Appendices 7.3–7.7 — Reference documents
7.3 Full text of the standard response letter
The following text represents the complete, untruncated template letter submitted by 2,627 individual members of the public and core participants via email to the Home Office consultation team:
Dear Home Office,
I am writing in response to your consultation announced on the 16th July 2026 about the future of the Undercover Policing Inquiry (UCPI). I am concerned that the multiple choice questionnaire provided by the Home Office is too limited in scope. It does not offer options for responses that properly reflect the priorities of the survivors of the abuses being investigated by the UCPI.
In addition, I do not feel that the consultation provides sufficient information for me to be able to answer the questions even as posed. I am therefore replying by email to express my view.
The Inquiry has so far only considered one single undercover unit, the 'Special Demonstration Squad' (SDS), which was shut down by 2008. In the course of its investigations the Inquiry has seen and heard evidence of very serious misconduct, even criminality, by police officers. Some of this would never have been uncovered, had the police records not been shown to the people they were unaccountably spying on.
It is therefore vital that the SpyCops Inquiry continues as a Statutory Public Inquiry, fully funded to fulfil its legal Terms of Reference, including Tranche 4 (the National Public Order Intelligence Unit), Tranche 5 (other undercover policing operations) and Module 3 (recommendations for the future).
This consultation should be trauma informed and not result in survivors being subjected to any further delays.
Going forward, steps must be taken to ensure candour and openness from the state parties under investigation. There must be a clear process to ensure prompt disclosure of evidence to Inquiry Core Participants, and to prevent the excessive secrecy and deliberate delays by State CPs that have created the problems plaguing the Inquiry to date.
The Home Office must not bow to the obvious vested interests wanting to shut down the SpyCops Inquiry. It is vital that you listen to the demands of the survivors of abuse, misconduct and unlawful deployments of undercover police.
I confirm that I am over 18 years old and I ask the Home Office to take all of the matters above into account when considering the future of the Undercover Policing Inquiry.
7.4 Purpose and structure of the UCPI
The Undercover Policing Inquiry Terms of Reference can be accessed at ucpi.org.uk.
To manage the fifty-year scope of its investigations, the Inquiry established a three-module structure:
| Module | Scope |
|---|---|
| Module 1 | Examination of the deployment of undercover officers and the impact of their activities on individuals and targeted groups. |
| Module 2 | Examination of the management, oversight, authorization, and departmental governance of undercover policing (including senior police management, the Security Service, and the Home Office). |
| Module 3 | Examination of current undercover policing practices and recommendations for future legislation, policy, and operational governance. |
To execute Modules 1 and 2, the Inquiry divided its investigations chronologically and by unit, resulting in five "tranches":
| Tranche | Scope |
|---|---|
| Tranche 1 | Special Demonstration Squad (SDS) deployments, management, and oversight (1968–1982). |
| Tranche 2 | SDS deployments, management, and oversight (1983–1992). |
| Tranche 3 | SDS deployments, management, and oversight (1993–2007). |
| Tranche 4 | National Public Order Intelligence Unit (NPOIU) deployments, management, and oversight (1999–2011). |
| Tranche 5 | All other undercover policing activity, including by regional English and Welsh police forces (1968–present). |
7.5 History of Home Office Interference (FOI 2024/04432)
The following digest summarizes the five confidential letters exchanged between Home Secretaries Suella Braverman KC MP, James Cleverly MP, and UCPI Chair Sir John Mitting between October 2023 and January 2024, released under Freedom of Information Request FOI2024/04432 to Dr Dónal O'Driscoll on 28 October 2024 and cited extensively in consultation submissions. Click each letter to expand.
13 October 2023 — Braverman to Mitting
Home Secretary Suella Braverman wrote to Sir John Mitting proposing formal amendments to the Inquiry's Terms of Reference (TOR) to force a final report delivery date no later than end-2026. The proposed draft TOR attached to her letter deleted the requirement to examine the "impact" of undercover policing on individuals, introduced a compulsory "sampling approach" to undercover deployments, and restricted recommendations strictly to areas where "further opportunities for change" existed. Braverman explicitly noted that these changes were presented "ahead of any wider public consultation".
19 October 2023 — Mitting to Braverman
Sir John Mitting robustly rejected the proposed deletion of "impact" and the imposition of a "sampling approach". Mitting warned: "My concern is that this proposed change… will cause great concern to non-state core participants and is likely to cause a large number of them to demand… hearings and, if they do not receive a positive response… litigate. If the number is large, it will derail the inquiry." Mitting rejected a statutory budget cap, proposing instead that he publish a formal commitment letter setting a target reporting date of end-2026 at an estimated cost cap of £139 million.
22 December 2023 — Cleverly to Mitting
Following Suella Braverman's departure, incoming Home Secretary James Cleverly wrote to Sir John Mitting following up on the October meetings. Cleverly welcomed Mitting's proposal to issue a public commitment letter targeting end-2026 completion at a forecast cost cap of £138.5 million. Cleverly emphasized that "your commitment to your delivery timeframe is important to everyone impacted, the public, and Government", and confirmed officials were reviewing progress under an "enhanced sponsorship" framework.
3 January 2024 — Mitting to Cleverly
Sir John Mitting confirmed he would write a formal commitment letter targeting publication by end-2026 at a total cost not exceeding £139.1 million. However, Mitting expressed sharp concern regarding Cleverly's suggestion of further funding constraints. Mitting warned: "Completion of the Inquiry by the due date is dependent on its expenditure being met as it is incurred… I am unwilling to consider any avoidable postponement… the Inquiry has now reached a stage at which the cost of achieving what it must do to fulfil the terms of reference can be estimated with reasonable accuracy and the scope for 'efficiency' savings is negligible. Hence the somewhat stark terms of this letter."
25 January 2024 — Mitting to Cleverly
Sir John Mitting formally confirmed the Inquiry's commitment to conclude its work by producing a final report by end-2026 at a total cost not exceeding £139.1 million, subject to two explicit conditions: that no unforeseen delays occur and that annual funding requests are met in full. Mitting attached a revised delivery schedule setting Tranche 4 evidence hearings for October 2025, Tranche 5 / Module 3 hearings for March 2026, and final report publication for December 2026.
7.6 Gisted Summary of Home Office Consultation Questionnaire
The following summary outlines the structure, framing, and exact question wording of the official online questionnaire issued by the Home Office, launched 16 July 2026 (closing 20 August 2026, later extended to 20 September 2026).
| Section | Content |
|---|---|
| Section 1 — Preamble & Privacy Notice | States that the consultation invites views to inform ministerial decisions on addressing remaining work beyond Tranches 1–3. Clarifies that the survey is not a call for new evidence or reopening individual cases. |
| Section 2 — Respondent Identification (Q1–Q3) | Captures whether the respondent is an individual or representing an organisation, their stakeholder category (e.g. member of public, Core Participant, legal representative, police officer, trade union, civil society group), and capacity (personal vs professional). |
Question 4 — Rating Relative Importance of Remaining Topics
Wording: "Please rate the relative importance of the remaining topics from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important)."
Options listed:
- Tranche 4 (NPOIU 1999–2011)
- Tranche 5 (Other undercover policing 1968–present)
- Module 3 (Current and future practices)
Question 5 — Rating Outcomes & Compulsory Trade-Offs
Wording: "In designing the way forward, rate the importance of the following outcomes (Select on scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important to 5 very important, or don't know)." (Later adding a column for "Prefer not to say")
Seven listed outcomes:
- Establishing findings of fact (ascertaining what happened based on evidence)
- Disclosure of relevant documentation to victims
- Delivering recommendations for reform for undercover policing in the future
- Delivering public value for money by prioritising concluding the Inquiry (As of end-March 2026, Inquiry spent £137m)
- Delivery of timely conclusions by prioritising concluding the Inquiry
- Providing opportunities for those impacted to share experiences to inform practice
- Public accountability for those responsible for bad practice in the past
Question 6 — Rating Alternative Non-Statutory / Narrower Options
Wording: "If the Inquiry does not continue in its current form, how effective do you think the following approaches would be in addressing the remaining issues? (Rate on 1 to 5 scale)."
Three options listed:
- A statutory inquiry with a narrower, clearly defined (and potentially time-limited) remit.
- An independent non-statutory inquiry or review (noting powers under the Public Office (Accountability) Bill / Hillsborough Law).
- Disclosure of material held by relevant organisations to affected individuals (voluntary agency processing without inquiry-style testing of evidence).
| Section | Content |
|---|---|
| Question 7 | Optional reasons for above answers. Free-text box max 300 words. |
| Questions 8–11 — Permissions & Follow-Up | Consent to quote anonymously (Q8), consent to follow-up research contact within 12 months (Q9), additional short description box (Q10), and optional contact details (Q11). |
| Questions 12–14 — Voluntary Demographics | Age / sex and gender identity. |
7.7 Labour party-line emails from MPs to constituents regarding the consultation
Below is a copy of an email received by people who engaged in the consultation and had also written to their MPs asking them for help in ensuring the Inquiry continues. These emails were received from a number of different Labour MPs, all essentially identical although some contained a few minor differences in the closing sentences. It is evident that a standard text was provided to Labour MPs, a party line, and the content appears to support the accusations of there having been a predetermined outcome in mind before the consultation was launched.
The text speaks of looking forward to hearing "how the Inquiry's remaining areas of work will be prioritised and delivered", mirroring the consultation's framing around ranking remaining areas of the remaining elements of the Inquiry and prioritising those considered most important rather than fulfilling the statutory inquiry as constituted.
Standard Labour party-line MP response (expand to read)
Dear [constituent name removed],
Thank you for contacting me.
I appreciate the concerns you raise about the horrific failings in undercover policing. I strongly believe we must deliver justice for victims and hold those responsible to account.
The Undercover Policing Inquiry has been ongoing for more than a decade and its investigations are broad, examining the role of undercover policing in the prevention and detection of crime, as well as the effect of undercover operations on individuals and the public. It has spent over £138 million, yet many of those affected are still awaiting the conclusions they have long been promised. While it has made progress, I am aware that Ministers are concerned about the length and cost of the Inquiry and the delay in providing outcomes for victims.
Public inquiries play an important role in delivering answers, ensuring accountability and making recommendations for the future. However, they must also be able to deliver these outcomes within a reasonable timeframe. For that reason, I welcome the Government's decision to seek the views of those affected about the future of the Inquiry. The Home Office held a consultation which invited views on the structure, scope and format of the work needed to conclude the Inquiry's investigations. This consultation closed on 20 September 2026.
As part of this, I am glad that the Government considered any potential direct or indirect discrimination arising from the consultation process. It was right to take steps to make the process as accessible as possible, allowing people to respond either through an online survey or by email.
Ministers have also confirmed that the impact on equality will be considered in any decisions concerning the future of the Inquiry. The Government plans to announce its decision, informed by this consultation, in autumn 2026.
I believe that we must always consider fairness to victims and those who were affected by undercover policing, and I look forward to hearing how the Inquiry's remaining areas of work will be prioritised and delivered.
Thank you once again for contacting me about this important issue.
Yours sincerely,
[name of MP removed but can be provided on appropriate request]
Minor variations found in some emails
Some emails substituted the final paragraph with a variant, e.g.:
"… I believe that we must always consider fairness to victims and those who were affected by undercover policing, and I look forward to hearing how the Inquiry's remaining areas of work will be prioritised and delivered. While I was unable to attend the drop in you highlighted, please rest assured that I will be following this matter closely.
I am grateful to you for contacting me about this important issue.
Yours sincerely,
[name of MP removed but can be provided on appropriate request]"