Time and again the cry for justice was ignored because of who the victims are
Thirty-seven years after 97 people died in the Hillsborough stadium crush — and decades after the state machinery that failed them was turned against their families — the House of Commons has passed legislation requiring public officials to tell the truth in official investigations. The Hillsborough Law, approved on the final day of Sir Keir Starmer's premiership, represents a structural reckoning with a pattern older than any single disaster: the tendency of institutions to protect themselves at the expense of those they have harmed. It is a law born not from a single moment of political will, but from the long, exhausting insistence of ordinary people who refused to let the state's silence stand as the final word.
- Ninety-seven people died in 1989 and their families spent decades fighting a state that had buried its own failures beneath false narratives and withheld evidence — the law exists because that fight should never have been necessary.
- A January amendment that would have allowed intelligence chiefs to shield their officers from full cooperation nearly derailed the bill, drawing fierce backlash from bereaved families who pointed to MI5's documented dishonesty after the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing.
- Revised amendments were rushed through in Starmer's final days in office, with ministers insisting the new language preserves the full duty of candour while creating secure procedures for sensitive material — critics called it a last-minute shambles driven by legacy politics.
- The bill cleared the Commons and now faces House of Lords scrutiny, with the government targeting April 2027 — the 38th anniversary of the disaster — as the deadline for it to become law.
- Starmer framed the legislation as a class issue, arguing that Hillsborough, Grenfell, Manchester Arena, and the infected blood scandal all share a common thread: the state ignoring working-class, Black, and marginalised victims until forced to confront the truth.
On the final day of his premiership, Sir Keir Starmer watched the House of Commons pass the Hillsborough Law — formally the Public Office (Accountability) Bill — a piece of legislation years in the making and, by his own admission, overdue. The bill requires public authorities and their officials to tell the truth when called before official investigations, to cooperate fully, and to abandon the institutional instinct toward self-protection that has shielded the powerful at the expense of the bereaved.
The law takes its name from the 1989 FA Cup semi-final crush that killed 97 people. In the disaster's aftermath, police leaders constructed false narratives blaming the fans, withheld evidence of their own failures, and deployed the full machinery of the state against families seeking the truth. The legislation is designed to ensure no family faces that particular cruelty again.
The path to Tuesday's vote was not clean. Starmer had promised passage by April 2025; that deadline passed. In January, a government amendment that would have allowed intelligence officers to refuse cooperation if their service heads objected provoked sharp backlash — families and some Labour MPs pointed to documented cases of MI5 providing false information, including after the Manchester Arena bombing. The government withdrew the amendment entirely. Revised language, introduced in Starmer's final days before Andy Burnham takes over as prime minister on July 20, was defended by Justice Minister Catherine Atkinson as preserving the full duty of candour while establishing secure procedures for sensitive material.
Speaking to the Commons, Starmer framed the bill as more than justice for the 97. "There is a class element to this," he said, arguing that the state had repeatedly ignored cries for justice from working-class, Black, and marginalised communities — invoking Grenfell, Manchester Arena, the infected blood scandal, and grooming gang inquiries as further evidence of the same pattern. Burnham called the legislation "a rewiring of the state." The Conservatives called it a rushed legacy exercise.
The bill now moves to the House of Lords. The government hopes it will be on the statute book by April 2027. Whether the compromises made along the way will satisfy the families who fought for decades to reach this moment remains an open question.
On the final day of his premiership, Sir Keir Starmer watched the House of Commons approve legislation that had consumed years of campaigning, political negotiation, and the sustained pressure of families who lost everything in a single afternoon in 1989. The Hillsborough Law—formally the Public Office (Accountability) Bill—passed third reading on Tuesday, moving one step closer to becoming statute. It was, by any measure, an ending that felt both overdue and hastily arranged.
The bill imposes a straightforward but radical requirement: public authorities and their officials must tell the truth when called before official investigations and inquiries. They must cooperate fully. They must not hide behind institutional convenience or the protective instincts of their agencies. The legislation was born from the Hillsborough disaster, when a crush during an FA Cup semi-final between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest killed 97 people. In the years that followed, police leaders constructed false narratives blaming the fans themselves, withheld evidence of their own failures, and fought the families' search for truth with the full machinery of the state. The law is meant to ensure that no family ever faces that particular cruelty again.
But the path to Tuesday's vote was tangled. Starmer had promised to pass the bill by April 2025, marking the 36th anniversary of the disaster. That deadline came and went. In January, the government tabled an amendment that would have allowed intelligence officers to refuse cooperation if their service heads objected—a carve-out that bereaved families and some Labour MPs saw as a betrayal. They pointed to documented cases where MI5 had provided false information, including in the aftermath of the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing. The backlash was sharp enough that the government abandoned the debate entirely. Now, in Starmer's final days before Andy Burnham takes over as prime minister on July 20, ministers returned with revised amendments. Justice Minister Catherine Atkinson said the new language would ensure intelligence officers remained fully subject to the duty of candour while establishing "secure procedures" for handling sensitive information.
Starmer spoke to the Commons with the weight of a promise kept, if imperfectly. "The Hillsborough families fought so that no family like them should ever have to endure and suffer what they went through," he said. He framed the bill not merely as justice for the 97, but as a statement about power and class in Britain. "There is a class element to this," he told MPs. "Time and again the cry for justice was ignored by the British state because of who the victims are—because they're working class, because they're black, because they're women and girls." He invoked other campaigns: Grenfell Tower, Manchester Arena, the infected blood scandal, grooming gangs. Each represented a moment when the state had failed to tell the truth and families had to fight for years to make it do so.
Andy Burnham, waiting in the wings to become prime minister, called the legislation "momentous" and described it as "a rewiring of the state and a passing of power from the authorities to the hands of ordinary people." He credited Starmer's commitment, calling the bill "some legacy indeed." The Conservatives, however, saw opportunism. Shadow justice secretary Nick Timothy accused Starmer of being "desperate for a legacy and to claim the credit" before handing over to Burnham. He criticized the late amendments as a "shambles" and argued that the government had watered down protections for the intelligence services. The bill, he suggested, was less about justice and more about political timing.
What remained true was that the families had waited decades. Starmer told the Commons that they had waited "years too long." He said he had looked them in the eye and promised to bring the bill forward, and he had kept that promise—though the route had been circuitous, the amendments contentious, and the final passage rushed. The bill now moves to the House of Lords for scrutiny before it can become law. Downing Street said it wants the legislation on the statute book by April 2027, in time for the next anniversary. Whether that deadline holds, and whether the compromises made along the way will satisfy the families who fought so hard for it, remains to be seen.
Notable Quotes
This is not just a bill for the 97, although it is that, it is a bill for every single working person in this country because there is a class element to this.— Sir Keir Starmer, Prime Minister
It truly is a rewiring of the state and a passing of power from the authorities to the hands of ordinary people.— Andy Burnham, on the bill's significance
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why did this bill take so long? Starmer promised it by April 2025.
The intelligence services fought it. They didn't want their officers bound by a duty to tell the truth in inquiries without some protection. The government tried to give them that protection in January, and the families said no—they'd seen MI5 lie before. So the whole thing stalled.
And now he's rushing it through in his last days as PM?
He's trying to keep a promise before he leaves office. But yes, the timing looks political. Burnham's taking over in a week. The amendments came in at the last minute. The Conservatives are right to call that messy.
What does the bill actually do?
It says public officials have to tell the truth when they're questioned in official investigations. No hiding behind institutional loyalty. No withholding evidence. It's simple in principle—harder in practice when you're dealing with intelligence agencies.
Is this about Hillsborough specifically?
It started there. But Starmer made it bigger. He talked about Grenfell, Manchester Arena, infected blood, grooming gangs. Every time the state lied and families had to fight for years to prove it. This bill is supposed to change that pattern.
Will it work?
That depends on whether the compromises hold. The families wanted no exceptions for intelligence services. The government gave them some anyway. Whether those exceptions matter in practice—we won't know until the next crisis.