Ongoing
· Chair: Sir Adrian Fulford
· Established April 2025
· Commissioned by Home Office
Inquiry into the 29 July 2024 Southport knife attack by Axel Rudakubana at a children's Taylor Swift dance class, which killed three girls: Bebe King, Elsie Dot Stancombe and Alice da Silva Aguiar, and injured ten others.
More about this inquiry
Inquiry into the 29 July 2024 Southport knife attack by Axel Rudakubana at a children's Taylor Swift dance class, which killed three girls: Bebe King, Elsie Dot Stancombe and Alice da Silva Aguiar, and injured ten others. Phase 1 report published 13 April 2026, making 67 recommendations across policing, social care, education, healthcare, Prevent, weapons/online harms. Phase 2 will examine children drawn into extreme violence.
No statement from Department for Education found in the sources searched 10
No statement from Southport Inquiry Phase 2 found in the sources searched 10
No statement from Lancashire Constabulary found in the sources searched 7
No statement from Lancashire County Council found in the sources searched 7
No statement from Home Office found in the sources searched 6
Lancashire County Council says in progress 5
No statement from Counter Terrorism Policing found in the sources searched 4
No statement from Department of Health and Social Care found in the sources searched 3
No statement from All police forces found in the sources searched 2
No statement from Department for Transport found in the sources searched 2
Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust says in progress 1
No statement from Amazon found in the sources searched 1
No statement from Department for Science, Innovation and Technology found in the sources searched 1
No statement from Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust found in the sources searched 1
Home Office says in progress 1
No statement from Law Commission found in the sources searched 1
No statement from Merseyside Police found in the sources searched 1
No statement from Metropolitan Police Service found in the sources searched 1
No statement from NHS England found in the sources searched 1
No statement from North West Ambulance Service NHS Trust found in the sources searched 1
No statement from Youth Justice Board for England and Wales found in the sources searched 1
Blanket response: The government's response to Phase 1 (CP 1623, 2 July 2026) agreed with all 67 recommendations in one sentence, and names only 39 of them individually. Where a recommendation is not named, the response shown is the passage the response gives for the group it belongs to (the recommendations for organisations outside central government, or the recommendations to policing bodies), which is not a response to that recommendation alone; the response does not list the members of any group. The 10 recommendations for Phase 2 of the Inquiry to consider show no response: the response introduces them (paragraph 20) but answers none of them. The government accepts the recommendations that are for central government to deliver. Where a recommendation is for an organisation outside central government, the government's agreement is not that organisation's acceptance.
Record checked against the sources 2 July 2026. Latest activity 15 September 2026.
For Phase 2 of the Inquiry · For Phase 2 of the Inquiry to consider
Recommended
Phase 2 should consider what single agency or structure should be appointed or established to record, monitor and co-ordinate interventions for children and young people who present a high risk of serious harm. This must be matched with cultural change so that agencies are prepared to own and manage risk appropriately not just refer it on to others.
Since then (summary written by this site)
The Inquiry asked Phase 2 to consider establishing a single agency for high-risk children. In an April 2026 press release, Stephanie Roberts-Bibby, Chief Executive of the Youth Justice Board, noted the recommendation for a lead agency to be considered in Phase 2 (Stephanie Roberts-Bibby, Apr 2026). She stated in April 2026 that the board fully supports clearer ownership of risk, adding that this must be reinforced by professional curiosity and responsibility (Stephanie Roberts-Bibby, Apr 2026).
Addressed to Southport Inquiry Phase 2 · Full record
For Phase 2 of the Inquiry · For Phase 2 of the Inquiry to consider
Recommended
Phase 2 should consider the development of a shared multi‑agency risk‑assessment tool that is clear, accessible and suitable for use across public sector services.
Addressed to Southport Inquiry Phase 2 · Full record
For Phase 2 of the Inquiry · For Phase 2 of the Inquiry to consider
Recommended
Phase 2 should consider whether there should be a further ability to restrict or monitor access to the internet on the part of children and young people, if a significant threshold is passed concerning the risk they pose to others.
Addressed to Southport Inquiry Phase 2 · Full record
For Phase 2 of the Inquiry · For Phase 2 of the Inquiry to consider
Recommended
Phase 2 should consider whether conventional archery bows should be subject to age‑verification prior to sale, delivery restrictions including ID checks, mandatory labelling for deliveries, and industry or trading standards to prevent the use of military‑style imagery in marketing.
Addressed to Southport Inquiry Phase 2 · Full record
For Phase 2 of the Inquiry · For Phase 2 of the Inquiry to consider
Recommended
Phase 2 should consider age verification for the use of Virtual Private Network (VPN) software and other options to avoid VPNs being used to circumvent the age-related protections in the Online Safety Act 2023.
Addressed to Southport Inquiry Phase 2 · Full record
For Phase 2 of the Inquiry · For Phase 2 of the Inquiry to consider
Recommended
Phase 2 should consider the ability of community and forensic mental health services to deliver clinical interventions to mitigate the risk from violence fixated children and young people.
Addressed to Southport Inquiry Phase 2 · Full record
For Phase 2 of the Inquiry · For Phase 2 of the Inquiry to consider
Recommended
Phase 2 should consider whether further legislative change is required to allow mental health clinicians to assess children and young people who are isolated from professional support and may pose a risk of violence, particularly where powers under the Mental Health Act 1983, as amended by the Mental Health Act 2025, do not permit assessment or detention.
Addressed to Southport Inquiry Phase 2 · Full record
Written Ministerial StatementHouse of CommonsDan Jarvis · Labour
Statement: The Government remains committed to protecting the public from the threats posed by dangerous substances that could be misused to cause serious harm. As part of this responsibility, the Government keeps the framework that governs explosives precursors and poisons under regular review to ensure that …
Written Ministerial StatementHouse of LordsLord Hanson of Flint · Labour
Statement: My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Security (Dan Jarvis) has today made the following Written Ministerial Statement:The Government remains committed to protecting the public from the threats posed by dangerous substances that could be misused to cause serious harm. As part of …
Written Ministerial StatementHouse of CommonsShabana Mahmood · Labour
Statement: On 13 April 2026, the Chair of the Southport Inquiry, Sir Adrian Fulford published his Phase 1 report. Sir Adrian sets out five fundamental failings, and makes 67 recommendations for central government, and a range of national and local partners to consider. He concludes that …
Written Ministerial StatementHouse of LordsLord Hanson of Flint · Labour
Statement: My rt hon Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood) has today made the following Written Ministerial Statement:On 13 April 2026, the Chair of the Southport Inquiry, Sir Adrian Fulford published his Phase 1 report. Sir Adrian sets out five fundamental …
Written QuestionHouse of LordsLord Kamall · Conservative
Asked: To ask His Majesty's Government whether the internal investigation by Liverpool Women’s University Hospital into inappropriate access to the medical records of victims in Southport examined (1) breaches using hospital systems to access the patients' GP records, (2) access to Summary Care Records, or (3) …
Answered by Department of Health and Social Care: The unauthorised access of patients’ confidential information following the tragic events in Southport and Nottingham was unacceptable. It is essential that patients’ confidential information is only accessed appropriately, lawfully, and in line with their reasonable expectations. As the investigation carried out by the Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust was internal, the Department does not have the detailed information requested. …
Written QuestionHouse of LordsLord Kamall · Conservative
Asked: To ask His Majesty's Government whether the internal investigation by Liverpool Women’s University Hospital into inappropriate access to the medical records of victims in Southport considered the patient or the hospital itself to have been a victim of the unlawful misuse of data; and whether …
Answered by Department of Health and Social Care: The unauthorised access of patients’ confidential information following the tragic events in Southport and Nottingham was unacceptable. It is essential that patients’ confidential information is only accessed appropriately, lawfully, and in line with their reasonable expectations. As the investigation carried out by the Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust was internal, the Department does not have the detailed information requested. …
Written QuestionHouse of LordsLord Kamall · Conservative
Asked: To ask His Majesty's Government whether the internal investigation by Liverpool Women’s University Hospital into inappropriate access to the medical records of victims in Southport included an assessment of whether the records of victims who had died in hospital had been accessed.
Answered by Department of Health and Social Care: The unauthorised access of patients’ confidential information following the tragic events in Southport and Nottingham was unacceptable. It is essential that patients’ confidential information is only accessed appropriately, lawfully, and in line with their reasonable expectations. As the investigation carried out by the Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust was internal, the Department does not have the detailed information requested. …
Written QuestionHouse of LordsLord Kamall · Conservative
Asked: To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of whether there was any inappropriate access to records of people receiving NHS care as a result of events currently subject to a public inquiry other than the internal investigation by Liverpool Women’s University Hospital …
Answered by Department of Health and Social Care: The unauthorised access of patients’ confidential information following the tragic events in Southport and Nottingham was unacceptable. It is essential that patients’ confidential information is only accessed appropriately, lawfully, and in line with their reasonable expectations. As the investigation carried out by the Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust was internal, the Department does not have the detailed information requested. …