What was intended as a defining moral victory for Prime Minister Keir Starmer has instead become mired in a profound disagreement with the very families it was designed to honour. The proposed Hillsborough law, a cornerstone pledge to ensure truth and accountability after public disasters, has hit a major roadblock and been withdrawn from Parliament.
A Triumphant Promise Meets a Bitter Dispute
The scene in Liverpool last September seemed to signal a breakthrough. At the Labour conference, Keir Starmer was embraced by Margaret Aspinall, a bereaved mother who lost her 18-year-old son, James, in the 1989 Hillsborough disaster. Having confronted decades of official obstruction, Aspinall praised Starmer as the only leader to pledge and then pursue the legislation. Starmer, receiving a standing ovation, declared the law meant that "injustice has no place to hide." He later personally introduced the bill in the Commons, an unusual move underscoring his personal commitment.
Yet, just four months later, talks between the Prime Minister, families from Hillsborough and the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing, and the law's architect, Pete Weatherby KC, collapsed. After a 90-minute meeting in Starmer's Commons office, the families walked away, stating they could not support the bill in its current form.
The Core Conflict: National Security vs. Unqualified Candour
The central dispute revolves around how the bill's "duty of candour" would apply to serving intelligence officers. The law aims to prosecute public officials who lie or obscure the truth. While the government agreed the security services should be covered, it sought to give agency chiefs the final say over when individual officers could give evidence to an inquiry.
Families argue this power is unacceptable and could enable future cover-ups. They insist the duty must apply fully to individual officers, with any national security concerns being assessed by an independent inquiry chair. Jenni Hicks, who lost two daughters at Hillsborough, told a justice minister: "80% is not good enough, 90% is not good enough, it has to be 100%... There can be no exclusions."
This stance is hardened by recent history. The Manchester Arena inquiry found that MI5 initially provided an "inaccurate" account of intelligence it held on the bomber. The inquiry chair, John Saunders, concluded that opportunities to potentially prevent the attack may have been missed, a truth only uncovered because individual officers eventually testified.
Political Fallout and an Uncertain Future
Facing a significant Labour rebellion and public denunciation from the bereaved families, the government has pulled the bill with no timeline for its return. A government source admitted, "Deadlines won't work this time. We'll land when we land." There is an acceptance the legislation may not be ready for the King's Speech this spring.
The impasse highlights the twin influences on Starmer's leadership: the campaigning human rights lawyer and the former Director of Public Prosecutions closely aligned with the security state. The security services have lobbied fiercely, briefing MPs that without the safeguard, active operations and national security could be compromised.
The delay has caused frustration among Labour MPs, with one asking, "How can he make the commitment and not make sure it is delivered?" With the Prime Minister's personal reputation staked on this law, and key allies like Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham ready to withdraw support, the government has been forced to pause. The path to a law that satisfies both the families' demand for absolute transparency and the state's security concerns remains fraught and unclear.
