YOU might think it would be axiomatic that the identities of abuse survivors, testifying at a judge-led inquiry about personal suffering, would be given the utmost protection.

Many will have borne their burden for years, alone: it takes considerable courage to even think about giving evidence to a senior judge, far more to actually do so.

But now, in what appears to be a startling volte face, the Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry has said that anyone accused of abuse, or any institution alleged to have overseen abuse, will be told the name of the person making the allegations, unless their guilt has been confirmed.

Lady Smith, who after the resignation of two other panel members is hearing evidence on her own, stated recently that anyone named as an abuser would be told “as a matter of fairness” the identity of the applicant who so named them. Previously, the inquiry’s rules had seemed to suggest that such identification was only a possibility, to be made only if it was in the interests of the inquiry’s work.

Abuse survivors are alarmed by this development, to the extent that some victims of historical abuse insist that they will not now give evidence to the inquiry if the original commitment – that identities would only be revealed in strictly limited circumstances – is not adhered to. Some others who have already signed statements about the abuse they suffered may seek to withdraw them, an action prohibited by the inquiry’s rules.

It does not require a lot of imagination to ponder the retaliation or intimidation that could possibly be visited upon survivors by alleged abusers or their families. At least two people who have already gone public in seeking to have their abusers brought to justice say they have first-hand experience of this.

Given the acute sensitivity of the subject, might others suffer in their wake if their names were automatically passed on to alleged abusers or institutions?

The survivors and their legal representatives are right to be concerned about this latest development and the uncertainty it has generated. They are thought in some cases to be disappointed by what they see as the inquiry increasingly adopting a narrowly legalistic point of view, rather than being centred on the survivors.

They struggle to see the inquiry’s need to be fair to an alleged sexual abuser who has not been prosecuted for what he allegedly did years ago and who might not be held responsible for anything said at the inquiry.

Like the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, which is scrutinising institutions in England and Wales, the Scottish inquiry has had its problems in the past.

The original chairwoman resigned amid claims she had made “inappropriate” comments about survivors, and was replaced by Lady Smith. A second panel member left, saying the review was “doomed” because of ministerial interference. The third stepped down after accepting other public appointments. For the sake of fairness and robustness, the inquiry should make clear that identities will only be disclosed in limited circumstances. The survivors deserve no less.