Hillsborough Law Statutory Duty of Candour | A Path Towards Justice for Those Excluded from Covid Support?

In September 2025 the UK Government introduced a landmark piece of legislation, commonly known as the Hillsborough Law (formally the Public Office (Accountability) Bill), with the stated aim: “to ensure truth never concealed by the State again.”

For those who were Excluded, deliberately shut out of financial support during the Covid-19 pandemic, this is potentially more than symbolic. It may offer both a route towards accountability and legal redress. But significant questions remain: will the law tackle the systematic failures, the discrimination, and what has already been proposed but ignored?

What is the Hillsborough Law?

Key elements include:

• A statutory Duty of Candour on public officials and authorities: they must act with honesty and integrity, proactively disclose information, not favour their own position, and face criminal sanctions for gross failures

• A new offence of misleading the public in a way that is “seriously improper.”

• A large expansion in legal aid, especially for inquests, so that bereaved families are better supported, and ensuring that public bodies’ legal spending is proportionate.

Though the law is currently framed in the context of disasters, scandals, inquests Hillsborough, Grenfell, infected blood, the Post Office / Horizon case and similar tragedies its mechanisms might be applicable more broadly wherever the state has caused or allowed harm through material omission or discriminatory policy.

What Was Proposed by Dr Sonali Joshi

Dr Sonali Joshi, founder of ExcludedUK, together with collaborators, produced briefing papers early in the pandemic that identified clearly many of the categories excluded and proposed solutions. Among those:

• The Self-Employed Low-to-No-Profit briefing (Feb 2021) pointed out that many sole traders or self-employed people who invested in their business (buying equipment, premises etc.), leading to lower declared profits in earlier years, were excluded because profit eligibility rules didn’t capture their actual hardship. Solutions proposed included assessing eligibility based on income, not just profit, and making support backdated for those excluded

• Another briefing, PAYE Freelancers (also Feb 2021) showed that people paid via PAYE but working as freelancers / on short-term contracts were also excluded by technicalities: their earnings being split, not meeting furlough criteria or SEISS criteria. Potential remedies included extending or adapting the scheme criteria, recognizing the mixed income of many, removing or ameliorating thresholds that cut people off.

• In oral and written evidence to parliamentary committees, Dr Joshi detailed how  3.8 million people were excluded across the UK because of: newly-self-employed status; being above profit caps; having less than 50 % income from self-employment; PAYE freelancers; limited company directors paid largely by dividends; parents on leave etc.

Thus, there was clear mapping of the harm, case studies, and concrete suggestions. But many of these were not taken up in full; in many cases, the Government failed to adapt eligibility, or to deliver backdated redress.

Where the UK Government Failed to Act (or Partially Acted)

Some of the gaps identified by Dr Joshi and others did lead to minor changes or public recognition; but most remained unaddressed, or were addressed inadequately. Examples:

• The SEISS (Self-Employed Income Support Scheme) profit threshold, and requirement that more than half of someone’s income be self-employment income, excluded many people working mixed income or newer businesses. The Government repeatedly cited administrative difficulty, risk of fraud, or needing to prioritise speed over perfection when designing schemes.

• Limited company directors paid via dividends largely were not included in some support measures on a fair basis. That category remains one of strong contention.
• Individuals on parental leave, or those who had recently reduced hours, or new starters, or those with savings beyond thresholds for other schemes, were excluded under criteria that did not adapt. Many of these singled out in briefing papers.
• Importantly, there has been no comprehensive scheme of redress or compensation in most cases. Those excluded remain without back payment, or recognition, or an apology from central Government, beyond some verbal statements or partial scheme adjustments. The Excluded community continues to call for parity: that those excluded receive the same level of support (backdated) as those who were included. BUT crucially they want an assurance this will never be allowed to happen again.

How the Hillsborough Law Could Help Excluded Taxpayers if Ratified 

Given the mechanisms in the new law, there are several ways in which people excluded from Covid support could use it to seek justice:

1. Duty of Candour / Truth-Telling Obligations:
   If public officials or authorities misrepresented the eligibility rules, concealed information about exclusion, or failed to disclose known harmful effects of the criteria (in briefings, policy papers, or internal analysis), the new duty could require those officials to reveal those internal documents, memos, or advice, even if inconvenient.

2. Misleading the Public / Accountability:
   If the government claimed that the schemes were “fair”, “covered everyone who needed support”, or similar phrases while being aware of major exclusions, that could be challenged under the new offence of misleading the public. Such misleading statements, if “seriously improper”, may now carry legal sanction.

3. Legal Aid and Representation:
   One of the failings during Covid was that many Excluded people couldn’t afford legal advice or representation if they tried to challenge the Government (e.g. in judicial reviews or complaints). Hillsborough Law promises an expansion of legal aid in inquests and for bereaved families; potentially, similar mechanisms could be used to support excluded taxpayers to bring claims or hold inquiries.

4. Inquiries, Investigations, and Equality of Arms:
   Legal and investigative processes (parliamentary, tribunal, inquests) could be more transparent, with enhanced powers to compel evidence. The imbalance between well-resourced State legal teams and disadvantaged individuals may be mitigated.

5. Cultural and Institutional Change:
   Perhaps one of the biggest dividends: the Law aims to shift culture: reduce cover-ups, ensure accountability is taken seriously from the top, reduce the justification of “mistakes” by opaque complexity. For exclusion cases, that might pressure the Government to proactively identify harm, compensate, and avoid repeating exclusion in future crises.

But Will It Be Enough?

There are major caveats and open questions:

• Scope & Retrospective Reach: The Hillsborough Law is being introduced in reference to “state failures, disasters, scandals, inquests” among “bereaved families” etc. It is not yet clear whether it will explicitly cover economic or financial exclusion in the way Excluded SCOTLAND frames it. Will the exclusion of financial support count as a failure similar to a disaster? Will this law cover retrospective claims for policy decisions around Covid?

• Criminal Sanctions / Enforcement: Laws are only as good as their enforcement. Will there be meaningful cases, and will individuals have the resources to bring them forward?

• Legal Aid Coverage / Accessibility: Even with promises of expanded legal aid, there may be practical, procedural, or funding barriers, especially for those excluded: many were digitally excluded, lacked advice, or were unaware of rights.

• Political Will and Definition of Terms: The Government must define which public bodies are caught, how broadly “candour” and “misleading the public” are interpreted, what standard of proof, what defences, etc. There is always risk of carve-outs, weak drafting or narrow implementation.

• Compensation as Distinct from Inquiry / Truth: Even if truth is established, compensation for financial losses is a separate legal process. Establishing that the exclusion was discriminatory or unlawful (in law) is a high threshold.

What Those Excluded Could Demand

The Gaps in Support APPG Chair Steven Witherden must surely add an amendment for the Excluded to be added into this bill along side other other well known groups what have been discriminated against over time. Tim Pravda has had this suggested by MPs as he travelled around the party conferences.

To ensure that the Hillsborough Law does deliver justice to those who were excluded, here are some key demands:

1. Explicit Inclusion: That the law (or accompanying legislation/regulation) explicitly covers exclusion from financial support schemes in pandemics/emergency measures, making clear that economic injustice is within remit.

2. Retrospective Redress / Compensation: Not just apologies, but actual financial compensation or back payments for those excluded, on equal terms with those included.

3. Access to Evidence: That Government release internal documents, impact assessments, advice, and briefing papers (including those by ExcludedUK / Sonali Joshi) under duty of candour, to enable legal cases, public scrutiny.

4. Legal Aid for Excluded Claims: Ensure that those excluded have access to legal aid / support to bring claims, not only for inquests, but also for claims related to financial exclusion and potential discrimination.

5. Independent Investigation / Inquiry: Possibly a statutory inquiry (or extension) into how the exclusion happened, whether it was discriminatory (e.g. affecting women disproportionately (new mothers), people in precarious work, freelancers, etc.), how many were affected, with a view to compensation and future prevention.

6. Policy Guarantees for Future Crises: Clear rules / safeguards so that future emergency financial schemes do not replicate the harmful exclusion: adaptive eligibility, minimal thresholds, accounting for mixed income, new business, part-time or seasonal work, parental leave etc.

Conclusion

The Hillsborough Law represents a powerful tool: a legal architecture for candour, transparency, and accountability. For those excluded from Covid-19 financial support, it offers a possible means to demand truth, hold officials to account, and potentially claim justice and compensation.

However, the promise will only be realised if the Government ensures the law is drafted and implemented in ways that explicitly encompass economic exclusion, allows claims to be made, and gives those excluded the means to bring them forward. Without that, there is a risk that the people excluded during Covid will gain only recognition of wrong, not actual redress.

For the Excluded, this moment offers hope—but only if we press for the details, demand inclusion, and refuse to settle for anything less than equal justice.

The Hillsborough Law – Current Status – What happens next

The UK government has now introduced a Bill in the House of Commons known as the Public Authority (Accountability) Bill, commonly referred to as the “Hillsborough Law” bill.
Once a Bill is introduced and begins its journey in the Commons, there are a number of stages it must pass through and potentially return for amendments before becoming law:

1. Second Reading (Commons)
   MPs debate the general principles of the Bill. If passed, it moves to Committee stage.

2. Committee Stage (Commons)
   Line-by-line scrutiny, consideration of amendments, evidence may be taken. This is often where detailed changes are made, and where the strength and scope of the duty, sanctions, exemptions, limits, definitions, and interface with existing law will be contested.

3. Report Stage + Third Reading (Commons)
   Further consideration and final form in the Commons.

4. Passage to the Lords
   After passing all Commons stages, the Bill is sent to the House of Lords. The Lords will similarly conduct:

   • First Reading (formal introduction)

   • Second Reading (principle debate)

   • Committee Stage

   • Report Stage

   • Third Reading

   • (Potential “ping-pong” where amendments may go back and forth between Houses)

5. Royal Assent
   Once both Houses agree to a final text, the Bill is sent for Royal Assent and becomes law.

6. Commencement / Implementation
   Even when a Bill becomes an Act, various provisions may come into force at different times (immediately, via statutory instruments, or on a set date). There may also be transitional arrangements.