Hillsborough law clears hurdle in House of Lords
Once passed, the Bill would create a legally enforceable duty of candour which compels public officials and authorities to act transparently when investigations and inquiries take place
A new law which takes its name from the Hillsborough disaster creating a legally enforceable duty of candour for public officials has cleared its latest hurdle in the House of Lords.
The Public Office (Accountability) Bill, known as the Hillsborough law, passed the committee stage in the Upper Chamber, as peers raised concerns about how it applies to emergency services.
Once passed, the Bill would create a legally enforceable duty of candour which compels public officials and authorities to act transparently when investigations and inquiries take place.
It takes its name from the 1989 disaster at Hillsborough Stadium, in Sheffield, when 97 Liverpool fans were killed in a crush during an FA Cup semi-final match.
Baroness Levitt, a former justice minister, raised concerns that a new offence of seriously improper conduct did not apply to paramedics, saying this was a chance for Parliament to fix that oversight.
Lady Levitt, a former circuit judge and barrister, argued the Bill needed to apply to emergency workers following a case in which she appeared for the prosecution.
The Labour peer said the case involved a paramedic accused of engaging in serious sexual misconduct towards a vulnerable patient.
“The issue was whether a paramedic responding to an emergency was a public officer for the purposes of the common law offence of misconduct in public office,” she said.
“The court concluded that a paramedic did not come within that definition, and as a consequence, the conviction could not be upheld.”
Lady Levitt said when a paramedic responds to an emergency, members of the public are often at their most vulnerable and they must be able to put their trust in whoever has arrived to help.
“Yet, paramedics are not included,” she said. “The consequence is not merely theoretical.
“If behaviour of the sort I have described were to occur again, a prosecution for seriously improper conduct would still not be possible.”
Lady Levitt also said the Bill failed in a new offence regarding breaches of duty to prevent death or serious injury.
“If there is one category of professional whose daily work involves preventing death or serious injury, it’s a paramedic responding to an emergency call.
“Let us suppose that a paramedic deliberately withheld appropriate treatment because of prejudice towards a patient on grounds of race.
“As matters presently stand, they could not be prosecuted.”
Justice minister Lord Lemos responded that a Law Commission review concluded that frontline healthcare workers should remain outside of the scope of the Bill unless they are providing services to those in state detention.
He said this reflected existing case law, with paramedics’ responsibilities “primarily owed to the individual they are treating, rather than to the public in general”.
He added: “Frontline healthcare realms were excluded because healthcare services are delivered across both public and private sectors, and therefore cannot be regarded solely as a core function of government.
“Including public sector healthcare workers would create an arbitrary distinction between individuals performing the same role in the private and public sectors.
“This would add complexity, contrary to the policy objective of improving clarity on who the new offences apply to.”
The Bill will now be further considered by the House of Lords at report stage, which will see amendments voted on.
It will then return to the Commons for approval.