Consultation Analysis — Interim Report

The Future of the Undercover Policing Inquiry

Date of publication: 9 November 2026
Campaigning in partnership with Police Spies Out of Lives, The Monitoring Group, the Blacklist Support Group and the Undercover Research Group.
Contact: info@campaignopposingpolicesurveillance.com

⬇ Download the full report (PDF)

Executive Summary

This report presents an analysis of 2,690 written responses submitted to the Home Office's public consultation on the future of the Undercover Policing Inquiry, which ran from 16 July 2026 to 20 September 2026.

The majority of the responses studied were in the form of a standard letter with some minor variations. In addition there were bespoke individual, legal and group submissions from major stakeholder cohorts. The standard template responses (including letters based on that template with minor variations) should be treated as evidence of support for the core demands. They have been excluded from the prevalence calculations and findings, which are based only on unique-voice submissions (identified as consisting of 63 submissions).

The methodology and limitations are set out at Part 2 and Appendix 7.1.

Key finding: Respondents argued that the consultation was procedurally defective, detailing four key breaches of the Gunning Principles and the government's own guidance (the Cabinet Office Consultation Principles). Read Part 3.3 →

The four alleged procedural breaches

1. Proposals not at a formative stage

Evidenced by a history of prior Home Office interference including mentions in 2023 of holding a consultation to ratify restrictions to the terms of reference. Details →

2. Insufficient background information

Evidenced by the Home Office consultation paper and a rejected FOI request. Details →

3. Inadequate time

The initial five-week window running over summer recess was inadequate — apparently accepted by the Home Office as they subsequently extended the deadline 20 August to 20 September. Details →

4. Forced-choice questionnaire

Structured to support a predetermined preference. The Home Office belatedly added a "prefer not to say" option so at least people were not forced to respond to questions they identified as rigged. Details →

The questionnaire's framing

Respondents argued that the questionnaire failed to even ask whether the Inquiry should continue in its current form. Instead the online survey framed key components of any statutory inquiry — fact-finding, disclosure, identifying miscarriages of justice, hearing from victims, accountability for those responsible — as trade-offs against "value for money," and provided no mechanism to express support for the Inquiry continuing to fulfil its Terms of Reference. The report finds that the questionnaire's wording (Appendix 7.6) is consistent with the respondents' characterisation. Read Part 3.1 →

The "time and money" narrative

Many respondents cited the shocking revelations of serious police malpractice, which Tranches 1–3 of the Inquiry has revealed, as a likely key motive for attempts by vested interests to undermine the Inquiry and seek a 'cover up' rather than to be held fully accountable. Respondents contested the Home Office's "time and money" narrative, arguing that the primary drivers of the Inquiry's duration and cost have been state obstruction, anonymity applications, and disclosure delays. Read Part 3.2 →

Conflict of interest

Respondents identified a structural conflict of interest. A department that is both sponsor of the Inquiry and a subject of investigation in Module 2(c) should not be the body proposing truncation, and definitely not deciding whether the Inquiry continues. Read Part 3.4 →

What remains to be examined

Respondents argued that what remains to be examined is the most significant material, and that the alternatives cannot reach it. Tranche 4 (the NPOIU era, operating under RIPA 2000, the Human Rights Act 1998, and NUTAC training) and Tranche 5 (undercover operations in the context of criminal investigations) are the only phases testing the legislation that currently governs covert policing. Read Part 4 →

What respondents asked for

Respondents advanced a single, coherent demand: that the Home Office withdraw the curtailment proposals and allow the Inquiry to complete its original Terms of Reference as a statutory inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005, across Tranche 4, Tranche 5 and Module 3. Read Part 6 →

Four requirements for how completion must be delivered

Leadership continuity — a successor Chair appointed without delay, supported by a multi-disciplinary expert panel;
Enforced disclosure and candour — clear, legally enforceable disclosure timetables for state parties, and disclosure of evidence to Core Participants based on the infiltrated groups, spaces and context, not merely individuals' names;
Trauma-informed engagement — direct, respectful dialogue with affected survivors, replacing hostile administrative consultations;
Funded to completion — the Inquiry resourced to finish the work already begun, with the cost of completing the remaining tranches made transparent.

Five essential outcomes — a sequence, not a menu

Respondents identified five outcomes that the consultation asked them to rank against one another, and which they refused to rank. They submitted that the five are not alternatives but a sequence — all essential, each dependent on the one before it — and that the Inquiry must be allowed to deliver all five in full.

1Disclosure of relevant documentation to victims

2Opportunities for those impacted to share experiences

3Public accountability for those responsible for bad practice

4Establishing findings of fact

5Delivering recommendations for the future

Full contents

Part 1 — Context →