The next Commons stage of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, widely known as Hillsborough Law, has been postponed. 

For the families bereaved by the Hillsborough disaster and the Manchester Arena attack, the delay can only be justified if it strengthens, not weakens, the duty of candour at the heart of the Bill.

Their message is simple: accountability must apply to everyone in public life, including individual officers within MI5, MI6 and GCHQ. Anything less risks repeating the patterns that have, for decades, denied families the truth.

Families are clear that national security must be protected. But they also know, from lived experience, that broad exemptions and opaque processes tend to shield institutions rather than safeguard the public. If the law is intended to prevent future injustice, it cannot start with carve‑outs that limit who is required to be honest and open when it matters most.

What is the Hillsborough Law and what would it change?

The Public Office (Accountability) Bill would, for the first time, introduce a statutory duty of candour on public bodies and public officials. That means honesty, openness, and a legal requirement to assist inquiries and inquests from the outset, not decades later after families fight for answers.

It also includes:

• new criminal offences for misleading the public or obstructing investigations
• guaranteed, non‑means‑tested legal aid for bereaved families when public bodies have legal representation
• measures designed to ensure families stand on equal footing with the state

At its heart, the Hillsborough Law is about preventing what happened after Hillsborough and the Manchester Arena attack from happening again.

Why does the duty of candour matter in national security cases?

Families and campaigners accept that some material must be handled carefully. They are not asking for sensitive intelligence to be made public.

What they are asking for is fairness.

If the duty of candour applies only at an organisational level within the intelligence services, but not to the individuals who made key decisions, then accountability risks becoming selective. Candour must apply from the top to the bottom of every public authority. Without that, institutional defensiveness can quietly take hold.

The current debate centres on whether the Bill fully binds individual MI5, MI6 and GCHQ officers in the same way it binds, for example, police officers giving evidence at an inquest.

Families say this point is non‑negotiable.

What did the Manchester Arena Inquiry find and did MI5 apologise?

The Inquiry’s Volume 3 report, published in March 2023, identified a significant missed opportunity by MI5: intelligence that might have prevented the attack was not acted upon. On the day the report was released, MI5’s Director‑General issued a public apology, saying he was “profoundly sorry” the attack was not stopped.

For many families, this reinforced why a full, unqualified duty of candour is so important. Apologies matter, but future accountability matters even more.

Has the Bill’s Commons timetable changed this week?

On 13 January, several reliable sources reported that the Bill’s Commons stage—initially expected this week, was being moved to allow further work on its intelligence‑services provisions.

This pause is only meaningful if it strengthens the duty of candour, not weakens it.

Key questions families are asking

Q: Will a full duty of candour undermine national security?

A: Campaigners say no. Sensitive handling is already part of inquiries. What they oppose are carve‑outs that would limit scrutiny of individuals once an inquiry begins.

Q: Why does the duty need to apply to individuals, not just organisations?

A: Because truth does not come only from organisations. It often comes from the decisions and records of individual officers. A corporate‑only duty risks shielding these decisions from proper examination.

Q: How would the Bill help bereaved families at inquests?

A: It would finally address the inequality of arms by offering automatic legal aid where the state is represented, so no family is left to stand alone.

What happens next and how we can help

If the government needs more time, it should use it to ensure the Hillsborough Law lives up to what families have campaigned for: a real, enforceable duty of candour that covers all public authorities, including the intelligence services, without qualification.

The Prime Minister has repeatedly expressed support for the principle. Now the legislation must reflect it.

At Broudie Jackson Canter, our Inquests & Inquiries team has spent decades standing alongside families, from Hillsborough, to the Manchester Arena Inquiry, to the Covid Inquiry; helping them secure truth, accountability, and meaningful change.

Find out more about Hillsborough Law here.