The Government has published its formal response to Phase 1 of the Southport Inquiry, accepting all 67 recommendations made by Chair Sir Adrian Fulford following his examination of the devastating attack at a children’s dance and yoga class in July 2024.

For the families of Bebe King, Elsie Dot Stancombe and Alice da Silva Aguiar, and for the children and adults who survived, the response marks another important moment in the search for answers. It is also a test of whether the lessons identified by the Inquiry will lead to meaningful change, or whether they will remain words on a page.

Nicola Brook, Legal Director & Solicitor at Broudie Jackson Canter, represented the three adult survivors during the Inquiry proceedings. Following the Government’s response, Nicola has raised serious concerns about whether victims and survivors are truly being placed at the centre of the process, particularly after her clients first learned of the response through the media rather than directly from Government.

The Government has said it will act with urgency. Survivors now need to see what that means in practice.

What did the Government say in response to the Southport Inquiry?

The Government has accepted the Inquiry’s findings and confirmed that it agrees with all 67 recommendations made in Phase 1. Of those, 30 are for central government to deliver, with others directed at local bodies, public agencies and national organisations.

The Home Secretary described the findings as “unsparing” and accepted that multiple opportunities were missed to stop the attack. 

The Inquiry found:

• No organisation or multi-agency process took ownership of the risk posed.
• Important information was not effectively shared between agencies.
• Autism was wrongly used to explain or minimise concerning behaviour.
• Online activity was not properly examined.
• Concerns relating to the attacker’s home environment and parents were not adequately addressed.

This matters because the Inquiry was not looking only at what happened on the day of the attack. 

It examined the years, months, and days beforehand, including how warning signs were handled, how information was shared, and whether any agency took proper responsibility for the risk the attacker posed.

What were the five fundamental failings identified by the Southport Inquiry?

Sir Adrian Fulford identified five fundamental failings in how the risk was understood and managed. The Government has accepted those failings.

The most significant was the failure of any organisation or multi-agency process to take ownership of the risk. 

The Inquiry described a merry-go-round of referrals, assessments, case closures and hand-offs, where responsibility moved between agencies without anyone taking clear control.

The other failings concerned poor information sharing, the misuse of autism as an explanation for dangerous behaviour, failures to examine online activity, and the role of the attacker’s parents.

Taken together, the Inquiry concluded that the danger was not properly understood, despite repeated warning signs.

For survivors and families, that conclusion is deeply significant. 

It confirms that this was not simply a case where no one could have known. The Inquiry found that risks were known, but were not joined together, escalated or acted upon in the way they should have been.

Why does victim involvement matter after a public inquiry?

Public inquiries are often described as being centred on victims and families.

In practice, that commitment must be visible in how decisions are made, how information is shared, and how survivors are treated after the hearings have ended.

Nicola Brook has been clear that it is not enough for Government to say victims are at the heart of the response if those affected are hearing about major developments through the media. 

That approach does not reflect the lived experience of people who have already given evidence, relived traumatic events, and placed their trust in the Inquiry process.

This is not a minor procedural concern. It goes to the heart of accountability. If survivors are expected to contribute to public learning, they should also be included in conversations about what happens next.

The Government response promises updates and implementation work. Survivors will be entitled to ask how they will be involved in that process, how progress will be measured, and what opportunities they will have to challenge delays or inadequate action.

What action is the Government proposing after the Southport Inquiry?

The Government response sets out activity across a wide range of areas, including schools, policing, healthcare, social care, online harms, weapons controls and Prevent.

Some measures are already underway, including:

• Changes to school safeguarding guidance.
• Reforms to the way Prevent handles repeat referrals.
• Action on knife sales.
• Online safety measures.
• Improved information-sharing processes when children move between educational settings.

The Government has also established a new taskforce on non-ideological extreme violence. This reflects one of the most important issues raised by the Inquiry: how public bodies identify and manage individuals who may be fixated on serious violence, even where there is no clear terrorist ideology.

That distinction is important. 

The Inquiry highlighted that existing systems were not always designed for the type of risk seen in this case. The Government now accepts that more work is needed to understand where responsibility should sit when someone presents an extreme risk of violence but does not fit neatly into existing categories.

How will the Government response affect schools, safeguarding and information sharing?

Education is one of the clearest areas of proposed reform.

The Government has accepted recommendations aimed at improving how safeguarding information is transferred between schools, particularly where a child has a history of serious violence, knife possession or risk to others.

The response also recognises that teachers and schools may have vital insight into a child’s behaviour. Sir Adrian Fulford found that warnings from schools, especially those with particular expertise such as pupil referral units, should be given proper weight by other agencies.

This is a practical lesson. Agencies cannot assess risk properly if they only see isolated fragments of a child’s history. A school may see patterns of behaviour, peer interactions and escalation that are less visible to other professionals. If that insight is dismissed or diluted, critical warning signs can be missed.

For schools and safeguarding leads, the response should prompt a careful review of:

• Record-keeping procedures.
• Escalation processes.
• Information-sharing arrangements.
• Risk assessment frameworks.

Where serious concerns arise, particularly around weapons or threats to others, those concerns need to be clearly recorded, shared and acted upon.

What does the response say about Prevent and violent fixation?

The attacker had been referred to Prevent three times, but the case was not progressed to Channel, the multi-agency process used for people considered vulnerable to being drawn into terrorism.

The Government accepts the Inquiry’s finding that the first referral should have been progressed. It also accepts that cumulative risk should have been considered when later referrals were made.

Since the attack, changes have been made to Prevent, including stronger handling of repeat referrals and clearer guidance that a fixed ideology is not required for a referral to be made or accepted.

This is a significant shift. It recognises that dangerous behaviour may not always present in familiar ideological terms. The challenge now is whether Prevent, safeguarding bodies, police, schools and health services can work together more effectively when a young person appears fixated on violence but does not fit an established counter-terrorism profile.

Why is mental health funding part of the wider concern?

Nicola Brook has also warned that there is a “black hole” in mental health funding and that, unless this is addressed urgently, other restrictions aimed at preventing similar attacks will only go so far.

That point should not be misunderstood. It is not a claim that mental illness caused the attack. The Inquiry was careful in its treatment of autism and found that it was wrong to make any general association between autism and violent harm.

The concern is different. 

If agencies are expected to identify risk earlier, share information more effectively and intervene before harm occurs, they need properly resourced services to respond. Risk assessment alone is not enough if there is nowhere suitable for a person to be referred, no timely support available, or no clear agency responsible for managing the situation.

This is why implementation cannot be judged only by new guidance or new offences. The real test is whether frontline services have the capacity, confidence and clarity to act when warning signs emerge.

What happens next in Phase 2 of the Southport Inquiry?

Phase 2 of the Inquiry will look forward. 

It will examine whether current arrangements are adequate for identifying and managing the risk posed by violence-fixated individuals, including the role of the internet, social media, and access to weapons.

That second phase will be crucial. Phase 1 has established what went wrong in this case. 

Phase 2 must now consider what kind of system is needed to reduce the risk of similar failures in the future.

The Government has said it will provide a full written update before Phase 2 concludes in spring 2027. For survivors, families and the wider public, that update will need to show more than intent. It will need to show progress, detail and accountability.

Why the Government response must now lead to measurable change

The Government’s acceptance of the Southport Inquiry recommendations is important. It acknowledges the scale of the failings and the need for reform. Acceptance, however, is only the beginning.

For the people most directly affected, the central question is whether these commitments will make the public safer and whether those with lived experience will be properly involved in shaping reform. Public bodies must now show that lessons have not only been identified, but understood and embedded.

At Broudie Jackson Canter, our inquests and inquiries team has spent decades supporting families and survivors through some of the country’s most complex and painful investigations. We know that public inquiries can uncover the truth, but we also know that truth must be followed by action.

The Southport Inquiry has exposed failures that cannot be ignored. The responsibility now sits with Government and public bodies to prove that meaningful change will follow.