The government has made a dramatic, last-minute U-turn, withdrawing the proposed Hillsborough Law from Parliament's agenda. The move, confirmed on Monday 19 January 2026, has sparked immediate criticism from campaigners and the Labour opposition.
Eleventh-Hour Withdrawal Sparks Outcry
The controversial decision to pull the Public Office (Accountability) Bill – commonly known as the Hillsborough Law – came amid growing concerns about a specific amendment. Ministers feared the proposed change could create a potential 'get-out clause' for intelligence agencies regarding the core duty of candour.
This legal duty, a cornerstone of the legislation, is designed to compel public authorities and officials to act with transparency and honesty, particularly when dealing with the victims of major disasters or their bereaved families. The amendment in question risked creating a significant exemption for security services, which critics argued would gut the law's fundamental purpose.
Starmer's Pledge and the Search for Balance
In response to the sudden withdrawal, Labour leader Keir Starmer moved swiftly to reassure campaigners. He stated that the Labour Party remains 'fully committed' to the principles of the Hillsborough Law. However, echoing the government's stated position, he also emphasised the need to 'get the balance right' between ensuring public accountability and protecting legitimate national security interests.
The Prime Minister's office explained the withdrawal as a necessary pause to conduct further consultations. The stated aim is to refine the legislation, ensuring it delivers robust accountability without compromising sensitive security operations. Ministers are now engaging directly with campaigners and bereaved families to agree on a viable path forward for the bill.
Campaigners Warn Against Undermining the Law's Spirit
The reaction from long-standing campaigners for the law has been one of deep frustration and caution. They have consistently argued that any opt-out for security services would fundamentally undermine the spirit of the legislation, which was born from the decades-long fight for justice by the families of the 97 victims of the Hillsborough disaster.
Their central concern is that creating broad exemptions would perpetuate a culture of secrecy and obstruction that the law is explicitly designed to dismantle. The government's next steps will be closely scrutinised to see if the revised bill maintains the powerful duty of candour without unacceptable loopholes.
The unexpected delay leaves the future timeline for the Hillsborough Law uncertain. All sides now await the outcome of the renewed talks between the government, campaigners, and affected families, with the integrity of the duty of candour remaining the pivotal issue.
