A powerful movement for truth and justice is unfolding, but it's facing a critical juncture that could spark intense debate. The families of victims from the Hillsborough disaster and the Manchester Arena bombing are standing up, demanding that a proposed law, meant to enforce honesty and transparency, doesn't become another tool for cover-ups.
Keir Starmer, the Labour leader, finds himself in a delicate position. He's pushing for a flagship law, known as the Hillsborough law, but talks with the affected families have hit a roadblock. The issue? The duty of candour and how it applies to serving intelligence officers.
Last year, Starmer was introduced at the Labour conference by Margaret Aspinall, whose son James was one of the 97 victims of the 1989 Hillsborough tragedy. Aspinall praised Starmer for his commitment to the bill, especially after months of uncertainty. However, on Wednesday, Aspinall, along with other families, emerged from a meeting with Starmer, expressing deep disappointment with the government's stance.
The bill aims to enforce a duty of candour on public officials and contractors, ensuring they tell the truth and assist inquiries post-disasters. But the families have concerns, especially regarding the bill's protections for serving intelligence officers. They don't want directors of intelligence services to have the power to veto officers' evidence, as seen in the Manchester Arena bombing inquiry.
Caroline Curry, whose son Liam died in the Manchester Arena bombing, voiced her concerns. She said the government's bill, as proposed, still gives too much power to the security services, specifically MI5. Curry praised the government for taking action, but urged them to do it right, without compromising at the last hurdle. She described the false narrative put forward by MI5 as 'torture' for families like hers.
A government source stated that while it's deeply regrettable that no agreement was reached, the government couldn't compromise national security. This stance has led Labour MP Ian Byrne, who supports an amendment for the law to apply to individual intelligence officers, to say he cannot back the bill in its current form. He described the potential outcome as the saddest moment of his political life.
Here's where it gets controversial: the families argue that individual officers should provide evidence to any inquiry, with a duty of candour. If intelligence service heads want to exclude evidence on national security grounds, they should make an application to the inquiry chair. But a Cabinet Office source claimed Starmer argued that the same situation couldn't happen under the government's proposals, as intelligence services would have a duty of candour not to mislead. However, sources admit that the intelligence services would have discretion over whether officers can give evidence at all.
Pete Weatherby KC, who represented bereaved families in the Hillsborough inquests and the Manchester Arena inquiry, and is a director of the Hillsborough Law Now campaign, said Starmer listened in the meeting but the families couldn't accept the government's position. He emphasized that the families' proposals acknowledge national security concerns, but the law's aim is to prevent cover-ups.
"There's a real roadblock here," Weatherby said. "The government has not delivered on its promise to apply the bill to the security services. As it stands, the lies and cover-ups seen in the Manchester Arena inquiry could happen again. The government risks undermining a landmark piece of legislation by prioritizing the protection of the security services over truth and justice."
More than 20 Labour MPs, including Byrne and Anneliese Midgley, have backed amendments to place a duty of candour on intelligence officers. The bill's return to the Commons has been delayed until next week to find a solution.
Starmer's spokesman stated that the government is committed to working with the families to strengthen the Hillsborough law. They've tabled amendments and delayed the bill to find a resolution. "We will never compromise on national security," they added.
A government source expressed hope for continued dialogue but acknowledged that the bill will progress next week with the government's concessions. They emphasized that the bill will make our intelligence services the most scrutinized in the world. However, they admitted that there will be circumstances where consent can be withheld, but the services can be held accountable for such decisions.
"We want to make the bill as strong as possible," the source said. "There might be cases where officials only know part of an operation, and giving evidence could put the operation at risk. This could prevent stopping attacks or serious crimes. But these amendments are a huge step forward in strengthening the bill."
This story is a powerful reminder of the delicate balance between national security and the pursuit of truth and justice. It raises important questions: Should intelligence services be exempt from a duty of candour? Can we trust them to self-regulate? And what does this mean for the families fighting for answers and accountability? What do you think? Share your thoughts in the comments.
