The Hillsborough Law, designed to prevent cover-ups and ensure accountability in public services, is facing a critical challenge. But here's where it gets controversial: an amendment to the law has sparked outrage from the mayors of Liverpool and Manchester, who argue it could undermine its very purpose. Steve Rotheram and Andy Burnham, leaders of their respective regions, are calling for the amendment's withdrawal, claiming it grants intelligence officials too much power to withhold information after major incidents.
This amendment, part of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, has already raised concerns among Hillsborough campaigners. They fear it might allow security officials to conceal failures under the guise of national security. And this is the part most people miss: the mayors, having witnessed devastating incidents in their own regions, emphasize the importance of establishing the truth quickly when things go wrong. They believe the Hillsborough Law, if drafted correctly, could foster a culture of transparency in all public services.
In a joint statement, Rotheram and Burnham acknowledged the government's efforts in creating the Hillsborough Law but expressed their disappointment with the amendment. They argue it creates a loophole that contradicts the law's spirit. The mayors urge the government to withdraw the amendment and collaborate with families and the Hillsborough Law Now campaign to find a solution acceptable to all.
The push for the Hillsborough Law began in 2016, following a second inquest into the 1989 Hillsborough disaster, where 96 Liverpool fans (later 97) lost their lives due to negligent crowd control by South Yorkshire police. This tragedy, compounded by false reports blaming Liverpool fans for the disaster, remains the worst sporting disaster in British history.
Elkan Abrahamson, a lawyer for the Hillsborough Law Now campaign, criticizes the amendment for giving security service heads unchecked power to decide what information to disclose. He argues that the head of an inquiry should determine the relevance of information, highlighting existing national security exemptions for private hearings.
Liverpool West Derby MP Ian Byrne has proposed amendments to ensure the duty of candour applies to both intelligence organizations and their employees. However, he cannot support the bill in its current form, feeling let down by the government's amendments, which he believes introduce exemptions and loopholes contrary to the law's original intent.
Here’s the bold question we leave you with: Can a law meant to prevent cover-ups truly succeed if it allows those in power to decide what information remains hidden? We invite you to share your thoughts in the comments—do you agree with the mayors' stance, or do you see a different perspective on this contentious issue?
