Published: 21st January 2026 This week, the Government announced a delay in the next parliamentary stage of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill in the House of Commons. More commonly known as the Hillsborough Law, this landmark Bill seeks to create a legal duty called “the duty of candour and assistance” for public authorities to cooperate with, and tell the truth to, public inquiries. It is the fulfilment of the Government’s manifesto commitment to provide justice for the families of the Hillsborough disaster victims, who for decades faced at best obfuscation in their search for the truth. The delay to the Bill comes amidst widespread concerns about a new Government amendment to the Bill, which would have made the security services’ – for example, MI5 and MI6’s – cooperation subject to the approval of the head of the service. The Government’s pause provides a welcome opportunity for Ministers to reflect on how to amend the Bill more generally. Public Law Project (PLP) supports the Bill but believes it should be strengthened, particularly by extending the duty of candour and assistance to a wider range of accountability mechanisms beyond public inquiries and investigations, such as ombudsmen, commissioners, and inspectorates. (Read PLP’s full recommendations briefing here.) This legislation is the product of decades of campaigning and is a very welcome move. The victims’ families and supporters should be applauded for their tenacity and commitment to justice. The requirement to be candid – to be honest and transparent, to act in good faith, to be open to admitting mistakes, and to learn from errors – is an important part of public law. Indeed, public law has been described as a game best played “with all cards face upwards on the table”. For example, in judicial review – the process whereby a court determines whether a public body has complied with the law – there has long been an existing “duty of candour” requiring public bodies to disclose information to the court enabling the judge to assess the legality of the public body’s actions. This is because judicial review, like many other public law mechanisms of accountability, is a “partnership based on a common aim, namely the maintenance of the highest standards of public administration” (R v Lancashire County Council ex p. Huddleston [1986] 2 All ER 941). It is essential for public confidence in state officials, justice for people who have been wronged by the state, and the search for truth that public bodies are candid and transparent in as many accountability mechanisms as possible. This is even more true when the public do not have equal access to the information or records held by public bodies and can face an obstructionist attitude to its release because of its embarrassing nature. A fair and inclusive society will not be achieved until everyone is entitled to truth and justice – especially people who are marginalised and most reliant on the state for the protection of their rights and dignity. The Government should use this pause in the Bill to urgently think about additional ways in which it could be strengthened. PLP’s recommendations are a first step in that direction. Read our House of Commons’ Report stage briefing.