Families of the Hillsborough and Manchester Arena tragedies feel betrayed, and a key piece of legislation designed to prevent future cover-ups is now at risk of falling apart. Keir Starmer's flagship Hillsborough Law, intended to ensure truth and accountability after major disasters, is facing a major hurdle: a potential rebellion from his own Labour MPs. Why? Because families who lost loved ones are deeply concerned that the bill, as it stands, doesn't go far enough in holding intelligence officers accountable.
Starmer had previously been hailed as a champion of justice by Margaret Aspinall, who lost her son in the Hillsborough disaster. But now, a crucial breakdown in talks has left these families feeling deeply let down.
The core of the issue revolves around the "duty of candour." This principle, at the heart of the Hillsborough Law, is meant to compel public officials and contractors to be truthful and proactive in assisting investigations after disasters. It's designed to prevent the kind of obfuscation and misleading information that plagued the aftermath of Hillsborough and, more recently, the Manchester Arena bombing.
But here's where it gets controversial: the current draft of the bill includes specific protections for serving intelligence officers. Families fear that these protections will allow intelligence agencies to shield their officers from scrutiny, potentially enabling future cover-ups. Specifically, they are worried about directors of intelligence services having the power to veto officers from giving evidence.
The Manchester Arena bombing inquiry served as a stark reminder of these dangers. During that inquiry, individual officers provided evidence that exposed how MI5, the UK's domestic intelligence agency, had withheld crucial information that could have potentially prevented the attack.
Caroline Curry, who lost her son Liam in the Manchester Arena bombing, expressed her frustration bluntly: "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 acknowledged the government's effort in bringing the law forward, noting that previous Conservative governments had failed to do so, but urged them to "do it the right way. Don’t blow it at the last hurdle. We’re just really disappointed. It’s just so infuriating.” Curry even described the "false narrative" put forward by MI5 as "torture" after her son's death, highlighting the profound emotional toll of perceived dishonesty.
A government source stated that while it was "deeply regrettable" that an agreement hadn't been reached, the government had gone as far as possible without compromising national security. But the families, and some Labour MPs, aren't convinced.
Labour MP Ian Byrne, who has proposed an amendment to ensure the law applies to individual intelligence service officers, has stated he cannot support the bill in its current form. He described the potential inability to back the Hillsborough Law as the "saddest moment of my political life."
And this is the part most people miss: the families aren't arguing for reckless exposure of sensitive information. They propose a system where individual officers provide evidence with a duty of candour, and if intelligence service heads believe that evidence should be excluded on national security grounds, they can apply to the inquiry chair for a ruling. This, they believe, strikes a balance between transparency and national security.
Pete Weatherby KC, who represented bereaved families at both the Hillsborough inquests and the Manchester Arena inquiry, emphasized that the families' proposals acknowledge legitimate national security concerns. However, he stressed that the fundamental aim of the law is to prevent cover-ups. He warned that 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.”
More than 20 Labour MPs have already backed amendments to strengthen the bill's application to intelligence officers. The bill's return to the Commons has been delayed, signaling the seriousness of the situation.
A government source maintains that the bill will make the UK's intelligence services "the most scrutinized in the world." They argue that there will inevitably be circumstances where information must be withheld to protect ongoing operations or prevent future attacks. They also suggest that some officials may only know partial details of an operation, and revealing their limited knowledge could inadvertently jeopardize the entire mission.
But here's a question that deserves serious consideration: Does the need to protect national security truly outweigh the right of families to know the truth about what happened to their loved ones?
The debate hinges on how to balance the need for transparency and accountability with the legitimate concerns of national security. It raises fundamental questions about the relationship between the state and its citizens, and the lengths to which governments should go to protect their intelligence agencies.
And here's a controversial interpretation: some might argue that any compromise on the duty of candour, even in the name of national security, risks perpetuating a culture of secrecy and impunity within the intelligence services. Others might contend that overly aggressive scrutiny could cripple the ability of these agencies to protect the country from genuine threats.
What do you think? Can a balance truly be struck, or are these fundamentally irreconcilable principles? Should national security always take precedence, or is there a point where the pursuit of truth and justice becomes paramount? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
