Hillsborough Law Faces Rebellion as Families Clash with Starmer Over Intelligence Agency Scrutiny
Families of victims from the Hillsborough disaster and the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing have expressed deep disappointment with the governmentS proposed Hillsborough Law, possibly triggering a rebellion among Labour MPs and delaying a crucial vote.The impasse centers on the extent to which serving intelligence officers will be compelled to provide candid evidence in future inquiries, raising fears of a repeat of alleged cover-ups.
The proposed legislation, a key manifesto promise for labour leader Keir Starmer, was passing through parliament after prolonged debate. Yet, following a meeting on Wednesday, Aspinall and other family members voiced their dissatisfaction with the government’s current position.
The core of the dispute lies in the ability of intelligence service directors to potentially veto officers from giving evidence. Families are especially sensitive to this issue, citing experiences from the inquiry into the Manchester Arena bombing, where evidence revealed that MI5 had withheld intelligence that coudl have potentially prevented the attack, which claimed 22 lives.
“As it’s proposed at the moment, the government’s bill is still giving carte blanche to the security services, MI5, and we just can’t back it with that,” stated Caroline Curry, whose son Liam was killed in the Manchester Arena bombing. “Good on the government for actually taking the law and running with it and putting it into parliament because the Conservatives didn’t. But do it the right way.Don’t blow it at the last hurdle. We’re just really disappointed. It’s just so infuriating.” Curry described the “false narrative” presented by MI5 as “torture” in the wake of her son’s death.
A government source acknowledged the disappointment but maintained that it had reached the limits of concessions without compromising national security. Ian Byrne, a Labour MP who has proposed an amendment to extend the duty of candour to individual intelligence officers, indicated he could not support the bill in its current form, calling it a potentially “saddest moment of my political life.”
While a Cabinet Office source asserted that Starmer believes the issues seen in the Manchester Arena inquiry would be prevented under the government’s proposals due to the new duty of candour, sources also admitted that intelligence services would retain discretion over whether to permit individual officers to testify.
Families are advocating for a system where individual officers are obligated to provide evidence, with intelligence service heads needing to apply to the inquiry chair for exclusion based on legitimate national security concerns. Pete Weatherby KC, representing bereaved families at both the Hillsborough inquests and the manchester Arena inquiry, emphasized that the aim of the law is to prevent cover-ups. “There’s a real roadblock hear,” Weatherby stated. “The government have not delivered in respect of the application of the bill to the security services: as things stand today,the lies and cover-ups that were features of the Manchester Arena inquiry could happen again.”
More than 20 Labour MPs, including Byrne and Anneliese Midgley, have already backed amendments to ensure intelligence officers are subject to the duty of candour. The bill, originally scheduled for debate on Wednesday, has been delayed until next week.
A spokesperson for Starmer affirmed the government’s commitment to working with families to strengthen the Hillsborough Law,calling it a “personal priority.” The government has already tabled amendments aimed at bolstering the bill’s provisions.A government source indicated that the legislation would proceed next week with the existing concessions, adding, “This bill will make our intelligence services the most scrutinised in the world.” They acknowledged the need for some circumstances where consent to testify could be withheld, but emphasized accountability for such decisions.
The source further explained that officials might unknowingly compromise ongoing operations by revealing information,potentially hindering efforts to prevent attacks or serious crime. However, they maintained that the proposed amendments represent a notable step forward. The government is walking a tightrope, attempting to balance the need for openness and accountability with the imperative to protect national security, and risks jeopardizing a landmark piece of legislation if a compromise cannot be reached.
