Consultation outcome

Economic note

Updated 1 December 2025

Number: HO EN 1025

Title of regulatory proposal: Counselling Services definition and Victim Information Requests: Code of Practice 2025

Lead Department/Agency: Home Office Expected date of implementation: 12 January 2026 Origin: Domestic

Date: 14/08/2025 Lead Departmental Contact: Jasper Thompson

Departmental Assessment: GREEN

Rationale for intervention, objectives and intended effects: The End-to-End Rape Review (2021) flagged excessive victim data requests as an important issue. The 2022 consultation backed new legal duties to ensure requests are necessary and proportionate. This activates a Code of Practice for authorised persons and defines counselling services in law. These duties are already in legislation. Regulations are now needed to commence them and publish the Code.

Policy options (including alternatives to regulation):

• Option 0 – ‘Do nothing’. Rules for third party material requests remain across numerous pieces of legislation and codes of practice.
• Option 1 – Use of legislative interventions to a) place duties on authorised persons such as policing when requesting victim information and b) defines counselling services and introduces a Code of Practice. This is the government’s preferred option.

Costs and benefit summary: Costs from the police and Crown Prosecution Service familiarising themselves with the new Code of Practice are estimated to be between £1.7 million and £25.9 million, with a central estimate of £6.6 million. Staff time costs for authorising information requests are expected but not monetised. Benefits include reducing victim distress, fewer withdrawals from criminal prosecutions, and delays to investigations. These could not be monetised.

Risks: Data on the volume of victim information requests is not currently being collected, so the extent of the impact of this intervention is uncertain.

Total Cost (£m PV): 6.6

Transition Cost (£m Constant): 6.6

Cost to Business (£m PV): 0.0

Total Benefit (£m PV): 0.0

NPSV (£m PV): -6.6

BNPV (£m PV): 0.0

EANDCB (£m PV): 0.0

Price Base Year: 2025/26

PV Base Year: 2025/26

Appraisal period (Years): 10

Transition period (Years): 1

Departmental sign-off (SCS): Lucy Bradshaw-Murrow (on behalf of Christophe Prince). Date: 15/08/25

Chief Economist sign-off: Tim Laken. Date: 29/08/25 Better Regulation Unit sign-off: Emma Kirk. Date: 29/08/25

Evidence Base

1. This Economic Note (EN) covers two separate Statutory Instruments (SIs):

• a. One brings into force a Code of Practice for duties on authorised persons including the police regarding requests for victim information (Third Party Material - TPM).
• b. One creates a definition of counselling records as a form of TPM that will be afforded a higher level of protection due to their sensitive nature (which will be embedded into the Code of Practice).

2. These measures are being progressed together due to their shared objective of improving the handling of sensitive victim information, particularly in rape and serious sexual offence investigations.

A. Policy objectives and intended effects

3. The government’s objective is to ensure that requests by authorised persons^{[footnote 1]} such as police for victim information are consistently necessary and proportionate, in pursuit of a reasonable line of enquiry. This legislation and the accompanying Requests for Victim Information Code of Practice will promote consistent practice across England and Wales (UK wide for service police) and contribute to the government’s mission to halve violence against women and girls.

4. This policy will balance the need for investigators to fulfil their obligations in following a reasonable line of enquiry, whilst also ensuring that suspects receive a fair trial, and ensuring victims feel supported by the criminal justice system.

5. These new duties will ensure that authorised persons such as police officers only request victim information that is necessary and proportionate, in pursuit of a reasonable line of enquiry for an investigation. The duties will additionally ensure that authorised persons such as police provide clear and comprehensive information about the request to the victim, including which material is being requested, and why the request has been made. They must also provide information to the third party on the reason for making the request, the legal basis, and how the material will be used. This will ensure victims, and third parties, understand the reason behind the request and, in the case of third parties, will aim to ensure a timely return on material that is being sought, through targeted and clear requests.

6. Where the request is for a victim’s counselling information, they will have to satisfy a higher test of ‘substantive probative value’^{[footnote 2]} and also commence an investigation with the presumption that such requests are not necessary or proportionate. The Code of Practice recommends as best practice that a TPM request is approved at Inspector level. Where the request is for a victim’s counselling information, it recommends that this be upgraded to Chief Inspector. The Home Office want to make sure victims’ personal lives are not unnecessarily intruded upon during investigations and that they feel confident to report these crimes and remain engaged in criminal investigations.

7. Before any of the measures mentioned above can be brought into effect. It is first necessary to define counselling services and publish a final Code – these SIs do so and thus bring into effect the duties mentioned above.  

B. Policy options considered, including alternatives to regulation

Option 0 - ‘Do nothing’.

8. Rules for TPM requests remain across numerous pieces of legislation and codes of practice. This will not achieve the government’s objective of addressing the proportionality and necessity of victim information requests.

Option 1 - Preferred Option

9. Commence legislative interventions within the Victim and Prisoners Act 2024 to place duties on authorised persons when requesting victim information and to create a statutory Requests for Victim Information Code of Practice to promote consistent practices across England and Wales.

10. The legislative duties and their intended effects are as outlined below:

• A duty on policing to only request victim information that is necessary and proportionate to a reasonable line of enquiry. Requests for counselling information must meet a higher threshold of ‘substantive probative value’ and begin with a presumption that such requests are not necessary or proportionate.
• A duty on policing to provide victims and third parties with full details about the information being requested, including what is being sought, why, and how it will be used—ensuring transparency.
• A new power for the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Home Secretary) to issue a Code of Practice guiding police on how to request victim information—ensuring clarity and consistency across forces.

11. The two SIs will bring into effect the legislative interventions set out above because it is necessary to define counselling services and publish the Code of Practice before they can be brought into effect.

12. Option 1 is the government’s preferred option as it meets the strategic and policy objectives.

Non-regulatory option

13. Existing laws and non-statutory guidance were found insufficient to prevent disproportionate and intrusive requests for victim information, particularly counselling records, as highlighted through consultation findings. These frameworks lacked clarity leading to inconsistent practices across police forces.

14. The Home Office consultation on the Requests for Victim Information Code of Practice^{[footnote 3]} confirmed strong support for legislation to reinforce expectations and improve consistency across authorised persons. The consultation response will be published on GOV.UK alongside this economic note.

15. The duties were introduced in the Victim and Prisoners Act 2024.^{[footnote 4]} Failing to proceed with the regulations that commence those measures (defining counselling and publishing the Code of Practice) would mean these protective measures do not come into force.

C. Past evaluations and rationale for government intervention

16. Victim information requests—often referred to as TPM—can include highly sensitive records such as medical, education, and counselling notes. The Rape Review^{[footnote 5]} and stakeholder feedback identified that many such requests are excessive, unfocused, and contribute to delays and victim disengagement.

17. A Home Office case file review (January to March 2023) found that 62 per cent of requests lacked limits on intrusiveness, and 36 per cent showed no evidence of victim involvement.^{[footnote 6]} Nearly a third of police rationales focused on victim credibility rather than facts of the case.

18. Existing legal frameworks (for example, Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, Data Protection Act 2018, GDPR, Human Rights Act 1998) and guidance (for example, Attorney General’s Guidelines, CPS therapy guidance) are not consistently applied. Responses to the Government’s 2022 consultation on third party material requests strongly supported legislative change to clarify expectations and improve consistency. Consultation responses^{[footnote 7]} also highlighted the negative effect these requests have on victims, loss of confidence in the criminal justice system, in some cases electing not to proceed with a case, or to withdraw from the process.

19. Without intervention, harmful practices may persist, undermining victim trust and delaying justice. Legislative duties and a statutory Code of Practice will address these gaps.

20. The government recognises that a victim’s counselling information is uniquely sensitive and as such have introduced a requirement that a higher threshold be met before a request can justifiably be made.

D. Appraisal

General assumptions and data

21. A social discount rate of 3.5 per cent is used to obtain present values, in line with HM Treasury Green Book^{[footnote 8]} guidance. Any estimate quoted (PV) or the Net Present Social Value (NPSV) is discounted using this rate. The appraisal is over a ten-year period of 2025/26 to 2034/35.

Costs

Monetised costs

22. The only monetised costs associated with this legislation are the setup costs attributed to police officers, police force staff, and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) employees familiarising themselves with the new Code of Practice, which will cover both SI’s. After the initial familiarisation, it is expected that the processes outlined in the guidance will become standard practice. Additional staff time costs may arise from the required authorisation of TPM requests, though these could not be monetised.

Setup costs

23. The familiarisation costs are calculated by multiplying the expected reading time for the Code of Practice, the hourly wage of those who will read the guidance (including non-wage uplifts such as pension contributions and National Insurance) and the number of employees who will read the guidance.

Reading time × hourly wage × Number of employees

24. The familiarisation costs have been calculated with a high, central (or ‘best’) and low estimates of the three components of the cost. By multiplying the three components together the difference between the final high, central and low estimates will be compounded. Thus, the gap between the high and central (‘best’) estimates of the familiarisation costs will become greater than the gap between the central (‘best’) and low estimates.

25. The reading time range are estimated by assuming that the Code of Practice will be between 80 and 100 pages and by using reading time estimates provided by ‘reading-soft’ estimates.^{[footnote 9]} This results in a range of reading time estimates of between 23 minutes and 211 minutes with a central estimate of 68 minutes.

26. The following assumptions on the proportion of police officers, police staff and CPS employees who will read the new Code of Practise have been made:

Table 1: Police and CPS readership assumptions

Rank/ Grade	Low	Central	High
Police - Chief Officer; Superintendent	5%	10%	20%
Police - Chief Inspector	40%	50%	60%
Police - Inspector; Sergeant; Constable	60%	80%	100%
Police staff	60%	80%	100%
CPS[footnote 10] - A1; A2; PO; B1; B2; PBM; B3; D; E; SCS	5%	10%	15%
CPS[footnote 10] - LT; AP; CP; SP; SCP; LM1; CA, SSP; SLM; SCA; LM2	60%	80%	100%

27. Combining these three components results in an estimate of familiarisation costs for the police of between £1.6 million and £25.3 million, with a central estimate of £6.5 million (2025/26 prices). Familiarisation costs for the CPS are estimated to be between £0.03 million and £0.54 million, with a central estimate of £0.14 million (2025/26 prices).

28. The total familiarisation costs are estimated to be between £1.7 million and £25.9 million, with a central estimate of £6.6 million (2025/26 prices).

Non-monetised costs

Staff time costs for request authorisations

29. Costs may arise from the additional staff time required to review and authorise TPM requests. The Code of Practice recommends that standard TPM requests be approved at Inspector level, with requests for counselling information requiring escalation to Chief Inspector. However, due to an absence of data on the likely number of TPM requests and the time taken to authorise each request, it has not been possible to monetise this cost.

Benefits

30. The benefits from this intervention have not been monetised. There are a number of non-monetised benefits that may result from the intervention, for example through reducing the number of requests for victim information and victims potentially being less likely to withdraw from the criminal justice process. This may result in increased prosecutions, and an improved experience for victims.

31. Ensuring that any requests for victim information are both necessary and proportionate can limit unnecessary intrusion and distress for victims. In particular, the introduction of a higher threshold for accessing counselling records offers additional protection for victims’ most sensitive information.

32. Having more targeted requests for victim information can reduce unnecessary delays to investigations. Between 2018/19 and 2022/23, the median time between a rape being recorded with the police and a charge resulting rose from 381 days to 421 days^{[footnote 11]}. Whilst there will be a variety of causes for these delays, reducing unnecessary and disproportionate requests are a contributory factor. A 2019 His Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI)^{[footnote 12]} investigation reported that in many cases securing TPM was taking “an inordinate amount of time”. The 2022 response to the Home Office consultation on TPM requests^{[footnote 13]} reported that 91 per cent of police and 90 per cent of CPS respondents agreed or strongly agreed that delays in receiving victim information requests were contributing to delays in investigations.

33. Preventing unnecessary and disproportionate requests for victim information may contribute to reducing the number of victims who withdraw their support from investigations. The proportion of victims who withdraw their support for investigations is high and has been increasing over time. Between 2015/16 and 2020/21, the proportion of police recorded rapes where victims withdrew their support rose from 38 per cent to 50 per cent.^{[footnote 14]} Unnecessary and disproportionate requests for victim information is one of many factors which may result in victim withdrawal. For example, a 2020 study^{[footnote 15]} found that of victims who decided to withdraw their support from an investigation, one in five respondents viewed requests for private data as either an important or very important factor in their decision.

34. These benefits have not been quantified and monetised. This is due to the variety of complex factors that influence outcomes such as timeliness and withdrawals and to a current absence of quantifiable data on victim information requests. However, there is evidence - set out in the Rape Review and related reports^{[footnote 16]} - that ensuring requests for victim information are necessary and proportionate may help contribute to the Rape Review’s goal of returning rape charges and prosecutions to 2016 levels.

NPSV, BNPV and EANDCB

35. The monetised costs have no impact on business therefore both the Business Net Present Value (BNPV) and the equivalent annual net direct cost to business (EANDCB) are zero. 

36. The total costs, benefits and Net Present Social Values (NPSVs) are shown in Table 2 below:

Table 2: Total Costs and NPSVs (£ million, price year 2025/26, PV)

	Low	Central	High
Familiarisation costs	1.7	6.6	25.9
Total Costs	1.7	6.6	25.9
Total Benefits	0.0	0.0	0.0
NPSV	-1.7	-6.6	-25.9

Source: Home Office internal analysis. Estimates rounded to the nearest £0.1 million.

37. The NPSV ranges from -£25.9 million in the high-cost low-benefit scenario, and -£1.7 million in the low-cost high-benefit scenario, with a central estimate of -£6.6 million (PV).

E. Wider impacts

38. The intervention is expected to have positive social impacts by improving victim experience and reducing trauma. It may support equality outcomes by protecting vulnerable groups, including women and survivors of sexual violence. No significant impacts on small businesses, trade, or environment are anticipated.

F. Sensitivity

39. The measure aligns with existing commitments under the Rape Review and has been approved by parliament. It does not require a full Impact Assessment under Home Office criteria.

G. Risks

40. While there is evidence from the police requests for TPM consultation^{[footnote 17]}, HMCPSI reports, the Rape Review, and academic research that requests for victim information are frequently excessive and contribute to delays and withdrawals, data on the number of requests is not routinely collated by the Home Office. Thus, it is not possible to reliably track how requests have changed over time.

41. There are a wide variety of factors beyond requests for victim information which contribute to delays in investigations and victim withdrawals. Any effect of changes to requests for victim information to delays and withdrawals from the criminal justice process is likely to be contingent on other factors such as court backlogs and other aspects of how rape investigations are conducted. Thus, the impact of this intervention on delays and withdrawals is difficult to predict.

42. These measures fall under the Rape Review Action Plan^{[footnote 18]}. The ambition of the Rape Review is to return volumes of rape cases being referred by the police, charged and going to court back to 2016 levels. Another important aspect of the overall programme is to reduce victim withdrawal from cases. The Home Office will use charge rates and victim withdrawal rates to evaluate this work.

43. As part of the broader work on TPM, a small data collection exercise was conducted (January to March 2023) to obtain a dip sample of data regarding the number and quality of requests for victim information. The exercise also gathered data on victim involvement in a TPM request. The Home Office will explore the possibility of repeating the data collection exercise to assess any change in practice following the implementation of the new duties.

44. Following the implementation of the new duties, the Home Office will consider additional evaluation methods, in conjunction with the National Police Chiefs’ Council.

H. Annex

Mandatory specific impact test - Statutory Equalities Duties

This Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) supports legislative measures under the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 to ensure police requests for TPM about victims are necessary and proportionate. It introduces three duties: limiting requests to what is necessary, ensuring transparency with victims, and requiring clarity in requests to third parties. The accompanying Code of Practice provides guidance for authorised persons, especially when dealing with vulnerable individuals.

The EIA draws on evidence from the End-to-End Rape Review, the Crime Survey for England and Wales, and stakeholder engagement. While data on TPM requests is limited, the assessment identifies potential indirect discrimination based on crime trends, particularly in sexual offences.

Groups more likely to be affected include young people, disabled individuals, women, and LGBTQ+ victims—who are statistically more likely to be victims of offences where TPM is requested. The Code includes provisions to mitigate disadvantage, such as requiring accessible formats and support for those with disabilities or lacking capacity.

The EIA finds no direct discrimination for any protected characteristics but highlights indirect impacts due to crime prevalence and systemic barriers. It also outlines how the Code of Practice advances equality of opportunity and encourages good relations by promoting consistent, transparent, and fair practices across all protected groups.

The SRO has agreed these summary findings.

Complete

Yes

1. Authorised persons include police officers and staff from England and Wales, British Transport Police, Ministry of Defence Police, National Crime Agency, Independent Office for Police Conduct, and contractors engaged to obtain information for these bodies. – Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2024/21/section/28 ↩

2. Substantial probative value refers to the significant ability of a piece of evidence to prove or disprove a matter in issue in a legal case. - Criminal Justice Act 2003, Section 100 - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/44/section/100 ↩

3. Home Office consultation on the Requests for Victim Information Code of Practice - https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/victim-information-requests-code-of-practice ↩

4. Victims and Prisoners Act 2024: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2024/21/pdfs/ukpga_20240021_en.pdf ↩

5. End-to-End Rape Review Report on Findings and Actions - GOV.UK: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/end-to-end-rape-review-report-on-findings-and-actions ↩

6. Third Party Material Case File Review Report  - https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/police-requests-for-third-party-material/outcome/third-party-material-case-file-review-report-accessible ↩

7. Police requests for third party material - GOV.UK: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/police-requests-for-third-party-material ↩

8. The Green Book: appraisal and evaluation in central government, HM Treasury (2020; last updated 2022): https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-green-book-appraisal-and-evaluation-in-central-governent ↩

9. ReadingSoft -  http://www.readingsoft.com/ ↩

10. CPS grades: 2019-foi-disclosure-24-attachment-A.pdf ↩ ↩²

11.  Police recorded crime and outcomes open data tables:https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/police-recorded-crime-open-data-tables ↩

12. 2019 rape inspection.  A thematic review of rape cases by HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate: https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/cps-response-hmcpsi-2019-rape-inspection ↩

13. Police requests for third party material: consultation response (accessible) - GOV.UK: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/police-requests-for-third-party-material/outcome/consultation-response-accessible (see page 9) ↩

14. Police recorded crime and outcomes open data tables:https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/police-recorded-crime-open-data-tables ↩

15.  Evaluation of the Sexual Violence Complainants’ Advocate Scheme, Northumbria Police and Crime Commissioner: https://archive.northumbria-pcc.gov.uk/v2/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/SVCA-Evaluation-Final-Report-2.pdf  (see page 25) ↩

16. End-to-End Rape Review Report on Findings and Actions: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/end-to-end-rape-review-report-on-findings-and-actions#full-publication-update-history ↩

17. Police requests for third party material: consultation response (accessible) - GOV.UK: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/police-requests-for-third-party-material/outcome/consultation-response-accessible ↩

18. End-to-End Rape Review Report on Findings and Actions – GOV.UK ↩