Parliamentary activity

Answering body: Home Office

My rt hon Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Yvette Cooper) has today made the following Written Ministerial Statement:

On 29 July 2024, a brutal attack took place at a children’s dance club in Southport. Tragically, the perpetrator murdered three young girls, Elsie Dot Stancombe, Alice da Silva Aguiar and Bebe King, and injured ten other people. My thoughts remain with their families as they come to terms with this devastating loss as well as with those injured and with all those who were present that day who survived the attack but live with the serious emotional consequences.

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

It is of vital importance that there is a clear understanding of how this terrible attack was able to happen, and the lessons learnt, so that we can take all necessary steps to minimise the risk of a future tragedy. That is why I announced in my statement to the House on 21 January that the Government would establish an independent public inquiry to do this.

Today I am formally announcing the establishment of an Inquiry, under the Inquiries Act 2005. It will need to be able to swiftly receive evidence from the full range of relevant organisations. After careful consideration, including the representations made by some of the families and victims of the attack, I have decided to set the inquiry up on a statutory basis from the beginning. The formal date of establishment of the Inquiry is today and the inquiry will begin its work immediately.

The Inquiry will be chaired by The Right Honourable Sir Adrian Fulford. Sir Adrian will bring an impartial and extensive legal background to the inquiry, particularly on issues related to policing, the criminal justice system and multi-agency working. In accordance with the provision of section 3(1)(a) of the Inquiries Act 2005, Sir Adrian will sit alone as Chair.

The Inquiry will take place in two phases. The first phase will thoroughly investigate the circumstances surrounding the attack, as well as the events leading up to it – including the perpetrator’s interactions with different public bodies. I am today publishing the terms of reference for this first phase, and I will place a copy in the Libraries of both Houses.

A later, second phase will examine the wider issue of young people being drawn into extreme violence and will be informed by the first phase.

The direction of the Inquiry’s investigation will be a matter for the Chair. The Government will provide support and ensure that the Inquiry has the resources needed to fulfil its terms of reference.

I had the privilege to meet with some of the victims and families last month. I would like to put on record my thanks to them for taking the time to meet with me and the Safeguarding Minister and sharing their deeply personal experiences. Their courage and strength in recounting these painful memories is greatly appreciated. I know Sir Adrian is planning to travel to meet with them soon, as his first priority.

I also had the opportunity to discuss the public inquiry and how it could be approached to support victims and their families, to ensure they get answers they need and to minimise further distress from this terrible attack. I am grateful for their willingness to engage so constructively in this important conversation. Their input will be crucial in shaping the inquiry’s approach and ensuring the voices of all victims are heard during the process.

Answering body: Home Office

My hon Friend the Minister of State for Security (Dan Jarvis) has today made the following Written Ministerial Statement:

I would like to update the House on the report commissioned by the Home Secretary and published today by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation into law in the wake of the Southport attack.

The barbaric murder of three young girls in Southport last Summer is a scarring moment in our history. We think of those little girls, Elsie Dot Stancombe, Bebe King and Alice da Silva Aguiar, whose lives were devastatingly cut short. We think of their families’ agony. And we think of those who survived the attack but live with physical and emotional scars.

In January, the perpetrator was sentenced to 52 years in prison for his horrifying crimes. It is highly likely he will never be released.

As the Prime Minister said, the responsibility for this barbaric act lies with the vile individual who carried it out, but that provides no comfort.

When the Home Secretary addressed the House on this matter in January, she set out the next steps the Government would take – including on establishing a public inquiry, on reforms to Prevent and on the legislative framework.

The inquiry will examine the issues raised in this case but also wider challenges around the rising levels of predominantly young men and boys fixated with extreme violence who may pose a risk to society. We are moving swiftly to set up the inquiry. It is expected to begin within weeks, once we have completed the important consultation with the families and victims. We intend to announce further details by the end of this month.

Within the wider Prevent system, we are learning lessons to get ahead of this changing threat, and to ensure we have the early intervention capabilities we need to keep the public safe. The Home Secretary has previously announced new measures to strengthen Prevent decision-making.

Since then, we have extended Channel multi-agency support to new cohorts, launched new pilots to ensure those below Prevent thresholds get the support they need, and appointed an interim Prevent Commissioner to bring robust independent oversight.

The appalling attack in Southport terrorised an entire community. The police and CPS determined that it was not an act of terrorism under the legal definition of terrorism set out in the Terrorism Act 2000, because there is no evidence that the perpetrator’s purpose was to advance a political, religious, racial, or ideological cause. The court accepted that conclusion.

However, we should be in no doubt about its seriousness. The judge described the attack as ’equivalent in its seriousness to terrorist murders’. And as the Prime Minister and Home Secretary have set out, this case comes against a backdrop of growing numbers of cases of violence-fixated individuals and young people being drawn into extreme violence and radicalisation.

The Met Commissioner has warned of “young men who are fixated on violence… grazing across extremist and terrorist content”, whilst Five Eyes counter-terror partners have also warned about growing radicalisation of minors.

The most significant terror threat remains from Islamist extremism, followed by extreme right-wing activity, and we must be continually vigilant against these ideological threats.

But we also need to ensure that the legal framework is strong enough to respond to extreme violence where ideology is not apparent or is less clear.

In the light of this serious and growing problem, the Home Secretary announced to Parliament in January that she had asked the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation to examine the legal framework around terrorism and the powers available to tackle this kind of extreme violent attack. The Reviewer has published that report today.

Firstly, we are grateful to the Independent Reviewer for his thorough analysis of the terrorism framework in response to this horrific attack and his important conclusion which the Government accepts that the law does need to change to respond to the rise in extreme violence in cases where ideology is unclear or cannot be proven.

Jonathan Hall KC concludes that the legal definition of terrorism is already wide and should not be changed any further. The Government accepts his conclusion.

However, the Independent Reviewer considers there is a gap in the wider criminal law. The Prime Minister has been clear that if the law needs to change to recognise this new and dangerous threat, then we will change it – and quickly.

The Reviewer notes there is no offence currently for possession of an article in private with intent to carry out a mass casualty attack, or other offence of extreme violence.

We are grateful for his consideration of this point and his conclusion that this point is already being addressed by a new measure, currently before Parliament in the Crime and Policing Bill. This will make it an offence to possess a bladed article with intent to cause unlawful violence and applies whether the possession is in public or private.

The Reviewer also concludes that within existing criminal law, ‘there is a real and not theoretical gap for lone individuals who plan mass killings’. On that basis, he recommends that Government consider creating a new offence where an individual intends to kill two or more persons and prepares for such an attack. We accept and strongly support this recommendation. I can confirm we will fix the legislation to close the gaps identified.

Finally, the Independent Reviewer draws attention to the challenges of communicating transparently and effectively following an act of extreme violence in the digital age.

It is a cornerstone of our democracy and our tradition of trial by jury that trials are fair, and justice is served. For that reason there have long been restrictions on what can be said before and during a trial.

However, the tragic events in Southport in July last year showed how social media is putting those long-established rules under strain, especially where partial or inaccurate information appears online.

That’s why the Home Secretary, the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney General have asked the Law Commission to expedite elements of their ongoing review into Contempt of Court, and why Counter Terrorism Policing are also already considering what information can be released in the aftermath of major incidents.

The Government has been clear that we wish to maximise transparency and ensure that public authorities are able to take into account the wider risks to public safety to counter misinformation and disinformation. We are grateful to the Law Commission for agreeing to accelerate their consideration of this important issue and will carefully consider their findings when they are published later this year.

I would like to reiterate our thanks again to the Independent Reviewer for his comprehensive report and contribution to our efforts to fully learn the lessons of this terrible case. As the Home Secretary has already set out, today’s report is an important step in the search for answers, and to tackle horrific acts driven by a fixation on extreme violence.

Answering body: Home Office

I would like to update the House on the report commissioned by the Home Secretary and published today by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation into law in the wake of the Southport attack.

The barbaric murder of three young girls in Southport last Summer is a scarring moment in our history. We think of those little girls, Elsie Dot Stancombe, Bebe King and Alice da Silva Aguiar, whose lives were devastatingly cut short. We think of their families’ agony. And we think of those who survived the attack but live with physical and emotional scars.

In January, the perpetrator was sentenced to 52 years in prison for his horrifying crimes. It is highly likely he will never be released.

As the Prime Minister said, the responsibility for this barbaric act lies with the vile individual who carried it out, but that provides no comfort.

When the Home Secretary addressed the House on this matter in January, she set out the next steps the Government would take – including on establishing a public inquiry, on reforms to Prevent and on the legislative framework.

The inquiry will examine the issues raised in this case but also wider challenges around the rising levels of predominantly young men and boys fixated with extreme violence who may pose a risk to society. We are moving swiftly to set up the inquiry. It is expected to begin within weeks, once we have completed the important consultation with the families and victims. We intend to announce further details by the end of this month.

Within the wider Prevent system, we are learning lessons to get ahead of this changing threat, and to ensure we have the early intervention capabilities we need to keep the public safe. The Home Secretary has previously announced new measures to strengthen Prevent decision-making.

Since then, we have extended Channel multi-agency support to new cohorts, launched new pilots to ensure those below Prevent thresholds get the support they need, and appointed an interim Prevent Commissioner to bring robust independent oversight.

The appalling attack in Southport terrorised an entire community. The police and CPS determined that it was not an act of terrorism under the legal definition of terrorism set out in the Terrorism Act 2000, because there is no evidence that the perpetrator’s purpose was to advance a political, religious, racial, or ideological cause. The court accepted that conclusion.

However, we should be in no doubt about its seriousness. The judge described the attack as ’equivalent in its seriousness to terrorist murders’. And as the Prime Minister and Home Secretary have set out, this case comes against a backdrop of growing numbers of cases of violence-fixated individuals and young people being drawn into extreme violence and radicalisation.

The Met Commissioner has warned of “young men who are fixated on violence… grazing across extremist and terrorist content”, whilst Five Eyes counter-terror partners have also warned about growing radicalisation of minors.

The most significant terror threat remains from Islamist extremism, followed by extreme right-wing activity, and we must be continually vigilant against these ideological threats.

But we also need to ensure that the legal framework is strong enough to respond to extreme violence where ideology is not apparent or is less clear.

In the light of this serious and growing problem, the Home Secretary announced to Parliament in January that she had asked the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation to examine the legal framework around terrorism and the powers available to tackle this kind of extreme violent attack. The Reviewer has published that report today.

Firstly, we are grateful to the Independent Reviewer for his thorough analysis of the terrorism framework in response to this horrific attack and his important conclusion which the Government accepts that the law does need to change to respond to the rise in extreme violence in cases where ideology is unclear or cannot be proven.

Jonathan Hall KC concludes that the legal definition of terrorism is already wide and should not be changed any further. The Government accepts his conclusion.

However, the Independent Reviewer considers there is a gap in the wider criminal law. The Prime Minister has been clear that if the law needs to change to recognise this new and dangerous threat, then we will change it – and quickly.

The Reviewer notes there is no offence currently for possession of an article in private with intent to carry out a mass casualty attack, or other offence of extreme violence.

We are grateful for his consideration of this point and his conclusion that this point is already being addressed by a new measure, currently before Parliament in the Crime and Policing Bill. This will make it an offence to possess a bladed article with intent to cause unlawful violence and applies whether the possession is in public or private.

The Reviewer also concludes that within existing criminal law, ‘there is a real and not theoretical gap for lone individuals who plan mass killings’. On that basis, he recommends that Government consider creating a new offence where an individual intends to kill two or more persons and prepares for such an attack. We accept and strongly support this recommendation. I can confirm we will fix the legislation to close the gaps identified.

Finally, the Independent Reviewer draws attention to the challenges of communicating transparently and effectively following an act of extreme violence in the digital age.

It is a cornerstone of our democracy and our tradition of trial by jury that trials are fair, and justice is served. For that reason there have long been restrictions on what can be said before and during a trial.

However, the tragic events in Southport in July last year showed how social media is putting those long-established rules under strain, especially where partial or inaccurate information appears online.

That’s why the Home Secretary, the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney General have asked the Law Commission to expedite elements of their ongoing review into Contempt of Court, and why Counter Terrorism Policing are also already considering what information can be released in the aftermath of major incidents.

The Government has been clear that we wish to maximise transparency and ensure that public authorities are able to take into account the wider risks to public safety to counter misinformation and disinformation. We are grateful to the Law Commission for agreeing to accelerate their consideration of this important issue and will carefully consider their findings when they are published later this year.

I would like to reiterate our thanks again to the Independent Reviewer for his comprehensive report and contribution to our efforts to fully learn the lessons of this terrible case. As the Home Secretary has already set out, today’s report is an important step in the search for answers, and to tackle horrific acts driven by a fixation on extreme violence.

Answering body: Home Office

Significant improvements have been made to Prevent over the last few years and a further package of work to strengthen Prevent was announced by the Home Secretary in December 2024. New reforms include the creation for the first time of an independent Prevent Commissioner role. This dedicated permanent oversight function will provide continuous independent scrutiny of Prevent legislation, policy and delivery to maximise Prevent’s effectiveness. To begin this work swiftly, Lord David Anderson KC was announced as the interim Commissioner on 21 January.

In relation to the cases raised by the Rt Hon member, we have published the Prevent Learning Reviews into each case and tasked Lord Anderson with conducting a rapid review of both cases. Lord Anderson will identify whether there is further learning regarding the specific handling of each case; examine improvements made to Prevent since each case and determine whether they have sufficiently strengthened the Prevent system; and identify any remaining gaps or shortcomings that require further improvement. This review will be published and swift action will be taken to implement the findings.

The Home Secretary has already announced a public inquiry into the Southport attack. We are moving swiftly to set up the inquiry and we expect to announce further details later this month, after consultation with families and others most affected.

Answering body: Home Office

We are moving swiftly to set up the inquiry.

We will consult the families and other interested parties on its scope to ensure all critical issues are addressed while remaining manageable and sensitive to the needs of those most affected.

We will announce further details about the inquiry in due course.