The fight for justice in the wake of tragedies like Hillsborough and the Manchester Arena attack has hit a major roadblock, and it’s one that could reshape how we hold public officials accountable. Here’s the shocking truth: a law designed to prevent government cover-ups is now on hold indefinitely, caught in a heated battle between families demanding transparency and authorities wary of compromising national security.
Labour leader Keir Starmer has been forced to delay the much-anticipated Hillsborough law—officially known as the Public Authority (Accountability) Bill—after negotiations with affected families collapsed last week. At the heart of the dispute is a critical question: should serving intelligence officers be subject to the same duty of candour as other public officials? This law, if passed, would ensure that anyone in public office who lies or withholds information faces prosecution. While the government agrees the law should apply to security services, they insist agency chiefs should have the final say on when officers can testify—a concession families argue is a recipe for future cover-ups.
But here’s where it gets controversial: the government’s proposed amendments, though adding new obligations for security services, still fall short of what families and campaigners demand. Labour sources admit there’s no choice but to delay the bill until a compromise is reached—one that satisfies both the families and national security concerns. Yet, as of Monday’s meeting between families, barrister Peter Wetherby (the law’s architect), and ministers Alex Davies-Jones and Nick Thomas-Symonds, no agreement was reached.
Starmer, speaking at a press conference, emphasized his commitment to finding a solution. “I care deeply about getting this right,” he said. “We owe it to the families who’ve been let down to ensure a better future.” He stressed the importance of balancing the duty of candour with the need to protect national security, adding, “My primary duty as a leader is to keep this country safe, and I take that responsibility extremely seriously.”
And this is the part most people miss: while the delay has relieved some MPs, it could mean the bill won’t return to the Commons for weeks—or even months. Around 20 Labour MPs had backed an amendment by Liverpool West Derby MP Ian Byrne, aligning with the families’ demands. The bill still needs to pass through the report stage, third reading, and the House of Lords, with no deadline set for negotiations.
A government source revealed that agreement is needed not just with families, but also with intelligence agencies, the Home Office, Foreign Office, and the Intelligence and Security Committee. Starmer is expected to personally intervene in later stages of talks. Byrne has already stated he cannot support the bill with the government’s current amendments, while Liverpool Mayor Steve Rotheram and Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham warned the amendments “undermine the spirit of the legislation” and create loopholes for security services.
Campaign group Hillsborough Law Now welcomed the government’s decision to withdraw its security services amendment, calling it a step toward listening to families and supporters. But the question remains: can a law meant to uphold truth and accountability ever truly succeed if it leaves room for exceptions? What do you think? Is national security a valid reason to limit transparency, or should the duty of candour apply to everyone without exception? Let’s debate this in the comments.
