Hillsborough Law: UK Intelligence Agencies Resist Transparency

The UK government has signalled it may drop its objection to bringing intelligence services under the proposed Hillsborough Law, a move that could allow the legislation to advance. The change follows sustained pressure from families of victims and survivors of the 1989 Hillsborough disaster, alongside Labour Members of Parliament who have argued that intelligence officers should be covered by the bill’s duty of candour.

The Hillsborough Law is intended to require honesty and transparency from public officials and contractors during investigations and public inquiries into major incidents. The bill was paused in January after a dispute emerged over whether intelligence staff—specifically from the Security Service—would be compelled to provide evidence to public inquiries under the same standards as other public bodies.

At the centre of the disagreement was the question of how far the duty of candour should extend into the intelligence community. A previous attempt to bridge the gap would have applied the duty to intelligence officers only with approval from the head of their service. Campaigners rejected that approach, saying it would leave intelligence agencies with too much control over what could be disclosed and when.

Labour MPs also pushed for stronger provisions. More than 20 Labour MPs backed amendments designed to ensure specific duties of candour for intelligence officers, reflecting concerns that exemptions or internal sign-off mechanisms could weaken the bill’s core purpose during inquiries into disasters.

The government’s apparent shift is being viewed by campaigners as a potential route to enactment, addressing a long-standing demand from those affected by Hillsborough and from families linked to other major incidents. Among those cited are families connected to the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing, who have also called for Security Service officers to be included within the duty of candour framework.

Those Manchester families have pointed to findings that the attack could have been prevented if MI5 had acted on critical intelligence. Their position has been that any law designed to ensure openness in the aftermath of tragedy should not exclude agencies whose actions, decisions, or information may be relevant to understanding what happened and why.

The timing is politically sensitive. The 37th anniversary of the Hillsborough disaster falls this week, and officials have indicated that any formal announcement is expected after that date. For lawmakers, the remaining question is whether the government’s revised stance will translate into a final legislative approach that satisfies campaigners while addressing the practical and legal issues raised around intelligence evidence in public inquiries.