PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Southport Attack - 21 January 2025 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

Before we come to the Home Secretary’s statement, I want to say that I appreciate that it has been most frustrating for the House that we have not been able to discuss the issues relating to this case because of ongoing prosecutions. Although the case is still technically sub judice until sentencing on Thursday, given that the accused has pleaded guilty to all charges and that there is strong public interest in the House being able to discuss these matters, I am granting a waiver so that Members may discuss it freely. I am confident that the House’s sub judice resolution has been followed correctly, and I am grateful to Members for their patience in not discussing this case substantially before now. I am going to ensure that the House’s sub judice resolution is reviewed to ensure it is fit for purpose.

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, and 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 three little girls—Elsie Dot Stancombe, Bebe King and Alice da Silva Aguiar—their precious smiles and 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 that 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 are public service at its very best.

Yesterday, Axel Rudakubana pleaded 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 Crown Prosecution Service 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 those offences.

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 have 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 systems, because nothing is 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 to Prevent three times between December 2019 and April 2021, when aged 13 and 14. Between October 2019 and May 2022, Lancashire police responded to five 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, and child and adolescent mental health services. He was convicted of a violent assault against another child at school and was referred to the youth offending team. He was excluded from one school and 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 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 Couzens, it will begin work 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. In just three years, there has been a threefold increase in under-18s investigated for involvement in terrorism. Some 162 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”;

and 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 is radicalising our children while safety measures are whittled away.

The Online Safety Act 2023 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 are this week contacting technology companies to ask them to remove the dangerous material that he accessed. Companies should not be profiting from hosting content that puts children’s lives at risk.

Let me set out four other areas where we are taking action in advance of the inquiry. First, 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 three referrals took place between three and four years before the Southport attack, including following evidence Rudakubana 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 the perpetrator’s 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 that the cumulative significance of those three repeat referrals was not properly considered.

The Prevent programme is vital to our national security and 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 those 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. 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 with conducting an end-to-end review of Prevent thresholds, including on Islamist extremism, where referrals have previously been too low. We are looking at cases where mental ill health or neurodivergence is a factor, and developing new arrangements with other agencies for cases that may not meet the threshold for Channel counter-extremism support, but where violent behaviour must be addressed urgently.

Secondly, two 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 against him was far too weak. 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.

Thirdly, as the Prime Minister has set out this morning, we need to ensure 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 number 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, let me address the issue of contempt of court. The British way of justice means that 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, and to ensure the trial is fair and justice is done. Social media puts those long-established rules under strain, especially where partial and inaccurate information appears online, and the Law Commission is reviewing the contempt of court rules in that light. But let me be clear that where the police, Government and journalists are given clear advice from the CPS about contempt of court and about not publishing information in advance of a trial, if we did not respect that and a killer walked free, we would never be forgiven.

There are times when something so unfathomably terrible happens that whatever words we find feel grossly insufficient, and 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 and 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.

Order. Let us start and I will try to call everybody who was here on time. I call the shadow Home Secretary.

I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement and for the briefing she kindly arranged.

First, let us remember the three young, innocent victims of this savage and senseless attack: Bebe King was just six years old, Elsie Dot Stancombe was seven and Alice da Silva Aguiar was nine years old. Their lives were cruelly cut short as they attended a Taylor Swift dance class. It should have been a time of joy, part of a precious and innocent childhood to be cherished and remembered, and yet the darkest of shadows fell over Southport that day as those girls were robbed of their young lives. Let us not forget that eight more children and two adults were seriously injured on that day as well. Many of us in the House are parents or grandparents, and many people listening today will be too. We can only begin to imagine the pain and grief the parents and family of Bebe, Elsie and Alice must now be feeling. We should recognise and thank the first responders who arrived at the scene.

We owe it to the memory of those children and to their bereaved parents to learn the lessons from this terrible incident and to take steps to make sure it does not happen again. In that spirit, I welcome and support the inquiry announced yesterday. Will the Home Secretary confirm that it will be placed on a statutory footing as soon as possible, to ensure its independence and to enable it to compel disclosure of the evidence it may need? It is vital to get to the truth about the opportunities that may have existed to stop the evil perpetrator, Axel Rudakubana, from committing those sickening murders.

Rudakubana was encountered multiple times, as the Home Secretary has said, by the police, social services, the school system and the Prevent programme over a period of several years. The inquiry will find out, I hope, whether mistakes were made or whether the law needs to change. The Home Secretary mentioned some areas that will rightly be looked at, and I support that. Will the Home Secretary confirm that the inquiry will include consideration of whether the Mental Health Act 1983 was adequate for this case?

The Home Secretary has rightly referred to Prevent. A review of Prevent was conducted by Sir William Shawcross and the last Government responded to that in February 2024. Will the Home Secretary now commit to implementing all the recommendations of the Shawcross review?

I now turn to what happened after the murders and to the importance of openness and transparency. First—this is a serious and important question—will the Home Secretary confirm that the inquiry will also cover the Government, police and CPS response to the murders and especially the handling of public communications and the appalling riots that followed? It is a very important question, and I will be grateful if the Home Secretary answers that directly in her response.

The Prime Minister this morning acknowledged that he knew about the background to the case and to Rudakubana himself, including that he had been referred to Prevent on three separate occasions and that he had been found to be in possession of ricin—a highly toxic chemical—and a manual detailing al-Qaeda terrorist methods, which is itself an offence under the Terrorism Act 2006. The Prime Minister also said this morning that he did not disclose any of that to the public in the days and weeks after the murders for fear of prejudicing the subsequent murder trial.

It is, of course, important for journalists, politicians and this House to do nothing that might prejudice a trial. However, Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, said this, in the context of the case, on the “Today” programme in October:

“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,

“if there is any information you can give, put it in the public domain, and be really careful that you don’t fall into the trap of saying ‘we can only say zilch, because there are criminal proceedings’.”

He continued:

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

Jonathan Hall concluded by saying that that police realise now

“that just saying ‘there’s a charge, we can’t say any more’, is not going to cut it these days.”

The independent reviewer is therefore saying that the Government and police can put some material into the public domain without prejudicing subsequent trials.

In fact, on 29 October, Rudakubana was charged with possessing the ricin and the terror manual, and that was then made public. If that can be made public in October without risking prejudice of the murder trial, it follows that it could have been made public in August without prejudicing that same trial. Background facts on other cases over the years have been made public after arrest and before trial without prejudice—the shields relating to two of those cases are in this Chamber. Why, therefore, did the Prime Minister not make public some of that background information in August when he knew it, when later disclosure of that information in October demonstrated that such disclosure could be made without prejudice? Why, too, did the Deputy Prime Minister, on 31 July, dismiss as “fake news” those saying that there may be further facts to come out?

Briefly, before concluding, let me explain why that is important. As Jonathan Hall said, if there is a void, misinformation can fill that void, especially online. That appears to be what happened here and some of that information, it is said, originated overseas from hostile states. It is possible—indeed, even likely—that that misinformation that was put into the void fuelled the totally unacceptable riots we then subsequently saw. Will the Home Secretary therefore accept, given what Jonathan Hall and I have said, that there should and could have been more openness and transparency, as I just set out, without prejudicing the trial, and that disclosing more of that truth openly and transparently would have helped combat the damaging misinformation that circulated and which, arguably, fuelled the riots? Will she confirm the inquiry will look at that aspect of events?

This was an appalling tragedy: young girls, murdered, with their whole lives ahead of them. Let us all learn the lessons from this tragedy in honour of their memory.

The shadow Home Secretary raised a series of points, which is obviously a substantial shift in position for him and his party from the one they took in government. He asked about the status of the inquiry. I can confirm that it will start quickly on a non-statutory basis, in the same way that the Angiolini inquiry did. However, I can also confirm that it will be given whatever powers it needs, including on a statutory basis, so that it can get any information that it needs.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Shawcross review. I can confirm that the Government have implemented 33 out of the 34 recommendations. I will gently point out, however, that the approach that the Shawcross review took was to say that the Prevent programme should be narrowed and should focus particularly on the cases around terrorism. That could have risked including fewer cases like this one, where ideology is less clear.

The shadow Minister then raised the issue about the information that was provided. He will know that the Contempt of Court Act was set out in 1981. Jonathan Hall has highlighted the problem of disinformation online, with social media actors not bound by the same rules that the police, the media and the Government follow. He refers, for example, to the name and nationality being provided, which in practice they were in this case after misinformation appeared online. Ultimately, he has also said that all that is governed by the Contempt of Court Act 1981, and the Law Commission is reviewing that. However, it is not for the Government to ignore the law or the advice that we are given when justice for families is at stake.

I will point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the previous Conservative Government did not publish information before the trial about the Prevent referral for the perpetrator who killed Sir David Amess. None of us criticised them for that because none of us wanted to put at risk justice for Sir David’s family. Nor did they publish information before the trial on the Prevent referral of the asylum seeker who killed Tom Roberts. In fact, they did not even publish that after the trial; it only came out in the inquest. Further, the Minister, who even after the trial refused to answer my questions on whether they knew that the asylum seeker was wanted for murdering two people in Serbia when he was allowed to enter the country, was the current shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick).

We have been keen to publish the information on Prevent referrals from the start, but the advice to us has been clear throughout. If we had ignored the advice that we were given about the case that was put to us and about the information that the police and the CPS were working through in order to get justice, and if, as a result, a killer had walked free, no one would ever have forgiven the Government or anyone else. The most important thing is to get justice and then, once justice is secured, to make sure at this point that the questions are answered about what went wrong and why three young girls’ lives were lost. That is the question the shadow Home Secretary should be focusing on right now.

It has been another tough week for my Southport constituency, as I am sure that Members across the House will appreciate. I want to start by thanking the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister for the calm, diligent way in which they have undertaken their work over the last six months, and for the way in which they have been good friends to Southport.

I was clear back in the summer that I did not want people speculating online as to the motives or the background of the person who we can now say was the murderer of those three girls. We were risking prejudicing the trial, and it could have collapsed because of that speculation. In fact, it was not just speculation, but in some respects, downright lies—downright lies that were being circulated in the interests of political gain, with the interests of justice a distant second. Does the Home Secretary agree that the next stage of achieving justice for my community and for the families impacted so desperately by the crime back in July—that is, the public inquiry—should also be allowed to undertake its work and make its recommendations free of the ridiculous nonsense and lies that we have seen from public figures who should know better and which have been circulating purely for their own interests?

My hon. Friend has been an important voice for the people in his community throughout this unimaginably difficult time and has spoken for them with great dignity and passion, including in this House.

My hon. Friend is right that nothing of that sort should be done; it is part of our British justice tradition that information is produced at the trial, but not in advance for fear of prejudicing a jury, of undermining justice and of potentially letting criminals walk free. He is right that we should never do that. He is also right that his community, including the families involved, need answers now. And the answers that they need include how on earth this shocking, disturbing and barbaric attack was able to happen. What went wrong? What could have been done to prevent it? There is also the question of how we as a society face up to the rising youth violence and extremism that we have seen, with this being just one example among some very disturbing cases. That is the justice and the answers that those families need.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

I am grateful to the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. What happened in Southport last year was a horrific tragedy. Three innocent young girls—Alice, Bebe and Elsie—lost their lives to an act of senseless brutal violence, and our thoughts go out to the bereaved families and their friends, for whom this week will be incredibly difficult. We all owe it to these girls to ensure that a senseless tragedy such as this can never happen again.

It has been deeply concerning to hear reports about how, in the lead-up to the attack, warning signs were missed as the attacker fell through the cracks in the system. The Liberal Democrats welcome the Government’s commitment to an inquiry, and, clearly, tough questions need to be asked. The inquiry must not shy away from getting the answers. This inquiry, like others, will only reach its full potential when there is a duty of candour that requires public officials and authorities to co-operate fully. I would welcome more details from the Home Secretary on when her Government plan to finally introduce the Hillsborough law to Parliament.

Our country also deserves a counter-terrorism strategy that keeps our community safe and is fit to tackle the modern challenges that we face in an increasingly complex online world that crosses international boundaries. Will the Home Secretary confirm that these concerns will be addressed in the upcoming counter-terrorism strategy? This must be a watershed moment from which we move forward by building a system that avoids future failures such as we have seen in this case. It is my sincere hope that we can work together across this House to make that a reality.

The hon. Member makes an important point: we want to introduce the duty of candour as part of the Hillsborough law. She is also right to talk about the challenges of countering terrorism, extremism and these changing patterns of extreme violence. As the Met Commissioner has said, those with a fixation on violence and gore are also consuming different bits of terrorist and extremist material. The ideology may be unclear, but they pose a danger to the public. This inquiry needs to look at all those issues, and, as part of our Prevent work and counter-terrorism work, we need to act at pace in these areas as well.

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement this afternoon. As many Members have said, our thoughts remain with Bebe, Elsie and Alice. We can all remember where we were that late mid-morning on 29 July. I had just dropped off my two children at their holiday camp at school. When the news broke, I could feel that panic. I almost stopped for a minute to think: are my children safe? We think about the other children and the trauma that they will be feeling, and the first responders who ran towards that danger knowing that they could be harmed.

The Home Secretary has announced an inquiry, but, sadly, there is also the issue of the nature of the violence that children as young as 15 or 16 are viewing online—the nature of the violence that was used on Elianne Andam when she was tragically stabbed in Croydon on 27 September, and the nature of the violence that Axel Rudakubana used on these three girls. How will the Home Secretary ensure that the institutions which, if we are honest, failed to see those warning signs will not fail in the future? What will the inquiry do differently, so that, as a House, we will not be coming back to recount dangerous tragedies again in the future?

My hon. Friend is right to describe how every parent and grandparent will have felt on hearing those awful descriptions on that day in July. She is also right to focus on what our young people—our children—are seeing online. If we do not face up to this, the damage that we could be doing to generations down the line is disturbing and troubling. That means that social media companies need to take responsibility. The Online Safety Act 2023 will introduce stronger codes and requirements, but the companies themselves also need to take some responsibility, instead of going backwards, which they are at the moment.

I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.

I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement, and my thoughts are with everybody involved. The list that she set out of the points where the agencies and institutions could have intervened sooner is truly terrifying. What reassurance can she give the House that this is a cross-Government piece of work and that all agencies and institutions will be involved? Furthermore, as and when the inquiry makes recommendations, which it will hopefully do on an interim basis, will she give a commitment that she will look carefully at them and implement them as soon as possible?

We will certainly look at any recommendations that come from this important inquiry. We need to look at what went wrong in this case. This is particularly about the interactions between the different agencies. There were so many agencies involved, but, as a network, they failed to identify the risk and to have sufficient actions in place. Lancashire county council has carried out a rapid initial review, but there still has to be a statutory child safeguarding practice review and a coroner’s inquiry. However, our view is that those are not sufficient, because we need a cross-agency examination of all of the things that went wrong in this case. We have to start with the dangers that were posed to those children in Southport in such a devastating way and then see why the system so badly failed to protect them from those dangers. We need that rather than organisations working in their own silos, doing only their bit and then leaving children at risk.

I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement and for announcing the public inquiry. I want to remember Alice, Bebe and Elsie, and their families and friends. I also want to remember the other victims of the attack and the first responders, some of whom have given harrowing accounts over the last six months of what they found at the Hart Space in Southport.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we in this House should recommit to the principle that nothing that we say or do in this place or elsewhere should prejudice criminal proceedings or prevent justice from being secured? Does she agree that to have done so in this case would have been an insult to the memories of Alice, Bebe and Elsie, an insult to their families and friends, and an insult to everyone in the community in Southport who were, and remain, so badly affected by what happened on 29 July last year?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The families and all the people across Southport and the country need the truth. They need answers about what happened and what went so badly wrong in this case. That is why the information is put before the trial and then released after the trial. That is how the British justice system works. Crucially, at the heart of this, people need to see justice. There has to be an account for such a terrible, terrible, barbaric crime. All of us have to make sure that justice is delivered, because when lives have been lost in such a terrible way, justice is the minimum that they deserve.

I hope the Home Secretary will not take it as a discourtesy if I say to her that it should be the Prime Minister making this statement here today. This morning, he said on television that singleton terrorist attacks are a very new occurrence; they are not. They have been going on for nearly a decade. There have been many in London, including one in the yard of this House of Commons, and one that killed Sir David Amess, our colleague. In that attack on Sir David Amess, the police declared it a terrorist incident the same day. Without three Prevent references, without ricin, and without an al-Qaeda manual, they declared it a terrorist event the same day. So we all wonder why this was not the case here when there was such evidence. This is a clear mistake, is it not?

The decision about the application of the Terrorism Act 2000 is one for the police and, ultimately, the CPS when it lays charges based on the operational information that it has. The prosecution will lay out more information before sentencing that they would have put before the court today had the offender not pleaded guilty initially, and that is for them to decide. But the point the Prime Minister made this morning was that this was clearly a case where someone attempted to terrorise the community. That was clearly their intention—to kill those children and to terrorise more widely. That is why we have to ensure that, even in cases where the police and the prosecution say they have not been able to prove ideology, we still have the right powers, sentencing and ability to respond with swiftness and seriousness to the kinds of cases we are facing. That is why the Prime Minister has said this needs to be reviewed—I referred to the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation looking at those issues—and also why we have this statement to the House and are doing this inquiry.

Where I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman is when he said we have had such cases for a long time. We have seen in recent years a big increase in youth violence and extremism on a disturbing scale, and that needs to be part of the inquiry as well.

I associate myself and my community with the statement from the Home Secretary on this tragic incident. Whether it is the purchasing of knives online or the sharing of horrible videos celebrating violence and death, there is clearly a gap in the ability of the state to hold social media companies and online retailers to account. What more can the Government do, together with the intelligence services, to take robust action and hold to account social media companies that are allowing extremism, violence and horror to be present on their sites?

My hon. Friend raises an important point. We are raising with the companies some of the particular dangerous material that this terrible offender accessed online, and the police and prosecution will say more about some of that material later this week.

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the issue around online knife sales. We know that in the case of Ronan Kanda, who was brutally murdered with a ninja sword, that the perpetrator was able to buy that online and pick it up with no age checks at all. In this case, for a 17-year-old to be able to get the knife he used online from Amazon, that is frankly shocking. Commander Stephen Clayman has been doing a review for us of online knife sales and the kinds of checks that should be taking place. We will bring forward new measures to tackle this problem based on that review.

I am particularly drawn to the line in the immediate learning review where it concludes that “too much weight was placed on the absence of ideology, without considering the vulnerabilities to radicalisation”. Much of the challenge over the summer was because there was an understandable lack of public understanding of the distinction between a terrorist incident and a non-terrorist incident. Had this person done exactly the same thing but been driven by a desire to create a caliphate here in the UK, it would of course have been defined as a terrorist attack. The fact that it was not is of no solace to the families who lost loved ones. Is it not now the time—I appreciate this could be part of the review, but I urge the Home Secretary to ensure it is given particular emphasis in the review—to get rid of this entirely arbitrary distinction of motivation and to focus exclusively on the risks and actions?

The former Home Secretary makes an extremely important point because, from the point of view of the families and the community, the attack was intended to terrorise the community, and their real concern is about the scale of the harm. They saw the loss of children’s lives and the impact on the community.

The law is set out in the Terrorism Act 2000, and there is serious consideration for different agencies about the nature of the response. If there is an ideological attack or motivation, it may be that a counter-extremism response—the kind of support that the Channel programme provides—is targeted at the extremist ideology that needs to be challenged, tackled and taken down. Alternatively, if the issue is around mental health or an obsession with violence and gore, it may need a different kind of response. But the right hon. Member is right that the threats from the point of view of the community will feel the same. That is why the law needs to be looked at again, but it is also why we need to have this inquiry, which can look at where the gaps are in the way that different state agencies respond, because we have seen those growing gaps—obviously, in the most traumatic of ways in this case.

I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. In her statement and in the Prime Minister’s speech this morning, they painted a terrifying picture of how terrorism is changing in this country and how the threat we face is evolving, especially with the proliferation of extremely violent online content, which is having an effect on mixed ideologies and ideologies from across the spectrum. Clearly, part of the response will be from the intelligence services. Will the Home Secretary tell us how the intelligence services will be responding to this evolving threat and what the Government are doing to prevent the growth of extremism through extreme online content?

My hon. Friend is right that we seem to have cases where there is extreme violence, or where obsession grows around extreme violence, and then young people cast around to consume different kinds of terrorist or extremist material, but at its heart it may be an obsession with violence. Different circumstances will require different kinds of responses, but the scale of the growing obsession with violence should be a serious concern to us because it makes us think, “What are we allowing to happen to our kids and teenagers if we see this kind of obsession grow?” That is why we need action. Clearly, the focus of the intelligence and security agencies is on those cases where there is organised ideology and radicalisation, as well as state threats, but we have to deal with the kinds of threats that our society faces much more widely, and that means everyone needs to be part of it.

I associate myself with colleagues’ remarks about the murder of those three wee girls and the bravery of the first responders. Most of all, we think about the families left behind. I agree that we have a responsibility to the victims, when talking about these kinds of cases, to ensure that we do so responsibly, while keeping the Government under scrutiny. There is a fast evolving situation regarding technology companies. Will the Home Secretary tell us what areas she is looking at on enforcement? In this diverse, multi-agency case, what interaction has she had with the Scottish Government and the devolved Administrations in the areas where they have responsibility?

The hon. Member is right that there are issues around the responsibility of social media companies. Stronger powers will be brought in as part of the Online Safety Act, but we urge the companies to take responsibility now and not to continue to profit from dangerous material that is putting kids at risk.

On the discussions with the Scottish Government, we have broad discussions planned for later this week on some of our shared Home Office responsibilities. The hon. Member will know that policing and crime are devolved, but that national security issues, where terrorism cases may fall or have an impact, are reserved. On such cases, we would expect to consult the Scottish Government and discuss the way forward.

I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement. My thoughts and prayers are with everyone involved. Acts of terror devastate the families of victims who are left to pick up the pieces, having their closest loved ones robbed from them in the cruellest way. As with the Forbury Gardens terrorist attack in 2020, which saw my constituents Gary and Jan Furlong lose their beloved son James, these acts often take place after multiple agency failings. The Forbury Gardens perpetrator had been referred to Prevent four times and was known to mental health services. It will be important to those families in Southport that lessons are learned and acted on in a timely way. Will the Government engage with me and Survivors Against Terror on its calls for a survivors’ charter, which would extend rights to survivors and the families of victims?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Security Minister has met and had regular discussions with survivors of terror. They raise serious concerns about, for example, the way in which survivors of the Manchester Arena attack ended up feeling badly let down, and the additional support needed in such cases. We will continue to discuss the support that is needed with those organisations.

I trust that the Home Secretary agrees that the courage shown by the dance teacher and the member of the public who intervened should be recognised appropriately. What troubles me is that we seem to have a subtext here of saying that if only that particular ticking time-bomb had been successfully referred to Prevent, it could have stopped him doing what he did. Assuming that someone so committed to fanaticism would not respond to Prevent, will the Home Secretary share with the House what measures are in place to keep such terrible events from happening? Do terrorism prevention and investigation measures, for example, apply in a case like that?

The right hon. Member makes an important point. Those referrals were three to four years before the attack, and multiple different agencies had contact with Rudakubana, but there is a huge question about the powers and interventions that were available. Even if the scale of the risk and danger that he posed had been sufficiently identified, what could have been done? That is one of the reasons why the Government are determined to bring in a new power, a youth diversion order, to address some of the difficult cases—particularly those involving teenagers—and see what requirements might be put on young people in such cases. We will bring forward legislation as part of the crime and policing Bill.

The barbaric murder of those three little girls in Southport is part of a growing problem of youngsters fixated on violence and gore, as the Home Secretary said. That worrying phenomenon has been fuelled by the rapid growth of websites and social media forums that promote and revel in such violence. Can the Home Secretary confirm that the inquiry into Southport will look into exactly that danger promoted by such websites?

We will certainly ensure that that issue is clearly in the scope of the inquiry, which must consider why so many young people are drawn into an obsession with violence and extremist activity, and what exactly is going wrong and why, so that we can take the action needed across society to keep our children safe.

The Home Secretary told us that, last year alone, 162 people were referred to Prevent over concerns relating to school massacres—a truly shocking and disturbing figure. How many of those people are currently in detention?

The hon. Member will know that a referral to Prevent can be for young people who may have expressed an interest in school massacre, as opposed to those who have committed a crime. The point of the Prevent programme is early intervention to take action preventing young people from committing crime. My view is that the powers are not strong enough currently to prevent young people from committing crimes or getting drawn into extremist violence. That is exactly why we need to introduce the youth diversion order—a stronger power for the police to take action in these extremely serious cases.

It is important to note that this attacker is a terrorist. He has been charged under the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Biological Weapons Act 1974. The man is a terrorist. The attack itself has not been labelled terrorism because of the lack of a clear ideological motive—that is a decision for the police and the CPS. Will the Home Office look into how our legal frameworks might be updated to recognise the full horror of acts intended to terrorise?

My hon. Friend is right. We need the legal framework to be up to date to ensure sufficient scope, powers and sentencing are in place to deal with acts that are intended to terrorise, even where there is no ideology. He is also right to say that this man has been charged under the Terrorism Act and has pleaded guilty to a terrorist offence, and I can confirm that he will be treated as a terrorist offender in prison.

If the authorities remain silent, bad people write the script. On 16 October 2021, those authorities, and then their political masters, were frank about what had happened the previous day in Southend, and there were no riots. Why is that different from this?

The right hon. Member refers to the attack on Sir David Amess, who I regard as a friend, as I know he does—Sir David was a great loss to this House. The Government did not publish crucial information about, for example, the Prevent referral that had taken place. A lot of information was not provided until the trial. In fact, this Government are going further in providing information after the trial than was provided in that case. I do not think that anyone should attempt to excuse people who threw bricks and rocks at police officers by saying that it was something to do with the information they were provided with and when. They committed crimes; they need to take responsibility for those crimes.

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The thing about the social media companies is that they have incredibly sophisticated technology and resources. They know exactly how to target every single one of us online with things in which we might be interested, and they use their algorithms in all kinds of sophisticated ways. They have the capability to do far more to identify this dangerous content and take action on it. I believe that they should use those capabilities, rather than rowing back from content moderation and reducing the responsible action that they take.

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. Constituents across Lagan Valley send their thoughts and prayers not just to the families of Elsie, Alice and Bebe, but to the community of Southport. Something that has deeply concerned me for a long time is the radicalisation of young people in particular. As the Home Secretary explicitly stated, there is an online surge of young people becoming radicalised, including those who are interested in and look at content on violence against women and terror-linked activity. How will a lack of ideology be captured so that we can identify potential perpetrators? What laws can we pass in this House not only to stop social media companies profiting, but to ensure that they are aware of such violent and terrorist content on their platforms?

The hon. Member is right to raise that issue. The director of MI5 has talked about how the security services are seeing far too many cases of very young people being drawn into poisonous online extremism, and 13% of all those investigated for involvement in UK terrorism are now under 18. That is a disturbing fact for us all. The hon. Member is also right to say that we need to consider the complexity. Some young people become radicalised around an ideology early on. Others become obsessed with violence, and still others may switch between different extreme ideas and perspectives, but all of them are at risk of becoming dangerous to communities if they get drawn down that extremist track, and if their ideas get poisoned by things that they see online. That is why the issue is so important, and is a central part of the inquiry.

I thank the Home Secretary for updating the House, and welcome the uncompromising inquiry that she and the Prime Minister have announced. I would like to ask about social media and the digital information environment. I worked in a technology company for a long time, and I concur with the Home Secretary’s comments: the companies that we are talking about know what is circulating online and what is getting virality. After last summer, does she feel that she and the Prime Minister have the information that they need to make decisions in real time in order to secure our online information environment?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I do not think anyone would suggest that Ministers are in a position to make decisions on individual cases, but what we need is the right kind of framework. Clearly, the Online Safety Act will put new structures and systems in place. The Prime Minister made it clear this morning that we should not shy away from taking any further action needed to address this issue, because fundamentally, if it is impacting the safety of our children, we need to act.

The Prime Minister’s denial in August that Rudakubana was being investigated for offences under the Terrorism Act 2006 did not protect the trial, because we found out the facts anyway when Rudakubana was charged in October. The same disclosure did not cause other trials, such as that of the Parsons Green tube bomber, to fail. I am not talking about the detail of Prevent referrals, which the Home Secretary has mentioned in answers to similar questions, but about the information that was disclosed in October. If a jury knew that before the trial, why could the Prime Minister not have told the country the truth in August?

The hon. Member will know that investigation is carried out by the police. The Crown Prosecution Service decides what charges to bring, and how and when to bring them, based on the evidence it has gathered. That is the British justice system. Decisions are made by the police and prosecutors, who are rightly independent of Ministers. I strongly believe that this independence, which is part of our British judicial tradition, must continue.

We have heard that the murderer in Southport had a history of violence and a fascination with it, and was just 17 years old at the time of this horrific attack. There are no circumstances in which he should have been able to buy a knife. Does the Home Secretary agree that we have to get to the bottom of how that deadly weapon ended up in his hands, and ensure that teenagers are unable to buy these weapons in the future?

My hon. Friend is right: the perpetrator should never have been able to buy a knife online. It is really disturbing that despite all the cases we have seen in the past, it is still far too easy for young people to get access to knives online. That is why, through the policing and crime Bill, we will take action, including by ensuring that executives of online companies take responsibility for the checks that need to take place.

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. Despite the attacker’s three referrals to Prevent, five referrals to the local police force and multiple referrals to multiple hubs, we still did not protect Elsie, Alice and Bebe. We have failed them. We must ensure that this never happens again. Does the Home Secretary agree that whoever the perpetrator is, the victims are always terrorised, and that an obsession with ideology may have been an underlying factor in why we missed this perpetrator? Should we not look again at the Shawcross recommendations on ideology obsession?

The hon. Member is right that the Prevent learning review identified that in this case, the focus on ideology may have meant that some of the vulnerabilities to radicalisation were missed. We also have to recognise that cases in which there is ideology are different from cases in which there is not, and may require a different kind of response. The assessment of risk, and of the danger that a young person poses, may be the same, but the action that the state takes may need to change, depending on what is driving that danger and risk. For too long, though, some of those mixed-ideology cases—those unclear cases—may have been missed because we have not had sufficient focus on them. That focus is what the inquiry needs.

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, and of course, the victims and all those affected are very much in our thoughts and prayers. Nothing we say should detract from the fact that the perpetrator has sole responsibility for these awful crimes, but it is right to look at what happened beforehand. The Home Secretary has mentioned a few times the involvement of multiple agencies and their warnings. For me, that is one of the most concerning and shocking things. How come so many agencies were aware of the issue and raised concerns? This was not a lone wolf who popped out of nowhere. Who does the Home Secretary think ultimately bears responsibility for managing this perpetrator’s risk?

The hon. Member’s question gets to the heart of the problem. He is right that the responsibility for this appalling and barbaric attack lies with the attacker, and he needs to face the consequences. He has committed the most heinous crime. However, we have to ask questions on behalf of the families. There should have been a network of responsible agencies, and the inquiry needs to look at why, ultimately, so many agencies together failed to identify the scale of risk, and to take the action that was needed. Part of the challenge is that it can be too easy for each agency to think that somebody else is addressing a particular bit of the problem. There needs to be a much stronger approach to what happens between agencies. That is what the inquiry must look at.

I think the vast majority of the British people agree with the Government’s independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, who has said repeatedly that when these horrific crimes take place, more information needs to be put out sooner to avoid an information vacuum. However, that is in conflict with the need to avoid prejudicing a fair trial. Does the Home Secretary agree that it is incumbent on this House to find a way to overcome or reduce that conflict, so that we get more information sooner?

In the world of social media, there can be all sorts of information online, but as the hon. Member rightly says, we have to make sure that justice is done. We have to make sure that a jury is not prejudiced by information in such a way that a killer can walk free, but also that people can get answers and the crucial information that they need. The Law Commission is reviewing the Contempt of Court Act, which dates back to 1981, but I know the hon. Member recognises the importance of us following the law in the meantime. We need to make sure that justice is done and, now that we have a verdict, that the families can find out what went wrong in this case and get the answers that they so badly need and deserve.

I congratulate the Home Secretary on her proposals; she has my full support in turning over every stone in looking into this case, and I wholeheartedly agree with all the powers she is bringing forward. However, that is half of the story. She rightly talks about balancing the risk of a criminal walking free, but we have to bear in mind the riots that happened across this country. Will she consider conducting a review that looks into the creation of a framework for how Government talk about these issues in the media, so that the approach is standardised and there is no political point-scoring across this Chamber? At the heart of this issue is the public perception that information was withheld from them. We could then hold a review on the rioting, to make sure that there are no further riots, because there were no riots in October, when this information came out. There is a discrepancy there that needs looking at, and I would be grateful if the Home Secretary took up this matter.

I point out that the violent disorder stopped when people realised that they would face consequences for it, and when there was a clear police and criminal justice system response. There is no excuse for throwing rocks and bricks at the police—the same police officers who had to deal with the most horrendous attack on those little children in Southport. It is really important that the inquiry’s focus is on getting the families of those children the answers that they need about what went wrong in this terrible case, not on trying to excuse a bunch of thugs who were throwing rocks and bricks at the police—something for which there is no excuse at all.

As we reflect on the horror of the murder of these three young girls, we all have many questions, as do the public. Will the inquiry’s terms of reference permit an answer to this question: how far was the inaction by the various agencies influenced by fear of disturbing race or community relations? Was that a factor in the inaction? We have heard that there were three ineffective referrals to Prevent, and have heard of 162 other referrals to Prevent. Has the adequacy of the response to those referrals been reviewed?

I have introduced a new Prevent commissioner—Lord David Anderson is beginning work as the interim commissioner right now—because there is no independent review of Prevent decisions or processes. That is a problem, because the decisions that Prevent takes are incredibly important. They need to be effective, and we need to make sure that standards are maintained. That is why we need an independent review. We have independent inspectors of aspects of the work of other public services, such as policing. We need an independent commissioner brought in to review not just this case, but similar cases. On the scope of the inquiry, the Prime Minister made it clear this morning that this inquiry will follow the evidence wherever it takes the inquiry, and no stone can go unturned.

On what dates were the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary made aware that Axel Rudakubana was in possession of ricin and an al-Qaeda training manual, and will the inquiry cover public communications after the murders?

Ministers were of course updated throughout. The Home Office was advised about ricin in August, and we were advised about the document much later on in October. We made sure that the official Opposition were also briefed. In the end, those decisions and investigations are matters for the police on an operational basis. The tradition in this country is that we have operational independence for policing, and operationally independent decisions made by the CPS.

It is really sad that so many Opposition Members have chosen to ask questions about the timing of the release of information—they know that such issues are governed by the Contempt of Court Act, and that this is about providing justice for the families who lost their loved ones—rather than asking the serious questions about why that terrible, horrific and barbaric act took place. I would just ask the hon. Member, and others deciding what issues they want to focus on, to think very seriously about what the most important issue is here, when so many lives were lost.

In her statement, the Home Secretary said, “Let there be no doubt: responsibility for this outrage lies squarely with the perpetrator.” That is indubitably true, but I would argue that there is blood on the hands of the myriad very difficult to understand Government agencies and quangos that charge around in ever decreasing circles, blaming everybody else when something goes wrong. Will she commit to reviewing every single dropped or downgraded case on which Prevent failed to act appropriately, to avoid another heartbreaking catastrophe like this one?

We have announced two important things today. The first is the inquiry, which needs to go to the heart of what went wrong in this case—why so many agencies knew about this incredibly dangerous perpetrator who committed this barbaric act. The second is establishing the new Prevent independent commissioner, who can review different cases and ensure that the right approach has been taken, that risks are being identified and, frankly, that action is being taken. What disturbs me about some of the information—particularly the knife crime issues identified in this case—is that strong enough action was not taken. To keep people safe, we need to ensure that such action is taken.

I thank the Home Secretary very much for her statement, her tone and her well-chosen words. I think every one of us in the Chamber is heartbroken for the families and their loss. The trust of local communities was damaged by the information that was released, and I believe a lesson about transparency must be learned. Can the Home Secretary outline how the Government will ensure that trust is rebuilt in the system, that misinformation can be corrected and that such corrections are trusted in the future?

The hon. Member is right to raise the important issue of trust. The police and criminal justice system are rightly independent of Government and of politics, but there needs to be trust in the work they do. This Government have made it part of our mission to restore confidence in policing, which I think has been undermined for far too long, and to stand up for the rule of law. We must defend the different parts of the justice system, which rightly play different roles, otherwise they will not provide justice for people in the future.

Crucially, to ensure that there is trust, we need to get to the truth about what happened in this shocking, terrible case: what went wrong and why a dangerous man was able to commit this terrible crime. Above all, all of us should keep in our minds and in our hearts the three little children, their families and all those who have been affected by this truly appalling attack. We must ensure that we get them the truth and answers, and do everything that we can to prevent such terrible crimes.

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement.

Bill Presented

Arms Trade (Inquiry and Suspension) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Zarah Sultana presented a Bill to make provision for an inquiry into the end use of arms sold to foreign states to determine whether they have been used in violation of international law; to immediately suspend the sale of arms to foreign states where it cannot be demonstrated that arms sold will not be used in violation of international law; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 14 March, and to be printed (Bill 164).