After nearly 16 months of anticipation, Keir Starmer’s pledge to introduce the Hillsborough law has become mired in disagreement with the victim families. The law, meant to ensure accountability and transparency in cases of public disasters, was praised by Starmer at the Labour conference in September, where he was introduced by Margaret Aspinall, whose son James was one of the 97 people killed in the 1989 Hillsborough disaster.
However, just four months later, the families of the Hillsborough and Manchester Arena victims are now locked in talks with the Prime Minister, unable to support the law as it stands. The central issue is the application of the duty of candour provision to the security services, with the families insisting that individual officers must be held accountable, while the government wants to give agency chiefs the final say over evidence.
The conflict highlights the delicate balance Starmer must strike between his past as a campaigning human rights lawyer and his later role as Director of Public Prosecutions, close to the security state. The security services have lobbied hard against the law, warning that it could put national security at risk without the proposed concessions.
Jenni Hicks, who lost her daughters Sarah, 19, and Vicki, 15, in the Hillsborough disaster, has been uncompromising in her stance. “The security services have to have the same scrutiny as everybody else,” she said. “There can be no exclusions. Everybody has to tell the truth in cases of disasters, no cover-ups.”
With the threat of a significant Labour rebellion and the bereaved families denouncing the law they were promised, the bill has been pulled, with no timeline for its return. The government has acknowledged that an agreement with the families may not be reached in time for the King’s speech in the spring.
The episode has left many Labour MPs frustrated, questioning how Starmer could make such a commitment without ensuring its delivery. The Prime Minister has reportedly staked his personal reputation on the law, but the families remain steadfast in their demands for full accountability, even if it means the law does not go ahead.
