1. Definition of scope

The Westminster investigation is an overarching inquiry into allegations of child sexual abuse and exploitation involving people of public prominence associated with Westminster.

The scope of this investigation is as follows:

“1. The Inquiry will investigate allegations of child sexual abuse involving current and/or former Members of Parliament, senior civil servants, government advisors, and/or members of the intelligence agencies (collectively ‘people of public prominence associated with Westminster’), including allegations:

1.1. that people of public prominence associated with Westminster were involved in the sexual abuse of children;

1.2. that Ministers, party whips, political parties, the intelligence and/or security services, law enforcement agencies, and/or prosecuting authorities were aware of the involvement of people of public prominence associated with Westminster in the sexual abuse of children, and failed to take adequate steps to prevent any such abuse from occurring and/or took steps to prevent such abuse from being revealed;

1.3. that there was, within the highest levels of government, a culture of tolerance towards those suspected of child sexual abuse; and/or

1.4. that people of public prominence associated with Westminster were involved in a conspiracy sexually to abuse children.

2. In light of the above investigations, the Inquiry will consider:

2.1. the adequacy and propriety of law enforcement investigations into allegations falling within paragraph 1 above, including consideration of whether there is evidence of inappropriate interference in any such investigations by politicians, the intelligence agencies, and/or other individuals or bodies holding statutory power;

2.2. the media reporting of allegations falling within paragraph 1 above, including consideration of whether the current legislative framework strikes an appropriate balance between encouraging the reporting of child sexual abuse and protecting the rights of the accused; and

2.3. the adequacy of existing safeguarding and child protection policies in place within political parties, in government departments and agencies, and in the intelligence and security agencies.

3. In light of the investigations set out above, the Inquiry will publish a report setting out its findings, lessons learned, and recommendations to improve child protection and safeguarding in England and Wales.”^[1]

2. Core participants and legal representatives

Counsel to this investigation:

Complainant core participants:

Independent core participants:

Institutional core participants:

3. Evidence received by the Inquiry

4. Disclosure of documents

5. Public hearings including preliminary hearings

6. List of witnesses

7. Restriction orders

On 23 March 2018, the Chair issued an updated restriction order under section 19(2)(b) of the Inquiries Act 2005, granting general anonymity to all core participants who allege they are the victim and survivor of sexual offences (referred to as ‘complainant core participants’). The order prohibited:

1. the disclosure or publication of any information that identifies, names or gives the address of a complainant who is a core participant; and
2. the disclosure or publication of any still or moving image of a complainant core participant.

This order meant that any complainant core participant within this investigation was granted anonymity, unless they did not wish to remain anonymous. That order was amended on 23 March 2018, but only to vary the circumstances in which a complainant core participant may themselves disclose their own core participant status.^[2]

On 4 February 2019, the Chair issued a restriction order under section 19 of the Inquiries Act 2005 to prohibit the disclosure or publication of certain information contained within MI5’s Child and Vulnerable Adult Protection Policy, which is exhibited to the statement of the MI5 witness.^[3]

On 8 February 2019, the Chair issued a restriction order under section 19 of the Inquiries Act 2005 to prohibit the disclosure or publication of the identity of the MI5, SIS and GCHQ officers who had provided written evidence to the Inquiry and gave evidence at the public hearings in connection with this investigation and who were referred to during the course of evidence adduced during the Inquiry’s proceedings.^[4]

On 4 March 2019, the Chair issued a restriction order under section 19 of the Inquiries Act 2005 to prohibit the disclosure or publication of information which is capable of identifying WM-A9 as specified at paragraph 2(a) of the Order.^[5]

On 5 March 2019, the Chair issued a restriction order under section 19 of the Inquiries Act 2005 to prohibit the disclosure or publication of the name of any individual whose identity has been redacted or ciphered by the Inquiry, and any information redacted as irrelevant and sensitive, in connection with this investigation and referred to during the course of evidence adduced during the Inquiry’s proceedings.^[6]

8. Broadcasting

The Chair directed that the proceedings would be broadcast, as has occurred in respect of public hearings in other investigations.

9. Redactions and ciphering

The material obtained for this phase of the investigation was redacted and, where appropriate, ciphers were applied, in accordance with the Inquiry’s Protocol on the Redaction of Documents (the Protocol).^[7] This meant that (in accordance with Annex A of the Protocol), for example, absent specific consent to the contrary, the identities of complainants and victims and survivors of child sexual abuse and other children were redacted; and if the Inquiry considered that their identity appeared to be sufficiently relevant to the investigation, a cipher was applied.

Pursuant to the Protocol, the identities of individuals convicted of child sexual abuse (including those who have accepted a police caution for offences related to child sexual abuse)­ were not generally redacted unless the naming of the individual would risk the identification of their victim, in which case a cipher would be applied.

The Protocol also addresses the position in respect of individuals accused, but not convicted, of child sexual or other physical abuse against a child, and provides that their identities should be redacted and a cipher applied. However, where the allegations against an individual are so widely known that redaction would serve no meaningful purpose (for example where the individual’s name has been published in the regulated media in connection with allegations of abuse), the Protocol provides that the Inquiry may decide not to redact their identity.

Finally, the Protocol recognises that, while the Inquiry will not distinguish as a matter of course between individuals who are known or believed to be deceased and those who are or are believed to be alive, the Inquiry may take the fact that an individual is deceased into account when considering whether or not to apply redactions in a particular instance.

The Protocol anticipates that it may be necessary for core participants to be aware of the identity of individuals whose identity has been redacted and in respect of whom a cipher has been applied, if the same is relevant to their interest in the investigation.

10. Warning letters

Rule 13 of the Inquiry Rules 2006 provides:

“(1) The chairman may send a warning letter to any person –

a. he considers may be, or who has been, subject to criticism in the inquiry proceedings; or

b. about whom criticism may be inferred from evidence that has been given during the inquiry proceedings; or

c. who may be subject to criticism in the report, or any interim report.

(2) The recipient of a warning letter may disclose it to his recognised legal representative.

(3) The inquiry panel must not include any explicit or significant criticism of a person in the report, or in any interim report, unless –

a. the chairman has sent that person a warning letter; and

b. the person has been given a reasonable opportunity to respond to the warning letter.”

In accordance with rule 13, warning letters were sent as appropriate to those who were covered by the provisions of rule 13, and the Chair and Panel considered the responses to those letters before finalising the report.