Prime Minister Keir Starmer is confronting the prospect of a significant backbench rebellion over his flagship Hillsborough law, following the collapse of critical talks with the families of disaster victims. The dispute centres on contentious exemptions for intelligence services within the proposed legislation.
The Core of the Dispute: A Duty of Candour for All?
The proposed law, a manifesto commitment, aims to enforce a statutory duty of candour on public officials and contractors. This would legally compel them to tell the truth in their work and to actively assist inquiries following major tragedies. However, the legislation as currently drafted allows directors of intelligence services to potentially veto individual officers from giving evidence to such investigations.
This provision has sparked fierce opposition from families who lost loved ones in the 1989 Hillsborough disaster and the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing. Their concerns are rooted directly in the experience of the Manchester Arena inquiry, where it was revealed that MI5 had not been truthful about intelligence that could have prevented the attack which killed 22 people, including 19-year-old Liam Curry.
Caroline Curry, Liam's mother, stated after a meeting with Starmer on Wednesday: "As it’s proposed at the moment, the government’s bill is still giving carte blanche to the security services, MI5, and we just can’t back it with that." She described the "false narrative" initially presented by MI5 as "torture" for the bereaved families.
Families' Demands and Government's Red Line
The families, supported by the Hillsborough Law Now campaign, argue that the duty of candour must apply to individual intelligence officers. They propose that if agency heads believe evidence should be excluded on national security grounds, they should have to apply to the inquiry chair for a ruling, rather than holding an internal veto.
Pete Weatherby KC, a director of the campaign, warned: "The government is in danger of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory on a landmark piece of legislation, because they are putting protecting the security services ahead of truth and justice."
A government source stated that while it was "deeply regrettable" no agreement was reached, ministers had gone as far as they could without compromising national security. They argued the bill, with proposed amendments, would make UK intelligence services "the most scrutinised in the world," but maintained there must be discretion to protect sensitive operations.
Political Fallout and Next Steps
The impasse has direct political consequences. Ian Byrne, the Labour MP for Liverpool West Derby who has tabled a key amendment, said he could not support the bill in its current form. He told the Guardian it would be the "saddest moment of my political life" if he was forced to vote against the legislation he has long championed.
More than 20 Labour MPs, including Byrne and Anneliese Midgley, are backing amendments to strengthen the bill's application to intelligence officers. The government has delayed the bill's return to the Commons until next week to seek a resolution, but has indicated it will proceed with its current concessions if no agreement is found.
The meeting on Wednesday was attended by Margaret Aspinall, whose 18-year-old son James died at Hillsborough and who introduced Starmer at last year's Labour conference. Her presence underscored the deep personal and political stakes for a Prime Minister who has personally pledged to deliver this law.
A government spokesperson reiterated Starmer's commitment: "We’re fully committed to working with the families to make the Hillsborough law strong. It is a personal priority for the prime minister... We will never compromise on national security." The coming days will test whether a compromise satisfying both principles can be found.
