Question follow-through · 106593
Terrorism
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the report on the Southport attack by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, whether he has made an assessment of the potential merits of introducing a new offence of planning a mass
About this written question
A written question asks a government minister for information in writing. Parliament publishes the question and any answer.
- Answering body
- Ministry of Justice
- Tabled
- 19 Jan 2026
- Target answer date
- 22 Jan 2026
- Answer
- 22 Jan 2026 · 3 calendar days after tabling
Elapsed calendar days describe the record timeline, not whether Parliament considers an answer on time.
Votes on this topic
- Social Housing Bill [Lords]: Reasoned Amendment to Second Reading · 10 Sept 2026
- Draft Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026 · 8 Jul 2026
These Commons divisions share a topic label. The question did not necessarily lead to a vote.
Recorded timeline
19 Jan 2026
Question tabled
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the report on the Southport attack by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, whether he has made an assessment of the potential merits of introducing a new offence of planning a mass
22 Jan 2026
Target answer date
Date supplied by the official written-questions record.
22 Jan 2026
Answer published
The Government accepts and strongly supports the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation’s (IRTL) recommendation to consider creating a new offence to capture individuals intending to kill multiple people and planning for such attacks. As recognised...
Official data retrieved 28 Sept 2026.
Later records
Possible follow-up questions
Strong links require the same MP, department and exact heading. Other same-department questions are shown as unreviewed candidates, not as confirmed follow-ups. No debate link is asserted unless a stable source relationship exists.
No later same-department questions indexed.
This is an absence in covered public data, not evidence that no follow-up occurred elsewhere.