Part 5 — The Proposals in the Consultation Paper

5.1 The Narrower Statutory Inquiry

"The Inquiry should complete Tranches 4 and 5 and Module 3, as set out in its original Terms of Reference. There is no version of 'streamlining' that does this and doesn't also mean some of us go unheard."

— Alison (Category H Core Participant, 26 August 2026)

Submissions from personalized representations emphasized that narrowing the Inquiry prior to hearing Tranche 4 (the National Public Order Intelligence Unit / NPOIU) and Tranche 5 (other undercover policing units) would force the Home Office to make decisions in total ignorance of what those tranches contain.

"The Inquiry is currently working through Tranche 3, examining the Special Demonstration Squad in the 1990s. Tranches 4 and 5 — covering the National Public Order Intelligence Unit and the most recent decades of undercover deployments, including officer conduct closest to the present day — have not yet been examined. It would be perverse, and would undermine the entire purpose of the Inquiry, to curtail or restructure its work before this evidence has even been heard. The public and the core participants have no way of knowing what these tranches will reveal, and any decision to limit the Inquiry's scope now is necessarily being made in the dark."

— "Lindsey" (Category H Core Participant, 27 August 2026)

The joint letter from the Non-Police Non-State Core Participants and their Recognised Legal Representatives anchored the objection in the Inquiry's founding purpose, contrasting the 2026 proposals with the mandate given to Parliament in 2015:

"Curtailing the Inquiry now would fail to address the significant public interest identified to Parliament by the then Home Secretary Theresa May when the Inquiry was set-up, namely the public interest in 'learning the lessons of past failures' in order to 'improve the public's confidence in undercover work' and to 'ensure there is no repeat of these failings in the future.'"

— Non-Police Non-State Core Participants and Recognised Legal Representatives (22 July 2026)

In its collective response, the Earth First! cohort submitted that narrowing the Inquiry's scope would undermine the mandate established by Parliament and the Home Department in 2015:

"If the Home Office closes the door now, it is not just truncating a timetable — it is actively mutilating the very Terms of Reference the Inquiry was legally mandated to resolve. Any interference by the home-office is clearly unacceptable. We have waited over a decade for truth and will continue to campaign for accountability and transparency regardless of any attempt by the state to shield itself from public scrutiny."

— Earth First! Cohort (September 2026)

5.2 The Non-Statutory Review

In a dedicated submission, the Hillsborough Justice Campaign pointed out that the Hillsborough families did not fight for decades in order to be used as a convenient administrative cover for shutting down an active statutory investigation:

"It is of great concern to us that the Inquiry might be curtailed before all evidence has been heard and we are equally concerned that The Public Office (Accountability) Bill (more commonly known as Hillsborough Law) is being cited as a potential justification for curtailing the Inquiry… Survivors haven't fought for all these years so a law (not yet enacted) can be used to deny other victims truth and accountability."

— Ken Derbyshire (Chair, Hillsborough Justice Campaign, Sept 2026)

This was reinforced by non-state Core Participant Debbie Vincent:

"The consultation questionnaire perversely cites the future, un-enacted Public Office (Accountability) Bill 2026 ('Hillsborough Law') to rate alternative, non-statutory 'independent reviews' as effective options. This is a severe whitewash. While the 'Hillsborough Law' is a vital legislative development designed to institutionalise a duty of candour across public administration, it remains before Parliament and is not yet law. In any event, it must not be used as an administrative pretext to downgrade, curtail, or dissolve a live statutory inquiry."

— Debbie Vincent (Non-state Core Participant, 10 September 2026)

Individual respondents pointed to the shortcomings of non-statutory reviews.

"An independent non-statutory review lacks the legal teeth needed to force retired officers or police managers to give truthful evidence under oath."

— Duncan Law (Individual Consultation Respondent, August 2026)

Legal representatives backed this up by emphasising that non-statutory reviews lacking compulsory powers have repeatedly proved incapable of extracting evidence from reluctant state witnesses. In the joint submission filed on behalf of the Non-Police, Non-State Core Participants' Co-ordinated Group, Kirsten Heaven submitted:

"Prior to the establishment of the Inquiry, there were at least 18 separate non-statutory or internal police investigations — including internal reviews, IPCC inquiries, and HMIC reports. However, these completely failed to expose the scale of the misconduct and abuses that were carried out by undercover police officers, including in Tranche 4. In 2011, a HMIC report was not published when it was publicly exposed that a major miscarriage of justice had been missed… A non-statutory inquiry lacks legal powers under the Inquiries Act 2005 to compel witness testimony under oath or enforce document production. In the face of proven police resistance, a non-statutory body would be powerless."

— Kirsten Heaven, Doughty Street Chambers (18 September 2026)

Pete Weatherby KC, counsel for Core Participants, addressed the consultation's premise directly, including its reliance on the draft Public Office (Accountability) Bill:

"The current statutory inquiry has the best available powers. It is hoped that the 2026 Bill [Hillsborough Law] will be enacted and brought into force to add to those during the remaining time of the process. Bringing the inquiry to an end and establishing one with less powers adds nothing to make the process more efficient, but it will undoubtedly reduce the effective participation of those affected by the wrongdoing and failures already identified."

— Pete Weatherby KC (20 July 2026)

5.3 Voluntary Disclosure to Individuals (The FOI / SAR Fallacy)

Core Participant Guy Taylor detailed his direct personal experience of receiving false and contradictory statements from Metropolitan Police SAR processes regarding undercover officer "Simon Wellings":

"The alternative options include people receiving disclosure directly from the state parties holding the information. It is hard to fathom how this has been offered as a serious option – getting disclosure through FOI or SAR is essentially impossible… I have submitted two SARs over the years… Each returned an entirely different set of data, and the second… categorically denied that Metropolitan Police had any record of 'Simon Wellings'! It is only through statutory powers under the Inquiries Act 2005 compelling documents and cross-examining officers under oath — that such fabrications and supervisory failures can be exposed."

— Guy Taylor (Core Participant, September 2026)

In her submission, "Tina", a Category H Core Participant, similarly exposed the fantasy of voluntary state candour:

"I also strongly condemn the alternative options floated in your consultation, particularly the absurd suggestion that victims could receive 'direct disclosure' from the police agencies responsible. Decades of history prove that voluntary agency disclosure is a complete fantasy. Victims and journalists have spent years filing Freedom of Information (FOI) requests and Subject Access Requests (SARs), only to face systematic stonewalling, heavy redactions, or outright denials even for documents known to exist, such as Special Branch Registry Files."

— "Tina" (Category H / Tranche 4 Core Participant, 18 September 2026)

Dr Dónal O'Driscoll, Core Participant in person and Director of the Undercover Research Group (URG), emphasised that voluntary disclosure mechanisms had repeatedly failed prior to the establishment of the UCPI:

"… it was offensive to read in among the consultation options the suggestion of a Hillsborough style process, when to date the police have failed to be candid even in the face of the evidence… demonstrating the very opposite of candour. Likewise, to suggest that people put in requests for our files. We have been asking for them since 2011, but still to get them. I have made multiple such requests and received minimal responses…"

— Dr Dónal O'Driscoll (Core Participant-in-Person, 17 September 2026)

It should be noted that rejection of the alternatives proposed in the consultation is not merely a critique of the consultation questionnaire, but rather it forms part of the positive demands. Respondents submitted that state parties under investigation have demonstrated a chronic lack of candour, an established record of active file destruction, and repeated applications for secrecy and restriction in order to keep evidence suppressed. The Climate Camp cohort, representing 27 individual Core Participants, explained that abandoning the proposed alternatives is a prerequisite for restoring faith in the process:

"We strongly object to any proposal to abandon or limit the current Inquiry and stand in complete solidarity with all non-state Core Participants and insist that the Inquiry's full Terms of Reference be maintained and that this consultation be withdrawn."

— Frances Wright (Climate Camp Legal Team, August 2026)

5.4 Proceeding to Module 3 in a Factual Vacuum

In its formal submission, the Reclaim the Streets cohort set out why Module 3 cannot function in an informational vacuum:

"This legislative examination is directly and inextricably linked to the vital work of Module 3, which is tasked with making robust, systemic recommendations for the future… To draft future recommendations without investigating the NPOIU era would require the Inquiry to accept the state's untested assertion that RIPA is a functional safeguard. This would reduce Module 3 to a toothless, rubber-stamping exercise — basing its 'future recommendations' on a fictional premise. For our political and social networks, which fractured and collapsed under the weight of state infiltration, nothing less than a complete, evidence-led examination of both the modern era (Tranche 4) and its future regulation (Module 3) is acceptable to protect democratic freedoms and restore public trust."

— Reclaim the Streets Cohort (18 September 2026)

This critique was supported by Core Participant Robert Banbury, who argued that drafting future recommendations without investigating NPOIU abuses would render the Inquiry's final report useless:

"Furthermore, you cannot expect the Chair to issue recommendations for future policing in Module 3 if you block him from investigating how RIPA was actually used to cover up state overreach over the last 25 years. Moving to Module 3 without examining Tranche 4 would reduce the final report to a pointless husk, now that is a real waste of public money!!"

— Robert Banbury (Core Participant, September 2026)

Legal submissions reinforced that future recommendations must be grounded in an understanding of statutory failures across both national and regional units. In her submission on behalf of the Centre for Women's Justice (CWJ), Harriet Wistrich submitted:

"Tranches 4 and 5 of the UCPI are extremely important as they cover the time when undercover police officers operated under the regulatory and statutory oversight of the Human Right Act 1998 and Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, legislation that is intended to protect the public today… In summary, therefore, we submit that it is crucial that – certainly in respect of Category H Core Participants – the Inquiry continues with evidence given in Tranches 4 and 5 and recommendations made about the future of undercover policing and the need for legislative and policy changes to prevent such terrible violations of human rights being repeated."

— Harriet Wistrich, CEO Centre for Women's Justice (20 September 2026)

Respondents identified the College of Policing and HMICFRS as bodies whose work in training, guidance and inspection depends on the recommendations the Inquiry has yet to make. Emily Apple, a Core Participant, noted that the College had recently told a journalist that it was "waiting on the recommendations of the inquiry to update their guidance," and argued that while the police should not use the Inquiry as an excuse for delay, updating guidance is "an obvious essential part of the inquiry."

Dr Dónal O'Driscoll cited Sir Thomas Winsor's statement to the Inquiry that "the discovery and recommendations of the UCPI would inform future inspections around undercover policing made by HMICFRS," and argued that recommendations alone are insufficient without inspection mechanisms to enforce compliance. Netpol made the related point that the College's Authorised Professional Practice was updated "well over a decade ago" and does not reflect what has been learned in the SDS tranches or what is likely to emerge from Tranches 4 and 5. On the respondents' account, the bodies that would implement Module 3 recommendations are waiting for findings that Tranches 4 and 5 have not yet produced.