Key takeaways
A new duty to be proactive
The law pushes officials to act quickly and transparently in investigations.
Errors in shared information must be fixed
Authorities must review and update disclosures without delay or bias.
Failing the duty may result in prison time
The law adds serious consequences to ignoring transparency rules.
Introduction
On 16 September 2025, the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, or “Hillsborough Law”, had its first reading in the House of Commons.
So, what does the first iteration look like, and if enacted, what would actually change?
Proactive, not reactive
The duty placed on public officials to act with candour, transparency and frankness in their dealings with inquiries and investigations.
For the healthcare sector, the above obligations echo those set out by the GMC, NMC, and CQC:
GMC | NMC | CQC |
|---|---|---|
You must cooperate with formal inquiries, patient safety investigations, and complaints procedures. You must provide all relevant information and be open and honest. | Cooperate with all investigations and audits. This includes investigations or audits … It also includes cooperating with requests to act as a witness in any hearing that forms part of an investigation. | Registered persons must act in an open and transparent way. As soon as reasonably practicable after becoming aware that a notifiable safety incident has occurred, the patient should be informed and supported. |
However, the Hillsborough Law appears to prescribe an approach that is more proactive than simply complying with investigations. The Bill asks public authorities to notify a person leading an inquiry or investigation about relevant information as soon as reasonably practicable after becoming aware of an inquiry or investigation.
Disclosure of information
The expectation for disclosing information is also described in a proactive way. Section 2(4) of the Bill demands public officials and authorities to provide all such assistance as they can reasonably give by:
Providing information that is likely to be relevant
Drawing attention to information that is likely to be of particular significance
Correcting errors or omissions in information previously provided
Public authorities to provide a position statement
Providing further information/clarification where requested
This should be done “expeditiously and without favour to theirs or another person’s position” (Section 2(6)).
The leader of an investigation or inquiry can compel information by oral evidence, written evidence, or otherwise.
Impact on inquests
I asked our Inquest experts, Rebecca Sharrock and Joanna Trewin, how this would impact the way that the healthcare sector engages with Inquests.
In terms of the duty itself, Rebecca commented that, “the professional obligations that are already imposed on regulated professionals is stringent”. In our experience, healthcare professionals and organisations are already actively disclosing documentation, participating as witnesses, and responding to requests for further information from the Coroner. Equally, Coroners already have the power under Schedule 5 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 to compel evidence. So, would anything really change?
Well, Joanna suggested that the disclosure of documents may need to be a tighter process. Healthcare organisations may need to ask the Coroner what documentation is required, or at the least, request a very clear scope so as not to fall foul of the duty. In addition, the duty to draw attention to information and correct errors or omissions in information may also necessitate a closer review of documentation prior to disclosure.
Joanna also added that this bill gives the pre-existing obligations “more bite”. This ‘bite’ comes in the form of a criminal conviction for failure to uphold the duty, the consequence of which could lead to a maximum of 2 years in custody.
The need for a position statement is also new, as this is not something that has previously been necessary for Inquests. The requirement for a public authority to establish their “position” is contrary to the inquisitorial nature of an Inquest because, as Joanna has put it, “no one at an Inquest should have a position as such – we are all there to help the Coroner investigate the death”.
Having said that, Section 3(6) may be the engineered loophole, stating that “The person leading an inquiry may dispense with the obligation to provide a position statement only if [it] would be contrary to the efficient and effective conduct of the inquiry”.
Conclusion
The top takeaway from the first reading of this new legal duty is that organisations and professionals will have to actively engage with the parameters of an investigation or inquiry, rather than simply responding to requests for statements for example. Although this is already required by professional healthcare bodies, the Hillsborough Law raises the stakes by attaching custodial penalties for failures to comply.
Keep an eye out for our upcoming articles on this Bill, there is so much more to discuss!
You can find more information on this in our previous article of this series here.