The Hillsborough Law is about to clear its final stages of approval in Parliament, with some of us still wanting to see if we can seek improvements to ensure its effectiveness. The Public Accountability Bill is about more than Hillsborough, but it would not be about to become law if not for the unlawful killings at Hillsborough in 1989.
Why I argued this legislation needs to go further
I argued in the House of Lords last November (2025) that whilst the legislation will apply to private bodies and contractors delivering public functions, its principles could be undermined if subcontractors are not covered by it. It will not be as effective as it should be if we fail to strengthen its whistleblowing protections so that breaches of the duty of candour can not be buried.
I will argue again in the Lords on Tuesday 02 Sept 2026, that this may require an independent Office of the Whistleblower and measures to ensure statutory protection for those who do exercise candour and expose wrongdoing. I speak as someone from Liverpool, very aware of how the deaths of the blameless victims at Hillsborough affected the city. It took great courage and determination in the face of establishment cover-ups to finally get the truth beyond Merseyside and to bring about changes in the law, but it should never have required a change in the law to make police and public officials tell the truth.
There is still a danger in my view that the Bill’s promise of accountability may be weakened by fragmented codes and inconsistent enforcement. There is a question for me about whether the ethical conduct provisions make everyone who should be covered by the law fully accountable.
Citizens are entitled to honesty
The Bill requires public authorities to promote ethical conduct and it permits authority level codes and disciplinary consequences. Those requirements are valuable, but they are principally authority based and employment based. There are risks of ineffectiveness if there are different codes with different wording, different complaint routes, and differing consequences. A citizen’s entitlement to honesty, accurate records, prompt response, and correction of errors should not depend upon which public authority is involved.
Nor should it depend on which professional regulator happens to have jurisdiction, or whether the responsible person remains employed when the matter is finally examined. The criminal provisions properly contain demanding ingredients and require criminal proof. They cannot, and should not, become the routine response to every serious ethical failure.
What the case of Andrew Devine should have taught us
There is therefore a missing middle: conduct that is too serious for a merely internal response, but which is not properly addressed by criminal prosecution. That is why the proposal made by Andrew Devine’s family deserves close attention. Andrew survived for more than thirty-two years with the catastrophic injuries he suffered at Hillsborough and he was ultimately recognised as the 97th person unlawfully killed.
His family’s experiences extended across decades of interaction with public bodies, healthcare, regulators, and the legal system. The family asked for one enforceable code of conduct for all public officials, with significant sanctions, including financial penalties, for non-compliance.
The Bill could include a core statutory code. This could permit necessary sector specific additions, but no public body should be able to fall below the common minimum. The core duties should include honesty, candour, proper record-keeping, timely disclosure, correction of known errors, co-operation with lawful scrutiny, reasons for material decisions, and fair treatment of affected people.
The bill needs independent enforcement
An effective system also requires independent enforcement. An authority implicated in institutional failure should not always remain the sole investigator and judge of its own compliance. A proportionate Commission, accountable to Parliament, could triage complaints, refer suitable cases to existing regulators or employers, and independently determine serious, repeated, or systemic breaches.
Its purpose would not be to punish every mistake. Advice, correction, apology, training, or warning may be sufficient in many cases. Public censure, a financial penalty, or time limited disqualification should be reserved for serious or persistent misconduct and imposed only through fair procedure.
Accountability should not disappear merely because a person resigns, retires, or transfers before a matter is concluded. We should ensure that the Bill creates not simply more codes, but one intelligible baseline, with credible consequences, and a fair independent system capable of changing conduct before more families must spend decades establishing the truth.
Guardian journalist to talk about Hillsborough legal failure
A planned lecture by a journalist about the legal failings after the Hillsborough disaster, which led to the families having...
Liverpool parade incident: from dreamland to disaster
How the day I dreamt of my whole life became a day I wish I could forget
The Liverpool Victory Parade – Paul Doyle sentenced
The day 'family man' and 'ex Royal Marine' Paul Doyle lost it during the Liverpool Victory Parade will stay with...
No Elon, just no – not our Liverpool FC
No Mr Elon Musk, we do not want you to buy Liverpool Football Club. Not now, not ever. From a...
Traditional local journalism is shrinking, news deserts are growing, whilst disinformation, AI content and political polarisation dominate social media.
Join some of the leading voices in independent media for a timely discussion on the future of journalism..
The event will conclude with a live audience Q&A.
