Hillsborough Law: What is it, why has it faced delays and a U-turn?
The Hillsborough Law was finally introduced to parliament last year, but campaigners have been critical of its supposed "watering down". Here is all you need to know about the bill.
Tuesday 20 January 2026 11:30, UK
The long-awaited Hillsborough Law has been hit by delays, backlash and a U-turn in the months after being introduced to parliament.
The Hillsborough Law, officially called the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, is intended to make sure authorities will face criminal sanctions if they attempt to cover up the facts behind disasters such as the 1989 Hillsborough tragedy, the Grenfell Tower fire and the infected blood scandal.
The bill's introduction to parliament in September last year was the first step toward it becoming law, but it has been plagued by setbacks more recently, casting doubt on its impact.
Here is everything you need to know.
What is the law?
The Hillsborough Law aims to end the culture of cover-ups following disasters and scandals.
Its name is a reference to the disaster at Hillsborough stadium in Sheffield on 15 April 1989, when 97 Liverpool fans died as a result of a crush in the stands during an FA Cup semi-final against Nottingham Forest.
In the days and weeks after, police fed the press false stories suggesting hooliganism and drunkenness of Liverpool supporters caused the disaster.
The bill will introduce the following changes, which the government has described as "seismic":
• A new professional and legal duty of candour - meaning public officials must act with honesty and integrity at all times, or face criminal sanctions;
• The largest expansion of legal aid in a decade for bereaved families - providing non-means tested help and support for inquests;
• A new offence for misleading the public, with criminal sanctions for the most serious breaches.
The government says these changes will help ensure tragic injustices of the past and institutional failures are never repeated.
The law has been supported by victims of the Grenfell Tower fire, the infected blood scandal, and bereaved COVID families, who want to give victims better access to justice when going up against the state.
Why has it been plagued by delays?
The bill was put forward initially by Andy Burnham, the mayor of Greater Manchester, in 2017, but ultimately failed to pass.
While in opposition, Sir Keir Starmer first promised the long-awaited legislation would be revived and passed, and after winning the 2024 general election he said it would be on the statute books by the time of the next anniversary.
But leading up to 15 April last year, a government spokesperson told Paste BN that after consulting with families, "more time is needed" to draft the best version of the legislation.
It was introduced to parliament in September last year, which campaigners hailed as a "momentous" day, acknowledging the "long journey to get here".
It had its second reading in November and was then due for another reading on 14 January.
But the day before, the government delayed it again amid backlash from Labour MPs who claimed the bill was being watered down when it came to "duty of candour" for the security services.
The controversy was over an amendment to the draft bill that would mean only organisations and not individuals in the security services could be asked to testify, meaning spies would only be forced to tell the truth if the head of their service approved it.
Mr Burnham and other critics, including Labour MPs and campaign groups, argued this could allow intelligence services to hide potential failures behind a claim of national security.
Government U-turns on amendment
The law was set to have its delayed third reading on 19 January, but it was pulled again at the last minute, before it was revealed that the government had scrapped the amendment regarding spies entirely.
Paste BN' deputy political editor Sam Coates said one figure close to the talks described the situation as "absolutely mental".
The government has decided to work with campaigners and bereaved families to bring forward amendments when the bill reaches the Lords.
Asked about the bill being withdrawn from proceedings, the prime minister insisted he wanted to "get the balance right".
A government spokesperson said: "The bill will make the police, intelligence agencies and the whole of government more scrutinised than they have ever been, but we can never compromise on national security.
"We will continue to work with all parties to make sure the bill is the strongest it can possibly be, without compromising national security."
Campaign group Hillsborough Law Now welcomed the move, saying: "We shall engage further with government to ensure the bill fully applies to the security services whilst not jeopardising national security."