Hillsborough Law Debate Delayed as Labour Seeks Agreement with Families Over Security Services Clause
The Labour Party has paused plans to bring the Hillsborough Law back to the House of Commons for debate, awaiting a resolution with families impacted by the Hillsborough disaster and the Manchester Arena attack regarding a contentious clause concerning intelligence officers. The delay, announced Monday, follows the breakdown of negotiations last week centered on the application of a duty of candour to members of the UK’s security services.
The proposed legislation, designed to prevent future official cover-ups, would establish legal repercussions for public officials who intentionally mislead or obstruct investigations. While the government has signaled agreement in principle with the law’s broader aims, a key sticking point remains the extent to which intelligence agencies should be compelled to provide evidence, and who ultimately controls that process.
According to sources, the government wants to retain the authority for agency chiefs to determine when individual intelligence officers can testify, a provision families fear could enable future obstruction of justice. “This power is unacceptable and could lead to future cover-ups,” a source close to the families stated.
On Friday, the government introduced its own amendments to the bill, aiming to address some concerns regarding the security services. However, these changes were deemed insufficient to secure the families’ support. A Labour source confirmed that delaying the bill was the only viable option until a compromise acceptable to all parties – including ensuring national security – could be reached.
Meetings between families, barrister Peter Wetherby – the architect of the law – and government ministers Alex Davies-Jones and Nick Thomas-Symonds at the Ministry of Justice on Monday failed to yield a breakthrough.
Speaking at a press conference earlier that day, Prime Minister Keir Starmer emphasized his commitment to finding a solution. “I care hugely that we get this right, that we right the wrongs for very many families who have been let down and ensure a better future for families,” he said. “In relation to the duty of candour, we’ve been clear that that matters. What we’re now trying to do is make sure we get the balance right when it comes to the application of any principle to the security and intelligence agencies. Obviously, I have to focus on the national interest – my primary duty as prime minister, which is to keep this country safe and secure.”
Several Members of Parliament expressed relief at the bill’s withdrawal from the Commons schedule, acknowledging the potential for a divisive vote. However, the delay could be significant, with the bill potentially absent from parliamentary business for “many weeks.” Approximately 20 Labour MPs had already signed an amendment proposed by Ian Byrne, MP for Liverpool West Derby, aligning with the families’ demands.
The bill’s path forward remains complex, requiring passage through the Commons at the report stage and third reading, followed by scrutiny in the House of Lords. A government source indicated that “no deadline” is being imposed on negotiations, emphasizing the need for consensus among families, intelligence agencies, the Home Office, the Foreign Office, and the Intelligence and Security Committee. Starmer is anticipated to become directly involved in the later stages of these discussions.
Byrne has publicly stated his inability to support the legislation if the government’s amendments remain in place. Mayors Steve Rotheram of the Liverpool city region and Andy Burnham of Greater Manchester echoed these concerns on Saturday, asserting that the government’s amendment “risks undermining the spirit of the legislation” and “creates too broad an opt-out” for the security services.
The campaign group Hillsborough Law Now welcomed the government’s decision to withdraw the security services amendment, stating it demonstrated a willingness to “listen to the campaign, families, MPs and supporters.” The future of the Hillsborough Law, and its potential to deliver greater accountability and transparency, now hinges on the outcome of ongoing negotiations.
Keep reading
