Back in July 2024, during the state opening of Parliament, the Prime Minister pledged to enact primary legislation to introduce a new statutory duty of candour on all public servants and authorities. The proposed legislation – referred to as the Hillsborough Law – was promised by 15 April 2025, to coincide with the 36th anniversary of the Hillsborough disaster. However, the introduction of the Bill has been delayed, and its legislative passage ‘paused’, prompting accusations of betrayal and fears that the Government intends, once again, to break a pre-election promise.
The story goes back beyond the Hillsborough Law, though, and campaign groups have long called for the introduction of a new National Oversight Mechanism. Such a mechanism would ensure that inquiry recommendations are properly implemented in the wake of major public institutional failures including the likes of Hillsborough, Grenfell, the Post Office scandal, and the Infected Blood scandal. Although the Government appears receptive to such a mechanism in principle, specific legislative proposals have yet to materialise.
The Hillsborough Law
In the absence of a draft Bill, the contents of the proposed Hillsborough Law remains speculative. However, as I explained in my previous blog, Hillsborough Law Now campaigners expect the Public Authority (Accountability) Bill to act as a template for the new legislation.
The Public Authority (Accountability) Bill, a previous Private Members’ Bill introduced to Parliament by Andy Burnham in 2017, was drafted by the lawyers responsible for representing the Hillsborough families during the 2016 inquest and intended to ‘not only require public authorities and corporations responsible for public safety to tell the truth, it would require them to proactively assist the process, from the outset…’[1]
The statutory duty of candour proposed under clause 6 of the draft Bill placed an obligation on all public bodies, public servants and officials to:
a) Act in the public interest and with transparency, candour and frankness; and
b) Assist court proceedings, official inquiries and investigation where their acts or omissions may be relevant, including by acting without favour to their own position, making full disclosure of relevant documents, material and facts, and setting out their position on relevant matters from the outset of the proceedings, inquiry or investigation.
Crucially, a breach of either of these obligations would result in the imposition of criminal sanctions. According to clause 3 of the draft Bill, it would be offence for:
i) the chief executive of a public authority to intentionally or recklessly fail to discharge the duty to assist proceedings, inquiries or investigations; and
ii) for individual public servants or officials ‘to mislead the general public or media’ or to mislead proceedings, inquiries or investigations in relation to which the duty of candour applies.
Ultimately, the Public Authority (Accountability) Bill fell with the dissolution of Parliament ahead of the 2017 General Election. However, following the Labour Party’s pledge to introduce primary legislation on the issue, it was expected that the key provisions of the original Bill would be replicated in the new legislation. In particular, the scope of the statutory duty and the criminal consequences attached to a breach were expected to be carried over directly. Supporters of the Hillsborough Law, including the families affected by the tragedy, have consistently emphasised the need for criminal sanctions to create the deterrent effect necessary to challenge the culture of institutional defensiveness that has contributed to a number of high-profile miscarriages of justice in the UK. This position was seemingly supported by the Prime Minister, who confirmed at Labour Party conference (held in Liverpool) in September 2024 that the Bill would include criminal sanctions. Over the last few weeks, however, it appears as though the Government’s position may have shifted.
Delay and dilution?
The decision to ‘pause’ the Bill’s legislative passage is supposedly the result of disagreement between the Government and campaigners over the content of the current draft. Rather than reflecting the provisions of the Public Authority (Accountability) Bill, those who have been permitted to view the draft have reported that it contains many loopholes and, in one version, fails to include the term ‘duty of candour’ altogether.
According to The i Paper, sources close to the campaign have described the Bill as ‘useless’ and ‘a complete dog’s dinner’, whilst Elkan Abrahamson (lawyer for the Hillsborough families and director at Hillsborough Law Now) stated: ‘the draft prepared for him (Starmer) by the Cabinet Office is a betrayal of the promises made…We hope and expect he will use the delay to reinstate the law as originally drafted in 2017’. The Hillsborough families, and fellow campaigners, have issued a clear warning: if the Government fails to deliver an ‘all-or-nothing’ Bill – i.e. one without dilution or caveat, and containing all the key elements of the 2017 legislation – they will not support it.
In light of campaigners ‘strong opposition to the draft’ and ministers reluctance to introduce legislation without the support of the Hillsborough families, the Government has had little choice but to delay the Bill’s First Reading in Parliament. Seemingly, the Bill will be re-drafted and, according to Lucy Powell MP (Leader of the House of Commons) the Government is prepared to take ‘whatever time is necessary’ to finalise legislation so that any Hillsborough Law would ‘meet the expectations’ of families and survivors — a position campaigners are, for now, willing to accept. As Jenni Hicks, whose two teenage daughters lost their lives at Hillsborough, commented: it was right to ‘wait a little bit longer’ for a rushed Bill that did not contain a ‘diluted version’ of a duty of candour.
Given the Government’s evident desire to maintain good relations with campaigners – and Starmer’s personal pledge to introduce the Hillsborough Law – the question arises: why was a ‘diluted’ version of the Bill drafted and presented to stakeholders? According to Patrick Maguire, writing for The Times, the failure to replicate the Bill in line with the 2017 legislation relates to fears that ‘a new duty of candour that introduced criminal sanctions to any instance of dishonesty by the 14 million people employed by UK public bodies would be impractical’. In particular, ministers and senior officials fear that civil servants could be criminalised simply for ‘telling a white lie’, due to perceived weaknesses in the Bill’s legislative safeguards. That said, the CPS ‘public interest’ test, as set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors, would surely act as a safeguard against frivolous protections under the proposed Hillsborough Law.
The precise form the Hillsborough Law will ultimately take remains uncertain. What is clear, however, is that if the Government fails to deliver on its pre-election pledge to introduce a comprehensive statutory duty of candour — including accompanying criminal sanctions, as per the 2017 Bill — the resulting fallout could amount to a PR disaster. No doubt, the press and opposition parties would seize the opportunity to highlight further ‘broken promises’ and another perceived failure relating to a high-profile national scandal. But is it fair to suggest that a broader pattern is emerging?
Further failures?
On 26 February this year, the Government issued its response to the second stage of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry’s Report, confirming that it accepts the Inquiry’s findings and intends to act on all 58 proposed recommendations. Despite the Government’s assurances, though, many fear the recommendations will ultimately go unimplemented – particularly given that several from the first phase of the Report remain outstanding more than five years after its publication, and amid wider concerns about the pace of progress on recommendations from other public inquiries.
In light of these historic failures and growing concerns about implementation, a coalition of those affected by national disasters and scandals has called on the Government to create an independent National Oversight Mechanism, a body responsible for monitoring the recommendations made by public inquiries and ensuring their implementation. According to Inquest, the body responsible for supporting the plans, the ‘current lack of transparency, responsibility and accountability for recommendations has serious implications for bereaved families and undermines public trust in the UK’s investigatory framework’.
Responding to the Grenfell Tower Inquiry’s Second Report, the Government noted that they have ‘heard the calls’ for the introduction of such a body and are ‘closely considering this as part of our wider review of measures to strengthen the public inquiries system as a whole in the year ahead’. However, it has yet to substantively commit to the policy, having so far only accepted the recommendation in principle. A Private Members’ Bill has been introduced to Parliament via Carla Denyer MP (The Green Party) that seeks to establish the National Oversight Mechanism, but has not been endorsed by the Government.
This lack of commitment has frustrated many. Speaking in reaction to the Government’s response to the Grenfell Inquiry’s Second Report Deborah Coles, Executive Director at INQUEST, said she was ‘bitterly disappointed’ that the Government had not set up a national oversight mechanism, which she believed ‘would be an opportunity to carefully monitor and follow up on every single recommendation to make sure that it is implemented’. Without such a body, she claimed, meaningful structural change cannot occur. ‘And yet the government response repeatedly referenced the need for better oversight and accountability…I think that’s a real betrayal’.
With no firm plans to introduce a National Oversight Mechanism and the apparent dilution of the Hillsborough Law, accusations of ‘betrayal’ are increasingly being levelled at the Labour Government. Some suggest a pattern is emerging – one where the Government says the right things in principle but falls short of it in practice. For those who placed good faith in the Government’s promises to drive systemic change, the result is understandable frustration and disappointment.
That said, it may be premature to judge the current Government too harshly at this stage. The Hillsborough Law could still materialise in a satisfactory form. Indeed, Keir Starmer appeared to reaffirm his commitment to criminal sanctions for breaches of the proposed duty of candour in a tweet to commemorate the 36th anniversary of the Hillsborough disaster (the scope of the duty, however, remains unclear). In relation to the Grenfell Inquiry, the Government has also pledged to ‘ensure lasting transparency and accountability’ by creating a publicly accessible record of all public inquiry recommendations. While this falls short of a National Oversight Mechanism, it perhaps represents a step in the right direction. Moreover, the Government has delivered on other pre-election pledges in this area, most notably with the passage of ‘Martyn’s Law’ (the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act 2025, which recently received Royal Assent. Although far less politically contentious than the Hillsborough Law, Martyn’s Law delivers upon a key recommendation of the Manchester Arena Bombing Inquiry.
Despite the limited progress made so far, it remains to be seen whether the Government will fulfil the pledge it made to the Hillsborough families and to social justice campaigners more broadly. While it may be premature to speak of betrayal at this stage, if the substance of the Bill fails to reflect these pledges, such a conclusion may be difficult to avoid.
Kate Dewsnip.
Kate is a Graduate Teaching Fellow and PhD candidate at the University of Liverpool School of Law and Social Justice. She is a researcher and contributing writer for the Constitution Society.
The Constitution Society is committed to the promotion of informed debate and is politically impartial. Any views expressed in this article are the personal views of the author and not those of The Constitution Society.
[1] Pete Wetherby KC in evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights <https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/44986/documents/223253/default/> para 32.