Hillsborough Law clears House of Lords hurdle despite concerns over emergency services

Hillsborough Law clears House of Lords hurdle despite concerns over emergency services The Hillsborough law derives its name from the 1989 disaster where 97 Liverpool fans were killed in a crush at the Sheffield stadium - Bookmark Become an Independent member to bookmark this article Already a member? Log in Legislation designed to impose a legally enforceable duty of candour on public officials has cleared its latest hurdle in the House of Lords. The Public Office (Accountability) Bill, known as the Hillsborough Law, completed its committee stage in the Upper Chamber as peers raised concerns over its application to emergency services. Once passed, the Bill will establish a legally enforceable duty compelling public authorities and officials to act transparently during inquiries and investigations. It derives its name from the 1989 disaster at Hillsborough Stadium in Sheffield, where 97 Liverpool fans were killed in a crush during an FA Cup semi-final. Baroness Levitt, a former justice minister, expressed concern that a new offence of seriously improper conduct did not apply to paramedics, calling on Parliament to fix the oversight. The Labour peer, a former circuit judge and barrister, cited a case in which she appeared for the prosecution to argue the Bill must cover emergency workers. She said the case involved a paramedic accused of committing serious sexual misconduct against 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 that when emergency responders attend, members of the public are often at their most vulnerable and must be able to trust them. "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." She added that the Bill also failed in relation to a new offence concerning 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 frontline healthcare staff should remain outside the scope of the Bill unless treating individuals in state detention. This reflected existing case law, he said, 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, where amendments will be voted on, before returning to the Commons for approval. [Image text:] LAW NOW DANKAY 977-2023 FORCHE RRorever