Starmer Faces Delay in Delivering Hillsborough Law Promise

[Social Media]

 

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer is set to miss his self-imposed deadline for introducing the long-awaited Hillsborough Law, a pledge designed to enforce transparency and prevent cover-ups by public institutions. Despite his commitment to bringing forward legislation by the anniversary of the disaster this month, the process has stalled, with Whitehall sources describing the situation as "a complete mess."

 

The proposed law, which would establish a legal duty of candour for public authorities and their employees, was meant to hold individuals accountable with criminal sanctions for misleading the public about wrongdoing. However, disagreements between the government and campaigners over the law’s strength have caused significant delays. Ministers are hesitant to proceed without full support from the Hillsborough families, causing anxiety among Labour MPs in Merseyside.

 

 

Starmer, who recently cancelled a scheduled meeting with the victims’ families, had made his commitment clear in a speech at Labour’s annual conference in Liverpool last year. He reiterated that if he became prime minister, his priority would be implementing a Hillsborough Law to ensure public institutions remain truthful and transparent. This promise was first made in Liverpool in 2022, with an official deadline set for April 15, 2025, marking the 36th anniversary of the tragedy. However, that deadline will now be missed, adding to the list of commitments made before the election that have yet to be fulfilled.

 

 

The proposed legislation was included in last year’s King’s Speech and has been championed as "a law for Liverpool," in honor of the 97 football fans who lost their lives due to gross negligence by police at the 1989 FA Cup semi-final in Sheffield. The campaign for the law has gained support from victims of other public tragedies, including the Grenfell Tower fire, the infected blood scandal, and families affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. The prime minister also cited the Post Office scandal as further evidence of the need for a legal duty of candour, highlighting how public officials have historically misled investigations, destroyed evidence, or fabricated information without facing meaningful consequences.

 

Despite these concerns, ministers and civil servants argue that criminal sanctions for dishonesty among the 14 million employees of UK public bodies could be impractical. A senior government official suggested that even a minor untruth, such as a civil servant lying about the reason for arriving late to work, could technically lead to prosecution if the law were applied without careful limitations. Instead, the government has proposed that only those who deliberately mislead or withhold information during investigations would face legal consequences. Those who lie in non-statutory inquiries or internal workplace investigations would also be held accountable, not just those giving evidence to inquests or formal inquiries.

 

Under the revised framework, the duty of candour would be embedded in public sector professional codes of ethics, with breaches resulting in disciplinary actions rather than criminal charges. "We want a duty of candour at all times," said a government source, "but not necessarily with criminal sanctions at all levels." Critics of the government’s draft, however, question whether such an approach would have prevented South Yorkshire police officers from covering up their failings in 1989. Some who have reviewed the draft legislation believe it falls short of what Starmer originally promised.

 

Concerns about the bill’s effectiveness are compounded by looming budget cuts to the Ministry of Justice, which could impact provisions ensuring legal teams representing victims have equal resources to those defending public bodies. Campaigners argue that without parity in legal representation, the bill would fail to level the playing field in cases where powerful institutions seek to evade accountability.

 

Secrecy surrounding the drafting process has also raised concerns. A representative of the Hillsborough families was granted access to read the proposed bill but was not allowed to take notes, leaving campaigners worried about whether the legislation will truly reflect their demands.

A senior government source denied any intention to weaken the bill, insisting that Starmer remains committed to its passage despite missing his original deadline. "This matters a lot to the PM," the source stated. "We desperately want to get this to work for the families and pass a law that will do what the families want it to do."

 

Negotiations on a revised draft are ongoing, but it remains unclear when the bill will be published. Both the government and campaigners are eager to avoid a public dispute. Jenni Hicks, a Hillsborough justice advocate who lost her two daughters in the disaster, recently expressed support for waiting longer to ensure the legislation is not a "diluted version" of the duty of candour that campaigners have long sought.

 

 

Based on a report by The Times  2025-04-04

 

 

 

[Purdey]

In principle, candor ought to be the standard modus operandi of government operations. However, if a government officer is caught lying, isn't that covered by other laws?

Lying in court, it is called perjury. The Misconduct in Public Office offence, is a common law offence that has been in place for centuries. This covers a wide range of misconduct by public officials, including lying or providing false information during an investigation. OK, the duty of candor calls for proactive cooperation, but surely if a civil servant is clearly holding back evidence, that must be covered by laws surely?

I am not a lawyer, but it seems there will be so many layers of law that everyone will be afraid of volunteering any information.