Keir Starmer is facing mounting pressure from within his own party amid accusations that Labour is watering down the proposed Hillsborough Law, prompting warnings of a potential backbench rebellion and renewed anger from bereaved families.
The legislation, promised in Labour’s election manifesto, is intended to introduce a statutory “duty of candour” requiring public authorities to tell the truth following major disasters. Campaigners have long argued such a law is essential to prevent the kind of institutional cover-ups that followed the Hillsborough disaster in 1989, when 97 Liverpool supporters died at Sheffield Wednesday’s stadium.
However, amendments tabled by the government ahead of a Commons debate next week would allow the heads of the intelligence services to decide whether sensitive operational material should be disclosed, a move critics say undermines the core purpose of the bill.
🧾 What the Hillsborough Law was meant to do
The Hillsborough Law has its roots in decades of campaigning by bereaved families, who argue that misinformation, delays and institutional defensiveness compounded their grief after the disaster. The proposed legislation would impose a legal obligation on public bodies and officials to act openly and honestly during inquests, inquiries and investigations.
Labour’s manifesto commitment was explicit, promising a full duty of candour to prevent future cover-ups and ensure families receive the truth without having to fight for it over decades. The pledge carried significant symbolic weight, particularly in Liverpool, where the issue remains deeply felt.
Margaret Aspinall, whose son James died at Hillsborough, introduced Keir Starmer at Labour’s conference in Liverpool last year, a moment widely seen as an endorsement of the party’s commitment to delivering the law without dilution.
⚖️ Amendments spark internal revolt
Under the government’s proposed changes, senior figures in the intelligence services would retain discretion over whether certain information could be withheld on national security grounds. Ministers argue this is necessary to protect covert operations and intelligence sources.
Critics, including Labour MPs, say the carve-out risks recreating the very culture of secrecy the law was designed to dismantle.
Labour MP Ian Byrne, who was present at Hillsborough as a supporter, said he could not back the amendments.
“I cannot, in all good conscience, support any amendments that abandon the Manchester Arena bombing families, nuclear test veterans, or the Chinook disaster families,” he said in a statement on X.
“I made a commitment to deliver the Hillsborough Law… without exemptions, without loopholes and without carve-outs. The government made this promise in its manifesto. If the government’s amendments are passed then the legislation, in its current form, is not that.”
Liverpool Riverside MP Kim Johnson echoed those concerns, warning that the bill risks losing its moral authority.
“This is not the bill we were promised by the prime minister,” she said. “We need a full duty of candour for every public body. If it doesn’t apply to all, it’s not the Hillsborough Law and doesn’t deserve the name.”
🗣️ Andy Burnham adds to pressure
Opposition to the amendments has also come from Andy Burnham, the Labour mayor of Greater Manchester and a figure often mentioned as a potential future leadership contender.
Speaking to the BBC, Burnham said the proposed approach was unacceptable to bereaved families.
“The amendments the government is trying to put through say the head of MI5 or MI6 will decide whether or not its operatives will give evidence,” he said. “That isn’t acceptable to the families and I support them in this. We’ve always said that it should be the full Hillsborough Law.”
Burnham’s intervention has sharpened the political stakes, adding weight to claims that the government is retreating from its original promise.
👥 Families say trust is being broken
Campaigners who lost loved ones in other disasters say the proposed exemptions risk setting a dangerous precedent.
Caroline Curry, whose 19-year-old son Liam died in the Manchester Arena bombing, said the current draft of the bill still gives too much power to the security services.
“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 said.
“Good on the government for actually taking the law and running with it and putting it into parliament because the Conservatives didn’t. But do it the right way. Don’t blow it at the last hurdle. We’re just really disappointed. It’s just so infuriating.”
🧭 A looming rebellion
Senior Labour figures privately fear the controversy could trigger a significant backbench rebellion, particularly among MPs representing Liverpool and other communities affected by historic injustices.
One Labour source warned that the issue has “all the makings of big trouble”, noting Byrne’s personal connection to Hillsborough gives his opposition particular weight.
HuffPost UK reports that concerns are growing within government that a public split on such a morally charged issue could weaken Starmer’s authority at a time when Labour is already facing criticism over broken or diluted manifesto promises.
🔐 Government defends national security carve-out
Ministers insist the amendments are necessary and that the core principles of the Hillsborough Law remain intact.
A government spokesperson said: “We are bringing in a landmark piece of legislation putting a legal duty on officials to respond openly and honestly when things go wrong.
“This would not have been possible without the tireless campaigning from victims and families who have lost loved ones and we are determined to make this Bill a lasting legacy to the decades they have called for change.”
The spokesperson added that ministers had listened to concerns and would continue to engage with campaigners, while stressing the need to avoid compromising national security.
🧩 Authority on the line
For Starmer, the row cuts to the heart of Labour’s promise to govern differently from its predecessors. Critics argue that allowing exemptions risks repeating the mistakes of the past, while supporters say intelligence work cannot be exposed without limits.
With the bill due to face MPs next week, the outcome will be seen as a test not only of Labour’s commitment to victims and transparency, but of Starmer’s grip on his parliamentary party.
Leave a Reply