. That work identified an inconsistency that clearly needed addressing: unlike for terrorist attacks, there is no crime on the statute book for planning an attack without an underlying ideology. Jonathan Hall therefore recommended the creation of a new offence. That legislation will be brought forward as soon as parliamentary time allows.

The inquiry also identifies a wider issue: rising numbers of young men are fascinated by extreme violence—boys whose minds are warped by time spent in isolation online. That is a risk to us all. Where someone is vulnerable to terrorism, they can and should be managed through the Prevent programme. However, where they are not, there is no clear approach to that risk. Today, we publish the terms of reference for the second part of the Southport inquiry, which will face directly into that challenge. Sir Adrian will provide recommendations on the adequacy of the existing arrangements, across all arms of the state, for identifying and managing the risk posed by violence-fixated individuals. He will explore what specific interventions are required to reduce the risk to the public. He will also review the influence of the internet and social media, and the ease with which weapons can be procured. Sir Adrian begins this work immediately, and will present his final recommendations next spring.

In the summer of 2024, an act of unspeakable evil took place in Southport. Nothing will ever heal the pain of those who survive, including the families who suffered unimaginable loss. Responsibility rests with the perpetrator, but there was also responsibility within the family. The perpetrator’s parents knew the risk that he posed but did not co-operate with the authorities. There is also responsibility on the state, and on all of us here, to learn the lessons from failures, wherever they occurred. That lesson is that the failures happened everywhere. We must ensure that we do not find ourselves here again, grieving deaths that would never have happened had the state—and those who work within it—acted differently. That is our task. I commend this statement to the House.

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. Let us remember the three victims of this savage attack—Bebe King, aged just six; Elsie Dot Stancombe, aged seven; and Alice da Silva Aguiar, aged nine—and the eight more children and two adults who were seriously injured. I also want to thank Merseyside emergency services, who responded to this event.

As the Home Secretary rightly said, this report identifies very serious repeated failings by public bodies. Sir Adrian said that a

“merry-go-round of referrals, assessments, case-closures and ‘hand-offs’”

meant no agency took the lead or properly addressed the danger Rudakubana posed. Multiple opportunities were missed to prevent this tragedy. Sir Adrian also found that Rudakubana’s parents created

“significant obstructions to constructive engagement.”

Sir Adrian makes important recommendations. I am glad the Home Secretary will respond by the summer, and we on the Conservative Benches will support necessary actions.

During the inquiry, we heard evidence given by Rudakubana’s former headteacher Joanne Hodson. She told the inquiry that she was pressured by mental health services to water down the education, health and care plan to minimise the danger posed by Rudakubana because of his ethnicity. Miss Hodson told the inquiry:

“my efforts to include this information in the EHCP were met with hostility by the father and also by mental health services. Miss Steed”,

who was from child and adolescent mental health services,

“even went as far as to accuse me of racially stereotyping AR as ‘a black boy with a knife’. Nothing could be further from the truth”,

but

“in the end…the wording of the EHCP was re-written in many places”.

This contributed to the clear risks being missed.

The Nottingham inquiry into the three tragic murders there identified exactly the same issue: mental health professionals in Nottingham decided not to section Valdo Calocane because they were concerned about an

“over-representation of young black men in detention”.

Even the Government’s notes on the Mental Health Bill accompanying the King’s Speech refer to that issue.

The fixation with ethnic disproportionality is deeply damaging. Ethnicity should never be a consideration: when an agency is taking steps to protect the public, everybody should simply be treated exactly the same. We cannot allow dangerous individuals to avoid detention for public safety simply because of their ethnicity. Everybody should be treated the same. It would be helpful if the Home Secretary made clear from the Dispatch Box that she agrees with that approach and set out how the Government will change their approach in the future.

Today’s report also makes it clear that Rudakubana’s autism was wrongly allowed to inhibit the way he was dealt with, yet the Government’s King’s Speech notes on the Mental Health Bill again expressly said that people with autism should be sectioned less often. Given the findings of today’s report, will the Government reconsider that?

I also want to raise the aftermath of this tragedy, which saw serious rioting. It is of course important to avoid prejudicing criminal trials. However, as Jonathan Hall, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, said:

“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:

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

and indeed in October, two or three months after the attack but well before the trial, information concerning the al-Qaeda terror manual and ricin was put in the public domain without prejudicing the trial. The failure to provide information created an information vacuum in those early days of August 2024, and that vacuum was filled by untrue speculation online, some of it originating outside the UK, which fuelled the riots. Will the Home Secretary therefore commit to making sure that in future such information is routinely released in cases of public interest?

As the mother of Elsie said at the inquiry, this tragedy must be a “line in the sand.” We owe it to the victims, to the survivors and to their families to learn the lessons from this tragedy and to make sure it never happens again.

I welcome the shadow Home Secretary’s comments about potentially working together on the changes that need to be made as a result of the inquiry’s initial findings. The Government will respond by the summer, and I look forward to discussions with him and other hon. Members to ensure that the House is united as one in the action that needs to be taken. As he said, that is the very least that we owe the victims’ families and all those who have been affected by this horrific tragedy.

The shadow Home Secretary referred specifically to the testimony of Mrs Hodson, the headteacher. She gave evidence to the inquiry and I believe that her position was vindicated very strongly by the chair in the inquiry’s findings. Let me be absolutely clear: the only factors that should be taken into account are the potential risks posed by an individual and how best to manage those risks. No other factors are relevant. It is clear, in relation not just to Mrs Hodson’s experience but to the failures that existed across a multiplicity of public agencies, that at the heart of the problem was a failure to assess appropriately the risk that the perpetrator posed to others. He managed to slip through the cracks because no one agency took responsibility for the assessment of that risk, and ultimately for the managing of the risk that the perpetrator posed to others. Those are the only factors that should ever be taken into account. I will be working closely with Ministers from other Departments as we formulate our full response to the inquiry’s findings and set out our expectations of professionals, not just in health but in other public services.

On the diagnosis of autism, in his report Sir Adrian made it clear that it would be

“wrong to make a general association between autism and an increased risk of violent harm to others.”

However, he also found that the way that the perpetrator’s autism manifested itself increased the risk of harm that he posed to others. That shows the absolute importance of taking a case-by-case approach, making sure that all factors are adequately taken into account and that agencies take responsibility for how that risk is to be managed. Again, there are good lessons to learn for health practitioners and others in our local services when it comes to assessment of risk and how it is best managed.

On issues relating to communications after the attack took place, especially at the point when a lot of misinformation was being spread, particularly online, the shadow Home Secretary will know that there has already been a change in practice, having learned the lessons of what happened. There was a well-meaning desire to ensure that nothing was done that might prejudice a trial, but exactly how the rules are applied can be a matter of interpretation and degree. The College of Policing has already created new professional practice in its guidance for police officers, there is already a new Crown Prosecution Service and media protocol, and we are developing a new charter between criminal justice agencies and the media to ensure that whatever information that can be readily and easily be made available is made available at the earliest opportunity. It will always be incredibly important that nothing is done that might prejudice a trial, but I know that the shadow Home Secretary will acknowledge that since this horrific attack there has already been a change in approach to communications by the Government and other agencies. In other instances and cases, the Government and other agencies have made much more information available to the media, and therefore to the public.

I know that the inquiry’s findings and the phase 2 report will be of great interest to Members across the House. I look forward to working not just with the official Opposition but with Members from all parties to ensure that the House is as one in the response to this horrific tragedy—that is what we owe all the victims of this case.

I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. My constituents expect Prevent to keep them safe, so can she reiterate what changes she will make to Prevent, as the Home Secretary in this Government, to help to stop an attack like this happening in the future?

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point about the reliance that all of us place on the Prevent programme. We should rightly be able to place that reliance on the programme and ensure that it is as strong as it possibly can be when it comes to preventing tragedies, diverting people away from potentially committing a terrorist act and driving them away from extremism more broadly.

We have already been delivering a number of improvements to the Prevent programme. There is new statutory guidance, improved training, new case management systems and much stronger interventions for people who are already on the programme. We also have a strengthened approach to managing repeat referrals; where there are a number of referrals, which individually might not have led to an onward referral to the Channel stream, the cumulative impact is now being taken into account. There is also a much more robust risk assessment tool. The totality of the changes that we have already made has put the programme in a much stronger position, but in learning of the findings from this inquiry, we will take more action as necessary.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. It is truly heartbreaking to know that there were so many missed opportunities to stop the Southport attack. My thoughts today are with the bereaved families whose young daughters were so cruelly taken from them and with the many other victims who suffered unimaginable trauma that day. We owe it to them to make every attempt to prevent a senseless attack like this from ever happening again.

The report lays bare that agency after agency failed to step up and take ownership of the risks that the perpetrator posed. There are monumental failures across a number of authorities, from the police, Prevent and NHS mental health services to children’s social care, youth offending services and the perpetrator’s parents. That is simply not acceptable. Will the Home Secretary confirm how soon she plans to report back on whether the Government will accept all 67 recommendations? Will she commit to providing Parliament with an update on progress every six months?

Today’s report exposes serious oversights by online giants that allowed the perpetrator to collect an arsenal of weapons without effective age verification checks. Will the Home Secretary confirm whether the recently published knife crime strategy will address the ease with which knives are available for purchase online? Will it crack down on big tech companies, like Amazon, that are putting profit above protocol when it comes to the sale of dangerous items?

Finally, the Liberal Democrats have long argued that Prevent is not fit for purpose. It is deeply shocking that the perpetrator was referred three times yet no further action was taken. We understand that was because he did not possess a specific ideology—well, there should be no clearer sign of a system unable to address modern threats. Will the Home Secretary today commit to a full overhaul of Prevent within this Parliament so that future warning signs are not missed? Will she also commit to bringing forward the legislation recommended by Jonathan Hall KC in the next King’s Speech?

The Liberal Democrat spokeswoman is absolutely right; the sheer number of missed opportunities in this case is truly horrifying. That is why we must do everything we can to reform all these systems in our public services to make sure that no such incident can happen again.

There will be a comprehensive response from the Government on all of the inquiry’s phase 1 recommendations. I intend for that to come before the summer so the House will have an opportunity to debate it. As we move to delivery of the Government’s response to the recommendations, I will keep the House updated on our progress, including on where potential future legislation might be needed.

In the Crime and Policing Bill, which is continuing its passage through Parliament, we have introduced new age verification checks both at the point of sale and at the point of delivery of knives. That is a way of directly responding to some of the issues we have seen in this case, whereby the perpetrator was able to slip through the system. That should not be possible in the future once the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament and is implemented.

Let me turn to the question of the threat posed by those who are fixated by violence but do not necessarily have an ideology, by those who have a mixed ideology, or by those who flit between having an ideology and not having one; there is a developing, complex picture of the sorts of threats that we face. We have made it very clear that those who have no fixed ideology but are vulnerable to terrorism are still, and should be, referred to the Prevent programme. That remains the lead programme for dealing with the risk posed by those individuals.

The inquiry recognises that there is a gap through which those who do not have a fixed ideology and are not vulnerable to terrorism might slip. Phase 2 of the inquiry will consider how best to respond to those sorts of cases, and will make recommendations on who should take the lead on dealing with those individuals, but I want to assure the hon. Lady and all Members of the House that the Government are not simply waiting for phase 2 to report. We are already trialling with a number of local authorities a new approach for those who are below the threshold for Prevent, but who present a risk that we are concerned about and who we believe might pose a risk of harm to others. We are thinking about different ways in which agencies might handle that risk in order to make sure those individuals do not slip through the net. As we learn lessons from those pilots, we will seek to start implementing them, while we wait, of course, for Sir Adrian Fulford and the inquiry team to come forward with fuller recommendations in this area in future.

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, and place on record my sympathies for the families of Alice, Elsie and Bebe, who are living with the most unimaginable loss.

The Southport attack has been ruled a “disaster waiting to happen” after the perpetrator was referred to Prevent on three separate occasions, and Sir Adrian Fulford has highlighted other multi-agency failings. On 20 June 2020, my constituents Gary and Jan Furlong lost their son James, who was murdered during the Forbury Gardens terrorist attack—I am also thinking of them today. Like Southport, the perpetrator of the Forbury Gardens attack had been referred to Prevent four separate times, and multi-agency failures were also highlighted by Sir Adrian Fulford. Like the deaths of Alice, Elsie and Bebe, the deaths of James Furlong, Dr David Wails and Joseph Ritchie-Bennett were ruled to have been “probably avoidable”.

I acknowledge that it will take some time to go through the 67 recommendations that have been made in respect of Southport. However, can the Home Secretary advise the House on whether, despite the improvements to Prevent that she has outlined today, she actually believes that it is fit for purpose? She said in her statement that

“We must ensure we do not find ourselves here again, grieving deaths which should never have happened, had the state, and those who work within it, acted differently”,

but the fact is that we are here again, and we are here time and time again after multi-agency failures. Can the Home Secretary immediately take steps in respect of joined-up partnership working, and outline to us what those steps will be, in order to ensure that no other family has to endure such loss?

I thank my hon. Friend for what she has just said, and associate myself with her remarks about the victims of the Forbury Gardens attack—about those who died and their families. She is absolutely right that we have been here far too many times. This must be a moment of change, and I am very hopeful that with such a thorough report from Sir Adrian Fulford, with such clear, practical recommendations for action to prevent such a tragedy from occurring in the future, we can and will make progress. As I know she will accept, that is the very least that we owe all the families, and I look forward to working with colleagues across the House to implement recommendations as we move forward. We all have to do more, and Government agencies all have to do more as well.

I assure my hon. Friend that I am standing up a taskforce to bring together all Government Ministers with relevant responsibilities, to make sure we begin work immediately on improving the systems and processes that are in place at the moment and that we are not simply waiting for the final phase of the inquiry to report—there will be more progress. We have taken steps to reform Prevent. I know that the Prevent strategy and the work it does has been of interest in this House for many years, and has been scrutinised very thoroughly. An intervention programme of this kind is always going to have to move very quickly to deal with changing threat patterns—for example, the way that Islamist extremism might have presented in the era of Daesh and ISIL in Syria becoming prominent is different from how it presents now—and practitioners have to be able to adapt as quickly as the presentation of extremist ideologies is developing. It will always be a work in progress, because the nature of the threat is changing so quickly and regularly. That is something we should acknowledge. However, we can and will have strong mechanisms in place to make sure that the programme does the job we all know it needs to do.

As a consultant paediatrician, I have to undertake Prevent training at regular intervals. On each one of those occasions, I have raised with Ministers my concerns about either the quality or emphasis of that training, or both. Can the Home Secretary say whether she feels that in this particular situation, the problem was mostly that the perpetrator did not conform to the usual patterns that people were being trained to spot; that people were being badly trained; that people were not using their training diligently; or that the actions once the case had been reported were not followed through? Which does she think was the major factor?

I would be happy to hear the hon. Lady’s personal experiences of the quality of that training. I think this is the first time that she and I have had an interaction on this matter, so I would be very happy to pick those issues up with her offline.

On the substance of the hon. Lady’s point, we must follow the findings of the inquiry’s chair, who said that there were five major failures in this case, including that no single agency took ownership of the risk that the perpetrator posed, that there was poor information recording and management, and that the behaviour was sometimes excused on the basis of the perpetrator’s perceived or diagnosed autism spectrum disorder. There were a range of factors in place, and we should follow the evidence and the findings of the inquiry’s chair. We will respond based on the failures that have been found.

All of our thoughts today are with the families of Alice, Bebe and Elsie. They have already suffered the most horrific loss, and to have confirmation today from Sir Adrian Fulford that their loss was preventable is utterly unbearable. Sir Adrian’s report highlights the failure of the multi-agency safeguarding hub, which was exactly the place where joint responsibility between different agencies should have been held, and he also said that children’s services were not well equipped to manage a risk presented by a young person, as distinct from risks to a young person. Can I therefore ask the Home Secretary what plans she has to work with the Department for Education and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure that, as a matter of urgency, every professional working with high-risk young people knows exactly what to do when they are fearful that a young person is a risk to others, and is accountable for taking that action?

My hon. Friend notes one of the key failures, which related to the question of who the risk was to. In this case, too many of the internal assessments were of the risk to the perpetrator himself, not the risk that he posed to others. That must change, and Sir Adrian Fulford will make practical recommendations for the individual agencies, but his report speaks to the need for a cultural shift in the way in which these cases are looked at and managed. That will be a cultural shift for colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Education, as well as those in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.

Where a Prevent referral is made because there is a vulnerability to terrorism, there are already systems in place that would enable those risk assessments to be made on the basis of risk posed to others. Of course, in this case, the onward referral to Channel should have been made, but it was not. However, we have to make sure that even where an onward referral to Channel does not take place and somebody does not quite meet the threshold for Prevent, they are still picked up, and that that cultural shift for dealing with risk—for its management and assessment—takes into account all of the findings that Sir Adrian Fulford has made.

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, and for the way in which she is promoting learning rather than blaming, because that is the best way to get the change we need. I also thank her for her robust response to the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), about the point he raised, and for the point she is now making about the requirement for a cultural shift. Can she take a close interest in this? Not many leaders in many organisations understand that it means changing the attitudes and behaviours of individuals in their organisations—it is not just about setting a policy. It requires a very concerted act of leadership, alongside diligence and consistency, as well as making sure that those who do not want to make that change are eased out of their positions and that there are no promotions for those people who do not respect and demonstrate the changed attitudes and behaviours that are required. This is a big ask, and does not often happen in the public service.

It is a big ask, and I am very clear that this must be a moment of change. I do not want to be standing here with a future tragedy, saying the same things that have been said in response to what happened in Southport. We owe the families a true moment of change in how public services are delivered. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: a cultural shift is critical for making onward progress, including for agencies that do not normally consider the risk posed to others, because they are primarily concerned with the risk of harm a person poses to themselves and their clinical need, which is different from the wider societal need to protect others from harm.

That is something the Government will now have to look at closely, to bring forward real change within our health service, within education and within local government. I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that I will take a close personal interest in that because, at the end of the day, preventing harm and keeping our people safe is my responsibility. I will make sure we do everything we can to have those mechanisms as robust as possible for people who meet the threshold for being dealt with through the Prevent strategy and onward referral to Channel. Where people are below that threshold, we still need an answer as a society. I will take a close interest in that myself.

I know that the thoughts of the whole House are with the families, as are mine. One of the many aspects of what has gone wrong here relates to children’s mental health services. Will the Home Secretary please outline what we are doing about the workforce in children’s mental health services? There is a real shortage of people who are skilled in that area.

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Government have already taken steps to shore up the provision of mental health services within the national health service, and I am joined today on the Front Bench by colleagues from the Department of Health and Social Care. I know they are listening closely and will be absorbing the findings that Sir Adrian Fulford has made in phase 1 of his inquiry. I will be working with all Ministers across Government before we formulate our fuller response to all 67 recommendations, but let me assure my hon. Friend that the provision of mental health services will be critical to the work that the Government do as a result of this inquiry.

The Home Secretary’s statement confirms the core failure that when everyone was responsible, no one was accountable, and we have seen that pattern before. We saw the same passing of the buck in safeguarding, in grooming gang cases and in mental health. We have heard today about reviews, frameworks and guidance, but not about enforcement. Can the Home Secretary tell this House plainly what consequences will follow if recommendations are not followed to the letter?

The hon. Gentleman is right that it is one thing to bring about changes and to change professional practice, but that these things should be enforced properly. When the Government respond in full before the summer to all 67 recommendations, I will lay out our expectations. It is important to recognise that Sir Adrian Fulford does not make individual findings of fact in terms of individuals and those failings, because there was such widespread system failure. It is right that in the first instance the Government look at the wider systems we have in place, but ultimately, if there are failures within those systems, including individual failures, there should be accountability.

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement today and for her continued leadership on this issue. Can I join the whole House in sending my sympathies not only to the victims, but to their families? This was a dreadful crime, and I am sure that any parent in the Chamber will be, like me, rightly appalled by it. Having worked in education and in the charity sector, I saw an awful amount of buck passing when it came to mental health support and safeguarding issues. My view was always, “If in doubt, report it.” In this case, things were reported, but they were not taken forward, which is hugely concerning. Can the Home Secretary assure me that this buck passing, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Hussain), will stop and that there will be accountability and people will be held responsible for these issues?

My hon. Friend raises an important point. He is absolutely right that the failure of any one organisation or group of individuals to take responsibility for the perpetrator is one of the key failures in this case. Phase 2 of the inquiry will consider the best mechanism for managing people who pose these sorts of risks going forward, and recommendations will be made about the proper structure that should be brought forward. Where somebody meets the Prevent threshold, Prevent will remain the lead institution for referrals. That referral and onward progression to the Channel stream should have happened here. If it had, we would be in a different position today. For those who do not fall within that threshold, we will need a wider system response. As I have said, I am trialling pilots in different local authorities to look at different approaches for what we might do with those individuals who are below the threshold. In the end, Sir Adrian Fulford’s work will give us the new framework and some guidance on the best agency to take the lead in different cases. When an agency takes the lead, or even if they are convening all the other agencies, there is an obvious form of accountability. That is how multi-agency safeguarding hubs should work but sometimes do not. Those are the key areas where lessons need to be learned.

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. When the Government respond in full to the recommendations, I will set out any resource implications not just for the work of the Home Office, but for other agencies.

I join the Home Secretary in commending the bravery of victims in coming forward to give evidence to this inquiry. We owe it to them to make this a turning point and to make certain that the systemic failures and culture that made this attack possible are fixed and can never be repeated. Many of us in this House will recognise from the report the difficulties in accessing CAMHS, the ambiguities in responsibility and massive under-resourcing of this vital service. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this moment calls for nothing less than a revolution in how children’s mental health services are commissioned and resourced?

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. There are recommendations for different Departments, including Health, to take forward, and I will be working closely with Ministers from across Government as we design our response to Sir Adrian’s recommendations. Violence fixation, the descent into nihilism and fascination with extreme violence demand a new public policy response from all of Government, particularly for those children who would not necessarily meet a test for clinical need, but who absolutely do pose a risk of serious harm to other people.

When I heard the news this morning and the catalogue of failures and missed opportunities were read out—including the focus and attention there was on this murder, yet he was allowed to get away—my heart went out to the families of those three wee girls whose murder could have been avoided, yet the opportunity was missed. Time and again in this House, over the time I have been here, I have heard of individual child abuse cases, rape gangs and mass murder, and on each occasion there was failure by public bodies and individuals in public bodies to prevent what happened. Unfortunately—it has been highlighted here again today—there seems to be this attitude that if there is colour or ethnicity involved, the fear of racism is an additional factor. I welcome the Secretary of State’s assurances today, but given how deeply this attitude is embedded in the public sector, what steps does she intend to take to make sure that this does not happen again and that those who are responsible for these decisions are held to account?

The right hon. Gentleman is right that the report of the inquiry makes for horrifying reading. The recommendations are incredibly important. The Government will respond in full by the summer, and we will take forward practical work to ensure that we strengthen all our systems so that this cannot occur again. I repeat that the only thing that matters—the only relevant factor—when we have a person who is violence-fixated and has a fascination with extreme violence is the risk they pose, the assessment of that risk, and the steps to mitigate that risk. No other factor should be taken into account by any agencies. The most important thing is that we keep people safe and that we do not allow other irrelevant considerations to play any part. The inquiry made findings in relation to Mrs Hodson, the headteacher, and I agree with and endorse Sir Adrian Fulford’s findings.

As the Home Secretary will be aware, there are 28 Prevent priority areas across the country—there used to be 40, and Stoke-on-Trent was one of them until 2023, when the last Government changed the criteria. She will also know that for an area to become a Prevent priority area, the local authority normally has to demonstrate that it is a hotspot for either right-wing extremism or Islamist activity—or, in the chequered past of my own city, both. If Jonathan Hall’s legislative suggestions come into force and there is a new offence of non-ideologically based fixation with violence, how does the Home Secretary see that playing into the Prevent priority areas, given that the locality will be much more difficult to consider? Following the events of August 2024, when there were riots in Stoke-on-Trent, has she given any thought to whether any recommendations for where new funding should go to help deal with some of these issues should take account of the places where there was rioting at that time—particularly places, such as Stoke-on-Trent, that do not currently qualify for Prevent priority funding?

Once phase 2 of the inquiry has concluded—especially when it comes to the proper mechanism by which we deal with some of these violence-fixated individuals—there will of course be knock-on consequences for the wider counter-extremism system. It would not be right for me to get ahead of that, but I can assure my hon. Friend that I am well aware that both the current and the future work of the inquiry will require further clarity on exactly where responsibilities sit. I believe that the Prevent programme will continue to play an incredibly important role and will remain our main tool for countering extremism, although I am sure there will be more we can do to strengthen its ability in that regard. However, as I have said, there will be knock-on consequences in other parts of the system, including funding consequences. I will be able to set out more of the Government’s response on that when we respond fully to the inquiry’s recommendations, but I think that as phase 2 gets under way, some of the real meat of the new policy responses that are needed for violence-fixated children will emerge.

A young person who is at risk of harming others will often become known to a teacher, a social worker or a health worker before any other agency is aware of that risk, but statutory requirements make it very difficult to report on a young person who is below a certain age. Will the Home Secretary work on the introduction of multi-agency, multi-departmental changes to establish, above all else, a statutory requirement for teachers, health workers, councils and others to bring forth young people who are under age if they pose a risk? Currently, many agencies are afraid to come forward because they believe that there is a statutory requirement to protect the child, rather than to report a potential risk to others.

Phase 2 will consider how we deal with, and what is the correct public policy response to, children who are violence-fixated. One of the horrifying developments of the last few years is the number of children—ever younger children—who are fascinated with extreme violence, and have a nihilistic approach to it. That is shocking, and I have seen cases involving very young children. There must be an adequate public policy response that is able to counter this descent into violence fixation, and to do so effectively. That is the meat of the work that will be done in phase 2, and we will of course follow closely all of the recommendations that are made.

Like those of others, my thoughts and prayers are with the victims of the horrific attack in Southport. I welcome the steps that the Government have taken to address what can only be described as a very challenging environment. Only two weeks ago, I visited the Islamic Jami Community and Education Centre in Kingstanding, along with the hon. Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton), because we share a constituency boundary. The building had been attacked a few weeks into the month of Ramadan, and then attacked again with vile vandalism and graffiti. Those attending the institution were clearly very anxious, but members of the community also came out to support the local Muslims. Will the Home Secretary join me in commending not only the actions of West Midlands police, who acted very swiftly, but those of the various faith groups who came together? They do not just come together in solidarity when an incident such as this occurs; they are also the very backbone when it comes to identifying any form of extremism within our communities.

The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the solidarity between people from different communities. We do not often talk about it in the House—we tend to do so only when a horrifying incident has taken place—but it is indeed the backbone of the way in which we function as a society. I pay tribute to all those who spend their time working with people from backgrounds that are different from theirs, in terms of either race or faith, to hold our communities and ultimately our nation together.

The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that the overall threat picture shows a very challenging environment. The issues with which we are dealing today relate to someone with no fixed ideology who was clearly vulnerable to terrorism and had a fixation with extreme violence. We see that running alongside the more traditional, well-known and understood elements of extremism, such as Islamist or extreme right-wing terrorism, but even within those better understood forms of extremism, we see that the pattern is changing. It is always evolving and developing, which poses a challenge to all the practitioners who must try to keep up with the way in which extremism is presenting itself in our communities. The Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that that work is as robust as possible, and to taking every possible step to counter extremism in all its forms.

I thank the Home Secretary for her very positive statement. Let me also associate myself with the events of a year ago, when the nation mourned for those three children. I think that every one of us recognised the horror of what took place, and our prayers and our thoughts are very much with the families even today, and especially with the parents. I think that is how we all feel.

This is a very full report, and I commend the author for his determination to ensure that political correctness did not influence it. It is clear that a sea change is required in departments so that they are less concerned about offending people and more concerned about protecting our innocents. What lessons can be learned to inform new procedures to ensure that there is accountability in the intelligence and security services in particular?

The hon. Gentleman is right: it is cultural change that is needed, and that is what Sir Adrian Fulford’s initial recommendations in phase 1 were designed to bring about, along with practical measures to change the way in which risk is assessed and ultimately mitigated. The Government will respond fully to those recommendations, and will bring together every part of Government—every part of the state—to ensure that people are doing all that they should be doing to assess risk, because the only factors that matter relate to the risk posed by an individual to other people of significant harm of the type that we have seen in this case. The Government will ensure that that happens in the future.

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement this afternoon.