Spy Chiefs Lose Power to Block Evidence as Hillsborough Law Pushes UK Toward Greater Transparency

The UK government has abandoned plans to give intelligence chiefs the power to block evidence from public inquiries, in a significant shift that could revive the long-delayed Hillsborough Law.

Under earlier proposals, heads of agencies such as MI5, MI6 and GCHQ would have been able to prevent their staff from giving evidence to inquiries on national security grounds. The move drew strong criticism from campaigners and lawmakers, who argued it would undermine the law’s core aim of ensuring transparency and accountability after public tragedies.

Ministers have now reversed course, opting instead for a system in which intelligence agencies must apply through the courts to withhold sensitive information. Judges will decide whether material can be excluded using established legal mechanisms, rather than allowing security services to make unilateral decisions.

The Hillsborough Law, formally known as the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, was introduced in response to the 1989 Hillsborough disaster, where 97 football fans died following failures in policing and crowd management. The tragedy was followed by years of misinformation and institutional cover-ups, prompting a decades-long campaign by victims’ families for justice and reform.

At the center of the proposed legislation is a “duty of candour,” which would require public officials to act honestly and cooperate fully with investigations and inquiries. Those found to have deliberately misled the public or withheld key information could face criminal sanctions.

However, the inclusion of intelligence agencies has been one of the most contentious aspects of the bill. Security officials have argued that unrestricted disclosure could risk exposing sensitive operations or endangering lives. Campaigners, meanwhile, warned that granting agencies a veto would create a loophole allowing state bodies to avoid scrutiny.

The revised approach seeks to balance these concerns by maintaining national security protections while introducing judicial oversight. Intelligence personnel will still be able to provide evidence in controlled ways, but decisions about secrecy will ultimately rest with the courts.

Despite the breakthrough, the legislation remains delayed and is unlikely to be passed in the current parliamentary session. The postponement has frustrated campaigners, particularly as they had hoped to see the law enacted around the anniversary of the disaster.

Even so, the removal of the proposed veto is being seen as a key development. It signals a shift toward greater accountability within government and may help restore momentum behind a bill that has become a symbol of the fight for transparency in public life.