HoL Briefing on Public Office (Accountability) Bill 2026 by Hillsborough Law Now campaign
1. Hillsborough Law is the legacy campaign of the families, which started at the end of the second inquests in April 2016, following unlawful killing conclusions returned by the jury. That result righted a historic injustice caused by an industrial-scale cover-up by South Yorkshire Police and others, whereby the supporters and the deceased themselves had been blamed for the disaster. The families wanted to prevent that from happening to anyone else.
2. Over the last ten years, the campaign has been joined by many others bereaved and affected by disasters and scandals where cover-ups and obfuscation followed to hide failings and wrongdoing. Those with lived experience supporting the campaign include families from Grenfell, Manchester Arena, Post Office, Chinook, Contaminated Blood, Truth About Zane, Ruth Perry, Orgreave, Covid, Primados, Nuclear Test Veterans, and many more bereaved families who have experienced the defensive culture of state bodies at investigations and inquests.
3. The campaign is strongly endorsed by JUSTICE and INQUEST.
4. The Bill has always been cross-party. Its first iteration put before Parliament in 2017 was advanced by Andy Burnham, but sponsored and signed by MPs from Labour, Conservative, Lib Dem, Green, SNP, and SDLP. More recently Plaid Cymru and other NI parties have joined the list.
5. From its inception, HBL was designed to establish three ‘pillars’:
a. A statutory ‘Duty of Candour’ requiring public officials and authorities, and private entities which are contracted to do public work or owe a H&S responsibility to the public, to tell the truth in all their work and communications. The Bill sets out clear compliance and enforcement provisions, including a backstop criminal offence for intentional or reckless misleading of the public.
b. An ancillary statutory ‘Duty to Assist’ applying the general DoC to official investigations and inquiries, and specifically requiring public authorities, officials and corporations to proactively provide information and admit failures at the outset of those investigations. The Bill sets out clear requirements and enforcement provisions, again including backstop criminal offences for egregious non-compliance.
c. Rebalance representation of state bodies and the bereaved at inquiries and inquests.
6. The Government committed to progressing the Bill only if endorsed by the families and campaign, and to that end for the last two years we have been assisting in getting the Bill right. The Bill meets each of the above ‘pillars’, although during discussions we have signalled to the Government that we consider that the Bill should be improved by the amendments referred to at B below.
A.The protection of national security
7. Third reading was paused in order to ensure that the provisions applied to the intelligence services without any compromise to national security. It has always been the position of the campaign that the new provisions must be fully applied, subject t the existing legal safeguards relating to national security. The importance of this has been illustrated by three recent cases where the Intelligence Services have fallen well short in terms of candour with investigations: Manchester Arena, Operation Kenova/’Stakeknife’, and the ‘Beth’/Agent X case.
8. The provisions which passed third reading on 14 July 2026 have met the needs of accountability, without changing or diminishing national security safeguards in any way. We are aware of negative briefing which suggests otherwise. This is wholly inaccurate and we hope that the following comments will provide full reassurance.
9. Firstly, we note that the Manchester Arena and Chinook bereaved, and the Nuclear Test Veterans, amongst others, need no reminding of the imperative of national security.
10. Secondly, the discussions with Government included the Attorney-General and other Ministers in person, a lawyer representing all three branches of the Intelligence Services, and the Chair, Deputy Chair and members of the Intelligence and Security Committee who support the provisions. The finalised provisions were signed off by the Home Secretary, Foreign Secretary and Defence Minister personally.
11. Members can therefore be assured that those with the best national security experience and expertise have been fully involved, all concerns were fully ventilated, and the provisions have been supported and signed off at the highest level. We seek no changes to the relevant provisions.
B. Areas for improvement
12. During discussions with the Government, a number of issues were unresolved. None of the below were red lines for the progress of the Bill, however, we do seek amendments to make the provisions as practical and effective as possible.
a. Command responsibility
13. It is imperative that there is command responsibility for corporate failure. Fining a public authority for a breach of the duty of candour means the taxpayer pays: it is no deterrent. Section 2(5) requires that the chief officer/executive takes all reasonable steps to secure that the organisation complies, but this falls short and will be difficult to operate in practice. We seek an amendment to make the head person responsible for the institutional/corporate duty.
b. Codes of practice and whistleblowing
14. The Codes of Practice required by section 10 are essential to embed the general duty of candour in all public authorities, to effect cultural change. They must be practical and effective, not aspirational. In our view, there should be a statutory requirement that such codes must be made in consultation with relevant trade unions.
Furthermore, the provisions under section 10(5) should be strengthened to give proper protection to whistleblowers.
c. Misleading the public
15. The general duty of candour applying to all public servants at all times is backed-up by an offence of ‘misleading the public’: section 12. The offence rightly applies only to egregious offending where the official knows or ought to know that their acts are ‘seriously improper’. The offence relates to the protection of public administration and candour, not offending against the person. The inclusion of a requirement of ‘harm’, section 12(3)(b), is therefore unnecessary and inappropriate, and will render the provision ineffective in some circumstances. For example, if a chief of police publishes deliberately misleading crime figures the offence should apply. It is difficult to see how it could if there is a requirement to prove ‘harm’, and therefore we consider that this sub-clause should be deleted.
d. Parity
16. Section 20 and Schedule 6 contain provisions to rebalance the representation of public bodies and those bereaved and affected by state failures and wrongdoing. This includes non-means tested public funding for bereaved families at inquests where a state body is an ‘interested person’.
17. We seek two amendments. Firstly, it is an ongoing problem that those representing public bodies and families within the same inquiry or investigation are paid at different rates. This is completely and obviously unjustifiable. The ‘parity’ provisions should expressly require that state funding should be at the same rate irrespective of whether representation is for a state body or a bereaved or affected family.
18. Secondly, a state body will have representation from the earliest stage of an investigation. Designation of ‘interested person’ status at an inquest typically may not occur for several months. In almost all cases it will be obvious at the outset whether a state body will have IP status eventually, and therefore the provision should trigger funding where it is ‘likely’ that a state body will be an IP, not at the much later stage which would leave vulnerable people unrepresented for months. Early representation ensures families can have their rights upheld at a time of a traumatic bereavement and enable their meaningfully participation in investigations being undertaken.
e. commencement
19. The current commencement provisions, section 27, give the Secretary of State broad discretion as to when different parts of the Bill are to be brought into force. The Bill requires no new bodies to be created, and in our view much of it should be brought into force on Royal Assent. Where codes of practice or guidance are required, the commencement provisions should set a time within which they are to be operational. In our view this should be no more than 6 months from RA.
f. service provisions
20. Paragraph 3, Schedule 1, sets out service provisions for compliance directions in nonstatutory inquiries. No such provision is provided with respect to statutory inquiries in paragraph 1. In the course of assisting the Government in the drafting of the Bill, we were told this is because there is no service provision in the Inquiries Act 2005 relating to the service of other notices. This is both correct but also an absurd reason to not correct the position through this Bill. Recent case law has helped in the practical operation of IA notices generally, but this should be codified in this Bill. Furthermore, the provisions should also expressly indicate that service is not limited to the UK, which is a problem that has arisen in a number of recent major inquiries.
Pete Weatherby KC (pweatherby@gcnchambers.co.uk) 19 July 2026
Elkan Abrahamson (elkanabrahamson@me.com)
Debbie Caine (info@hillsboroughlawnow.org)
Deborah Coles (deborahcoles@inquest.org.uk)
Nathan Oswin (info@hillsboroughlawnow.org)