In a dramatic turn of events, Labour MPs may be poised to challenge Keir Starmer over his prominent Hillsborough law initiative following unproductive discussions with families impacted by the tragedy regarding the law’s implications for intelligence officers.
At last year’s Labour conference, Margaret Aspinall, whose son James was tragically one of the 97 lives lost in the Hillsborough disaster in 1989, introduced Starmer. She expressed her appreciation for his commitment to advancing the bill after extensive debates surrounding its future.
However, disappointment filled the air after a recent meeting, where Aspinall and other bereaved family members, including those affected by the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing, voiced their concerns about the government's stance.
The proposed legislation aims to institute a duty of candour that mandates public officials and contractors to be truthful and cooperative in investigations following disasters. Yet, families have raised alarms regarding the specific protections granted to active intelligence officers under this bill.
Families are apprehensive that allowing heads of intelligence agencies to prevent officers from giving testimony could mirror the troubling experiences they faced during the inquiry into the Manchester Arena bombing, which resulted in the deaths of 22 concertgoers at an Ariana Grande performance. During that inquiry, individual MI5 officers testified, revealing that the intelligence agency had not been forthcoming about crucial information that could have potentially averted the bombing.
Caroline Curry, who lost her 19-year-old son Liam in the Manchester Arena attack, stated: "The current format of the government’s bill gives unchecked power to the security services, particularly MI5, and we simply cannot support it as it stands.
"We applaud the government for bringing this law forward and presenting it in parliament—something the Conservatives failed to do—but it must be executed correctly. We can’t allow it to falter at such a critical point. Our disappointment is palpable, and it's incredibly frustrating."
Curry further elaborated on the emotional toll this situation has taken on her, labeling the misleading narrative propagated by MI5 as "torture" following the loss of her son.
A source within the government expressed regret that an agreement could not be reached with the families, emphasizing that they had pushed the boundaries of what they could offer without jeopardizing national security.
Labour MP Ian Byrne, who has proposed an amendment for the bill to extend its applicability to individual intelligence service officers, declared that he would not be able to endorse the bill in its current form. He remarked to the Guardian, "It would be one of the saddest moments of my political career if I couldn’t support the Hillsborough law."
A source from the Cabinet Office contended that Starmer maintained that the proposed measures would prevent similar situations from arising under the current government’s plan, asserting that intelligence agencies would be held to a duty of candour to avoid misleading inquiries. Nonetheless, it was acknowledged that these agencies would retain discretion over whether individual officers could provide testimony at all.
Families advocate for the premise that each officer should be required to contribute evidence to any inquiry, upholding a duty of candour. They propose that if intelligence service leaders argue for exclusion on grounds of national security, such claims should be subject to evaluation by the inquiry chair.
Pete Weatherby KC, who represented the bereaved families during the 2014-2016 Hillsborough inquests and the Manchester Arena inquiry, and who is also a director of the Hillsborough Law Now campaign, indicated that while Starmer listened to the families during the meeting, they could not accept the current governmental stance. He stressed that families’ suggestions acknowledge valid national security concerns, which may justify excluding certain evidence, but the overarching goal of the legislation is to prevent instances of cover-up.
He articulated, "We’ve hit a significant obstacle here. The government has yet to adequately address how the bill applies to security services. As it stands now, the deception and concealment evident in the Manchester Arena inquiry could be repeated. The government risks undermining a pivotal piece of legislation by prioritizing the protection of security services over truth and justice."
With more than 20 Labour MPs backing amendments to place a duty of candour on intelligence officers, the bill, which was originally scheduled to return to the Commons on Wednesday, will now be postponed until next week.
Starmer's spokesperson previously stated that the government remains hopeful about reconciling with the families. "We are wholly committed to collaborating with families to ensure the Hillsborough law is robust. This is a personal priority for the Prime Minister, and we aim to get it right. That’s why we proposed a series of amendments last Friday to enhance the bill’s provisions, leading to its delay until next week in hopes of making further improvements. Our commitment to national security remains unwavering."
A government representative noted that they intend to maintain open communication with the families; however, the bill will advance next week with the existing amendments, even though they may not satisfy the families' demands.
"This legislation will establish our intelligence services as the most scrutinized globally," they emphasized.
"There will be circumstances where consent might be withheld, but accountability for those decisions will be paramount. Our objective is to strengthen the law as much as possible.
"There may be instances where officials are only partially aware of the operations they are involved in, potentially risking pivotal aspects of those operations by providing evidence. Such situations could hinder efforts to prevent further attacks or serious crimes. However, these amendments represent a significant advancement in reinforcing the bill from its current state."
This ongoing debate raises crucial questions about the balance between national security and public accountability. How do you feel about the potential implications of this legislation? Do you believe the proposed amendments go far enough to ensure transparency and accountability? Join the conversation in the comments below!
