An inquiry into the Southport stabbings has been announced by the government.

It comes after Axel Rudakubana, 18, admitted murdering Alice da Silva Aguiar, nine, Bebe King, six, and Elsie Dot Stancombe, seven, in the attack in Southport, Merseyside, in July last year.

In a statement, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said that now there has been a guilty plea, “the families and the people of Southport need answers about what happened leading up to this attack”.

Politics latest: PM says ‘grave questions to answer’ over Southport

It has now emerged that Rudakubana was referred to the government anti-extremism scheme – known as Prevent – three times before the murders due to a fixation with violence.

In her statement, Ms Cooper said these three referrals happened in the 17 months between December 2019 and April 2021, when Rudakubana was 13 and 14 years old.

He was also in contact with the police, the courts, the youth justice system, social services and mental health services.

“Yet between them, those agencies failed to identify the terrible risk and danger to others that he posed,” Ms Cooper said.

“We also need more independent answers on both Prevent and all the other agencies that came into contact with this extremely violent teenager as well as answers on how he came to be so dangerous.”

Rudakubana is set to be sentenced on Thursday – with the judge saying a life sentence is “inevitable”.

Sir Keir Starmer said earlier today: “The news that the vile and sick Southport killer will be convicted is welcome.

“It is also a moment of trauma for the nation and there are grave questions to answer as to how the state failed in its ultimate duty to protect these young girls.

“Britain will rightly demand answers. And we will leave no stone unturned in that pursuit.”

After the attacks in July 2024, there were calls for more information about what was known by authorities to be released and violent riots took place across the country.

Read more:
Mugshot of Axel Rudakubana released
People of Southport are trying to make sense of horror

Ms Cooper said the government was not able to release more information sooner about Rudakubana because the Crown Prosecution Service wanted to “avoid jeopardising the legal proceedings” – including any potential trials – “in line with the normal rules of the British justice systems”.

However, the government launched an “urgent” review into Rudakubana’s contact with Prevent last summer – and details will be published this week.

Ms Cooper said this “terrible case” comes against a “backdrop” of increasing numbers of teenagers being referred to Prevent, investigated by anti-terror police being referred to other agencies “amid concerns around serious violence and extremism”.

“We need to face up to why this has been happening and what needs to change,” she said.

Speaking earlier today, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said: “As we learn more details of Axel Rudakubana’s horrific crimes, my thoughts are first and foremost with the victims’ families.

“We will need a complete account of who in government knew what and when. The public deserves the truth.

“This case is still in court and there are, properly, limits on what can be said at this stage.

“But once it concludes on Thursday with sentencing, there are many important questions the authorities will need to answer about the handling of this case and the flow of information.”

Reform UK leader Nigel Farage accused the government of a “cover-up”, and said the “vacuum of information” led to the riots.

He called on Ms Cooper to make an apology in the Commons.

Almost half of the 40 hospitals promised by the previous Conservative government have been delayed, the health secretary has said.

Speaking in the House of Commons, Wes Streeting said 18 of the projects will now be started between 2030 and 2039, instead of by the original 2030 deadline.

Mr Streeting launched a scathing attack on the Conservative Party for making the promise to build the facilities without a clear funding plan.

Politics latest: ‘Questions to answer’ over Southport – PM

He said the new plans would “give patients an honest, realistic, deliverable timetable that they can believe in”.

Mr Streeting added: “This Labour government is rebuilding our NHS and as we do so, we will also rebuild trust in politics.”

He claimed funding for the 40 projects was due to run out by March this year.

The promise to build 40 new hospitals by 2030 was originally promised by Boris Johnson in the 2019 election campaign.

There have long been questions about the feasibility of the projects – including on cost grounds, the suitability of plans for new hospitals, and whether each project actually included a new hospital or rather an improvement to previous facilities.

Some £20bn in funding promised by the last government was “never delivered”, according to a government announcement today.

The new timetable will be backed by £15bn over consecutive five-year waves – which the government says works out to £3bn a year.

Speaking in the Commons, Mr Streeting said hospitals already with full business cases or already under construction will continue on their current timetable.

He then set out a new timetable for the rest of the scheme.

Wave one – which includes hospitals made primarily of reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete (RAAC) – will be started between now and 2030.

A second wave of nine projects will be started between 2030 and 2035, with a third wave of a further nine being started between 2035 and 2039.

The details of which hospital is in which wave can be found on the government website.

Read more:
Biggest NHS funding increase since 2010
Starmer says no money for NHS without reform

Mr Streeting said: “The New Hospital Programme we inherited was unfunded and undeliverable. Not a single new hospital was built in the past five years, and there was no credible funding plan to build forty in the next five years.

“When I walked into the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), I was told that the funding for the New Hospital Programme runs out in March. We were determined to put the programme on a firm footing, so we can build the new hospitals our NHS needs.

“Today we are setting out an honest, funded, and deliverable programme to rebuild our NHS.”

👉Listen to Politics At Jack And Sam’s on your podcast app👈

Morag Stuart, chief programme officer for the New Hospital Programme, said: “This announcement by the Department of Health and Social Care provides certainty on the next steps for the New Hospital Programme.

“We will continue to work with local NHS organisations to deliver improvements to hospitals across England, including making best use of new technology and improving layouts – and ensuring future hospitals are designed to meet the needs of patients and staff.”

It was a small signifier – one which could be over-interpreted – but nevertheless provoked angst among some in government at a time when there isn’t universally huge confidence that UK-US political relations are as robust as they should be.

On Sunday, the British Embassy in Washington had a bash for members of the incoming Trump administration: a chance to boost goodwill amongst supporters of the 47th president as they prepared to descend on the nation’s capital.

Organisers hoped to get a very high-value guest indeed: someone who isn’t a household name, or a member of the incoming Trump cabinet, but who was set to become the most powerful attendee of the lot within hours – Susie Wiles, Donald Trump’s chief of staff and long-time political consultant.

Credited with injecting a level of professionalism in Trump 2.0 absent in 2016 and 2017, Wiles is so close to Trump that he invited her to take the microphone as part of his victory speech on election day in November. As she almost always does, she declined the limelight.

Follow live: Trump returns to power

There are many good and understandable reasons why Wiles would have been absent from a British embassy party hours before her man swore the oath of office and returned to the White House.

But her failure to attend was nevertheless a disappointment felt on both sides of the Atlantic. Just the latest source of insecurity, it seems, as the special relationship is put to the test. Insecurity at a very difficult moment.

As Donald 2.0 returns to the world stage, the rhetoric from Keir Starmer and David Lammy could not, superficially, appear more confident in US-UK links.

In remarks released on Sunday night, the PM talked about a shared history fighting common enemies and deepening the special relationship. But, behind the scenes, there is far less certainty that all is well – and we will soon see if this is true.

Nowhere will this be put to a faster, more brutal test than over the attitude of the White House, Trump allies and the president himself to Lord Peter Mandelson – the man Downing Street hopes will be the incoming British ambassador to Washington.

At some point in February, Lord Mandelson – known as the Prince of Darkness from his days as a New Labour spin doctor – will fly to Washington to present his credentials to the new president, a precondition of starting work in the job.

But, in truth, nobody really knows what will happen at that point: whether they will be accepted, and whether Lord Mandelson will be able to get on the job to which he has been tasked by Starmer.

In London on Sunday, government sources got to work claiming the suggestion his application to be the next inhabitant of 3100 Massachusetts Avenue could be rejected was just “bar room gossip”.

But it is not.

In parts of government it is being considered a clear and present danger. A full-scale diplomatic effort over the coming weeks will be put into securing Lord Mandelson’s position. The stakes are high, because of the way Number 10 has gone about this selection.

The fundamentals of our link to the US – the shared history, the Five Eyes security alliance, military and diplomatic cooperation – means a special relationship will almost certainly endure whatever the path of Trump’s second presidency.

But the political ties between the Labour Party and Trump-leaning Republicans are deeply frayed and recently got worse, according to multiple sources I’ve spoken to – and much of this could play itself out in how Trumpland chooses to treat Lord Mandelson in the next few weeks.

Some of those around Trump have made it clear that the incoming president is still minded to reject Mandelson’s credentials on two grounds: previous criticism of the president himself, and also over his support for China and business dealings with a country out of favour with the US.

All this against a backdrop of the first political diplomatic appointment to Washington in decades.

This means Lord Mandelson is also weighed down by all the baggage of months of rows over Labour’s efforts to campaign for rival Kamal Harris and the role of Starmer’s pollster Deborah Mattinson in the US during the election.

However, the manner of Downing Street’s appointment of Lord Mandelson was just as big a problem as the name itself, I’m told.

👉 Listen to Sky News Daily on your podcast app 👈

Long before the election, Labour signalled a preference for a political appointee to succeed Karen Pierce, the respected incumbent.

But the months rolled on and Number 10 put back the decision, creating a vacuum which Ms Pierce filled by – what some saw as – a campaign to continue in post.

In Trumpland, she ensured she was regarded as the best woman for the job, and was – according to sources – even succeeding on being on the radar of President Trump himself.

The rest of Washington acknowledged her success getting close to the now president as well.

It took until December, and a visit by Starmer’s chief of staff Morgan McSweeney, before a decision was made that Lord Mandelson should get the job, and made clear he was starting in a matter of weeks.

It was an abrupt end to Ms Pierce’s time. Allies of the incoming president, who had an affection for Ms Pierce, were aghast. “Trumpland was horrified,” a source told me. “They were saying we want you to stay.”

Tales of their horror have ricocheted around Whitehall, with one source in the Foreign Office claiming they think Lord Mandelson is “dead on arrival” as it stands, and a huge effort is needed to reverse this.

Inside government, there’s an acknowledgement they did not initially fathom how grumpy Trump allies had become, and just how serious the consequences might be for a prime minister who has unexpectedly made foreign policy such a key part of the job.

There is now irritation in all direction. Whitehall sources said today Number 10 is cross with Ms Pierce, who they blame for making life more difficult for Lord Mandelson.

“They are briefing Karen is “vindictive” and better watch out or she won’t get an honour. Ridiculous. What 25 years of service and this is how it ends. This is disgusting – no respect,” they said.

Number 10 deny any rift, on the day Ms Pierce is the only representative of the UK government at the inauguration. The Foreign Office insist Ms Pierce has only ever been doing the job she was tasked to do.

Whatever happens, a big fight is on to ensure Lord Mandelson gets the post he’s been given.

Yet all this for a Labour figure that some claim is not as close to Sir Keir as some assume.

He is well-liked by the chief of staff, Mr McSweeney, but I’m told that Sir Keir has had flashes of irritation about Lord Mandelson both in the run-up to the general election and during the autumn – even as the selection process for ambassador was underway.

Ominously, there is precedent for Trumpland casting out a UK ambassador: Sir Kim Darroch was effectively excommunicated by Trump during the first presidency after disobliging cables written by Sir Kim were leaked while in office.

Lord Mandelson will make no such mistake – he wrote an ingratiating piece last Friday on the Fox News website praising Trump’s “straight-taking and deal-making”. He knows what he has to do.

The question now is how much Trumpland bears a grudge. The 47th president is at the peak of his power in the coming months, is signalling he is unwilling to back down, but it is unclear how many fights he wants to pick at once.

Sir Keir and David Lammy will both make trips to the US in the coming weeks, when ensuring the smooth transition of our man in the US is a priority.

But it is clear nothing is obvious. The failure of Susie Wiles to attend Sunday’s event prompted some to speculate maybe she was behind some of the briefings which ended up in the Sunday papers. With the fate of Lord Mandelson, as with everything else: nothing is certain in Trumpland – yet.