Hillsborough Law: The Lords debate and what it means for organisations in scope

The Public Office Bill, better known as the Hillsborough Law, had its second reading in the House of Lords on 1 September 2026. More than forty peers spoke and the Bill received support from all sides of the House. It now goes to committee stage, which seems likely to be in October. After tributes to the Hillsborough families and the other campaigns that brought the Bill this far, the debate turned to how it will work in practice.

Culture

Almost every speaker said the Bill will stand or fall on whether it changes the culture of institutions. Lord Bichard, a former permanent secretary who chaired the inquiry into the Soham murders, focused on the Bill's duty on public authorities to maintain ethical conduct at all times. He said that "the Bill will be judged by whether we have fewer inquiries and the extent to which it begins to rebuild trust in our public services".

Codes of conduct will not do this on their own. The Civil Service Code and the Nolan principles have been in place for thirty years, and the NHS duty of candour for over a decade. As several peers set out, people are loyal to their organisations, worry about their jobs and find it hard to admit fault. Delivering this important part of the Bill will be a real leadership challenge, and one organisations will want to think seriously about.

Inquiries and inquests

Several peers raised questions about precisely how the new duty of candour and assistance will operate in practice, and there will clearly be significant scrutiny of that in the weeks ahead.

There was also strong support for the Bill's provisions extending legal aid to bereaved families where the state is an interested person at an inquest, albeit with questions about the cost and whether the sector will be ready. Under the Bill, public bodies will also have to consider whether their own legal representation is necessary and proportionate and have regard to statutory guidance on how they participate in inquests and inquiries. And there are new powers for coroners and inquiry chairs to raise concerns about the conduct of public authorities and their lawyers.

The government's aim in all of these changes is clear. As the Minister put it, "an inquest or inquiry is not a contest to be won".

Private sector application

The duty to assist inquiries, inquests and other investigations is not confined to the public sector. It applies to any organisation that had a relevant public responsibility in connection with the incident under investigation. Meaning, a health and safety responsibility towards the members of the public affected, or activities carried out as a direct contractor to a public authority that had a significant impact on the public. A number of peers wanted to go further. The Bishop of Manchester asked for the duty to run "all the way down the sometimes lengthy subcontracting chain", and the Minister said he was "very open to thinking about that further".

Private organisations that contract directly with public bodies, or that carry health and safety responsibilities towards the public, will want to understand when the duty could apply to them. Those further along the subcontracting chain will want to be aware that they may yet be brought within it.

The Independent Public Advocate

Baroness May, Home Secretary when the Hillsborough Independent Panel reported and later Prime Minister, told the House that one thing the Hillsborough families had said to her about their experience was that "there was nobody there for them: nobody on their side". She and several other peers talked about the importance of the new Independent Public Advocate and expressed disappointment that the Bill does not reference her or give her a formal role in the new duty of candour arrangements. The government appeared open to some changes here, so amendments may follow.

Open questions

The intelligence services provisions remained a point of discussion. Some peers were critical of the government for bringing the relevant amendments forward late in the Commons proceedings, and Baroness May probed the specific drafting, which she thought "rather cumbersome". Baroness Manningham-Buller, a former head of MI5, underlined the importance of getting the detail right in the interests of national security, but said she believed the safeguards in the Bill as it stands were adequate. On top of that, the Intelligence and Security Committee has said it is content. The broad principle therefore appears settled, although clearly the drafting and operational safeguards will receive further scrutiny as the Bill progresses.

The Bill also includes significant powers to extend the duty of candour to other types of investigation, and the government has said it will use them to cover police misconduct investigations, serious healthcare incidents, serious health and safety investigations and key ombudsman investigations. The debate illustrated the importance of getting the detail of those extensions right, with Lord Keen probing how the privilege against self-incrimination will be protected once the duty applies to police misconduct investigations. Organisations within the scope of the potential extensions will want to find opportunities to engage with those developments in the coming months.

There was nothing further on the timing of implementation, but it is clear that the government wants to bring the Bill's provisions into force as quickly as possible. The Bill is now making rapid progress after stalling in the Commons earlier in the year, and we expect more detail on implementation timing during committee stage.

Getting ready

Several peers talked about the implementation challenge and questioned whether the government was providing additional resources. Public and private sector organisations will want to start preparing now. Sensible steps include:

• Establishing whether, and how far, you are in scope.
• Reviewing your code of conduct, whistleblowing and complaints arrangements against what the Bill will require.
• Checking records management and retention, given the attention paid in the debate to the destruction of documents.
• Looking at how you and your legal advisers approach inquests and inquiries in light of the new legal provisions and supporting guidance.
  
  

If you have any questions or would like to discuss how the Hillsborough Law could impact your organisation, please contact Steffan Groch. 

We would like to thank Matt Lewsey for his contribution towards this article.