Full Analysis Summary
Families demand MI5 accountability
Families of those killed in the 22 May 2017 Manchester Arena bombing are pressing Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer to ensure the forthcoming Public Office (Accountability) Bill explicitly covers the security services, including MI5.
The bill is often called the Hillsborough Law or Public Authority (Accountability) Bill.
This push follows an inquiry that found intelligence failures linked to the attack.
The relatives say MI5 "failed us" and must be brought fully under the new law.
They say this is necessary so the service cannot avoid accountability in future inquiries into major tragedies.
The families sent a letter urging the change.
They argue the bill should impose a statutory duty of candour on the intelligence agencies, just as it would on other public bodies.
Coverage Differences
Tone / emphasis across sources
All three sources report that families want MI5 included in the bill, but they emphasize different aspects: Central News South Africa frames the demand around MI5 having “failed us” and the need to prevent cover‑ups; The Independent highlights a letter to the prime minister and uses an accusatory quote about MI5’s trustworthiness; the BBC stresses that families want the bill to cover MI5, MI6 and GCHQ and notes families say the service lied during the inquiry.
Inquiry findings and family demands
Families are pressing for action after a public inquiry led by Sir John Saunders found MI5 had received intelligence about Salman Abedi but did not act quickly enough.
The inquiry described this shortfall as a "serious failure" that might have made a difference.
It concluded MI5 did not provide an "accurate picture" of key intelligence and missed opportunities that could have prevented the suicide bombing that killed 22 people and injured hundreds.
Relatives say MI5’s post-attack conduct, including what they describe as lying during the inquiry, has compounded their suffering and left them demanding formal accountability.
Coverage Differences
Narrative detail and phrasing
Sources all cite inquiry findings but use different wording: Central News South Africa frames the finding as a “serious failure” and potential difference to the outcome; The Independent says the attack "could have been prevented if MI5 had acted on key intelligence" and notes legal consequences for Abedi’s brother; the BBC quotes the inquiry saying MI5 did not give an "accurate picture" and reports families’ claims that the service "lied" during the inquiry.
Public accountability bill
The proposed bill was introduced by Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer and is often called the Hillsborough Law or the Public Authority (Accountability) Bill.
It would create a statutory duty of candour requiring public bodies and officials to be open and truthful in investigations and would criminalise misleading or withholding information in major‑incident inquiries.
Families and their lawyers warn the measure will be 'toothless' unless the intelligence agencies are explicitly covered.
Ministers and MPs have acknowledged national security sensitivities and say safeguards could be used to protect genuinely sensitive material while extending accountability.
Coverage Differences
Policy detail and emphasis
All sources describe the bill’s core aims, but Central News South Africa stresses the need to include "secretive security agencies" to avoid a toothless law; The Independent focuses on the bill's introduction and public debate including victims' legal awards; the BBC emphasises both the statutory duty of candour and government claims it is trying to strengthen the bill while protecting national security.
Families' concerns over MI5 bill
Beyond the legal question of whether MI5 should be covered by the bill, families and campaigners raise additional concerns.
They seek protection for survivors from harassment by conspiracy theorists, legal tests of the security services' secrecy powers, and accountability because no individual has yet been held to account.
Central News South Africa highlights campaigners' push for stronger protections against conspiracy-theory harassment.
The Independent notes victims' legal settlements and details awards to children.
The BBC records families' complaint that post-attack conduct by MI5 has compounded their suffering and cites campaigners such as barrister Pete Weatherby KC who say the government misled them during negotiations over the bill.
Coverage Differences
Unique or off‑topic emphasis
Sources diverge on which secondary issues to foreground: Central News South Africa uniquely mentions survivor protections from conspiracy theorists and a court case testing secrecy limits; The Independent includes specific legal compensation figures; the BBC focuses on the families' view that MI5 lied and the involvement of named campaigners and lawyers.
Security bill dispute
Families have written to the prime minister and campaigners are pressing for an explicit statutory duty on the security services.
Ministers say they are balancing accountability with national security.
Families say the only way to prevent cover-ups is to bring MI5 under the bill.
Government figures point to safeguards for genuinely sensitive material and argue for careful drafting.
Coverage reflects that unresolved tension and leaves open whether the bill will be amended to satisfy bereaved families and legal campaigners.
Coverage Differences
Contradiction / unresolved tension
There is an evident tension across reporting: families demand inclusion of MI5 to prevent cover‑ups (Central News South Africa and The Independent record that demand and the blunt question about MI5’s trustworthiness), whereas the BBC highlights government efforts to "strengthen the bill while protecting national security" and records campaigners' claim that the government misled them — signalling unresolved negotiations rather than settled change.