Search Legislation

Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014

Part 11: Policing etc

College of Policing

39.The Home Office’s plans for policing reform, published in July 2010, set out in Policing in the 21st Century(18) included proposals for strengthening the national structures in policing by, amongst other things, phasing out the National Policing Improvement Agency (“NPIA”). Among the functions undertaken by the NPIA was the provision of learning and development services to police forces. Following this commitment to phase out the NPIA, the Home Secretary commissioned Chief Constable Peter Neyroud to carry out a review of police leadership and training. The outcome of his review was published on 15 April 2011.(19) The principal recommendation of the review was the creation of a professional body for the police in England and Wales. The Home Secretary published her response to this review on 15 December 2011 (House of Commons, Official Report, columns 125WS to 127WS; House of Lords, Official Report, columns WS157 to WS159) and signalled her intention to establish a professional body (“the College of Policing”). On 1 December 2012, some of the functions, assets and people that had previously worked for the NPIA transferred to the College of Policing (which has been established as a company limited by guarantee). The NPIA was formally abolished on 7 October 2013 when section 15(2) of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 was brought into force.

40.The purpose of the College of Policing is to support the fight against crime and protect the public by ensuring professionalism in policing. It aims to do this through the delivery of five key areas of responsibility. First, the College will have the responsibility for setting standards and developing guidance and policy for policing. Second, it will build and develop the research evidence base for policing. Third, it will support the professional development of police officers and staff. Fourth, it will support the police, other law enforcement agencies and those involved in crime reduction to work together. Fifth, it will identify and develop the ethics and value of the police. Where necessary, sections 123 to 130 establish the legislative basis for the College to discharge its responsibilities.

Review bodies for police remuneration etc

41.The terms and conditions of service for police officers in the United Kingdom are set out in regulations made by the Secretary of State (for the police forces in England and Wales), Scottish Ministers (for the Police Service of Scotland) and the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland (for the Police Service of Northern Ireland). The current police pay machinery is made up of the Police Negotiating Board for the United Kingdom (“PNB”). The PNB’s remit is to facilitate negotiations between the Official and Staff Sides, which represent those with responsibility for governing and maintaining police forces in the UK(20) and those representing members of police forces respectively.(21) The PNB is specifically tasked with considering changes to police officer pay; allowances; hours of duty; leave; the issue, use and return of police clothing, personal equipment and accoutrements; and pensions; and making agreed recommendations to the various Ministerial authorities on these matters. Where agreement cannot be reached, the PNB’s constitution provides for reference of the disputed matter to an independent Police Arbitration Tribunal, which considers evidence from both sides and makes findings which have the status of an agreed recommendation from the PNB. There is a separate mechanism for consultation on regulations concerning other terms and conditions of service outside the remit of the PNB. In England and Wales, this is the Police Advisory Board for England and Wales (“PABEW”), a separate body which also has the function of advising the Secretary of State on general questions which affect the police. In Scotland and Northern Ireland, legislation provides for consultation with the bodies that govern and maintain the police forces, and the members of those forces.

42.On 1 October 2010 the Home Secretary appointed Tom Winsor to review the remuneration and conditions of service of police officers in England and Wales, and to make recommendations which will enable police forces to manage their resources to serve the public more cost effectively, taking account of the current state of the public finances. The second and final report of the review, containing reforms to be implemented in the longer term, was published on 15 March 2012.(22) Amongst other things, the review recommended that “the Police Negotiating Board should be abolished and replaced by an independent police officer review body”.(23) The Home Secretary responded to the final report in a Written Ministerial Statement on 27 March 2012 (House of Commons, Official Report, columns 126WS to 128WS); in that statement she indicated that the Government would consult on proposals for implementing the Winsor recommendations on changes to the police officer pay machinery.

43.In October 2012, the Government launched a consultation to seek views on how best to implement recommendations made by Tom Winsor on replacing the current police pay machinery with an independent police pay review body. The Government’s response to the consultation was published on 25 April 2013.(24) In a Written Ministerial Statement (House of Commons, Official Report, column 68WS; House of Lords, Official Report, column WS174 to WS175), the Home Secretary announced that, following consideration of consultation responses on how a new police pay review body should be implemented, the Government would establish a Police Remuneration Review Body to consider the remuneration of police officers of the rank of chief superintendent or below. This body will consider evidence from interested parties and make recommendations to Government on police officer remuneration. The remuneration of chief officers (that is, officers of the rank of Assistant Chief Constable, or the equivalent ranks in the Metropolitan Police Service and the City of London Police, and above) will be considered by the Senior Salaries Review Body. Sections 131 to 134 and Schedule 7 give effect to these reforms by abolishing the PNB, establishing the Police Remuneration Review Body and modifying the functions of the PABEW. These measures apply in relation to police officers in England and Wales and Northern Ireland. The Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill introduced into the Scottish Parliament on 20 June 2013 includes provision for a new Police Negotiating Board for Scotland.

Independent Police Complaints Commission

44.The Independent Police Complaints Commission (“the IPCC”) was established by Part 2 of the Police Reform Act 2002 (“the 2002 Act”) to provide an effective and independent means of overseeing the investigation of complaints and alleged misconduct relating to the police in England and Wales. It has a general duty to secure public confidence in the arrangements for handling complaints (and other matters). The IPCC came into being in April 2004, replacing its predecessor, the Police Complaints Authority.

45.The 2002 Act sets out the statutory framework in accordance with which the IPCC has oversight of police complaints, conduct matters and death or serious injury (“DSI”) matters. These are the three principal ways in which a matter may be considered by the IPCC: as a complaint, relating to the conduct of a person serving with the police; as a “conduct matter”, where there is no complaint, but there is an indication that a person serving with the police may have committed a criminal offence or behaved in a way which would justify disciplinary proceedings; or where there has been a DSI following direct or indirect contact with the police.

46.Chief officers and local policing bodies (that is Police and Crime Commissioners or, in London, the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime and the Common Council of the City of London) have a duty under the 2002 Act to record complaints, conduct matters and DSI matters that fall within the 2002 Act and in respect of which they are the appropriate authority. All DSI matters and certain categories of complaints and conduct matters (as set out in paragraphs 4 and 13 of Schedule 3 to the 2002 Act and regulations 4 and 7 of the Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2012) must be referred to the IPCC. The IPCC encourages appropriate authorities to refer complaints or incidents that do not come within these categories but where the gravity of the subject matter or exceptional circumstances justifies referral. The IPCC may also require any complaint or recordable conduct matter to be referred to it by the appropriate authority.

47.When cases are referred to the IPCC, it assesses the seriousness of the case and the public interest and determines the form of investigation. There are four types of investigation:

  • Independent investigations – These are carried out by IPCC investigators and overseen by an IPCC Commissioner. The IPCC investigator has all the powers and privileges of a police constable.

  • Managed investigations – These are carried out by Professional Standards Departments (“PSDs”) of police forces under the direction and control of the IPCC.

  • Supervised investigations – These are carried out by police PSDs under their own direction and control. The IPCC sets the terms of reference and receives the final report.

  • Local investigations – These are carried out entirely by police PSDs.

48.Following the publication of the Hillsborough Independent Panel’s report(25) on 12 September 2012 and the subsequent debate in the House of Commons on 22 October 2012 (Official Report columns 719 to 804), the powers and capacity of the IPCC came into the spotlight. As a result, the Government gave a commitment to provide the IPCC with the powers and resources required to exercise its statutory functions in investigating complaints against those serving with the police.

49.The Police (Complaints and Conduct) Act 2012, and the Police (Complaints and Conduct) Regulations 2013 provide the IPCC with new powers to: (a) require an individual currently serving under the direction and control of a chief officer, who witnessed matters under investigation, to attend an interview by the IPCC; and (b) investigate a matter which was previously the subject of an investigation by its predecessor, the Police Complaints Authority.

50.Separately, the IPCC made the case for a further enhancement of its powers in its May 2012 report on Corruption in the Police Service in England and Wales.(26) In that report the IPCC argued that in order to investigate directly and tackle more cases of corruption, it would need to be able to investigate “contracted out employees, to gain access to data held by third parties and to require formal response to our recommendations”.

51.The Home Affairs Select Committee (“HASC”) subsequently conducted an inquiry into the IPCC. In its report, published on 1 February 2013,(27) HASC concluded that “it is vital to have a body that is truly independent and competent to get to the truth of the matter and ensure that misconduct and criminality in the police force cannot go unpunished”. In identifying weaknesses in the IPCC’s ability to inspire public confidence, HASC concluded that “the Commission must bring the police complaints system up to scratch and the Government must give it the powers it needs to do so”. Sections 135 to 139 implement two of the specific recommendations of the HASC report and confer other powers on the IPCC intended to enable it to discharge its statutory functions more effectively.

52.In addition to strengthening the IPCC’s powers, the Home Secretary announced in an oral statement on Police Integrity on 12 February 2013 (House of Commons, Official Report, columns 713 to 714) that she would transfer to the IPCC responsibility for dealing with all serious and sensitive cases and, as a corollary to this, transfer resources from forces to the IPCC in order to ensure that it has the budget and the manpower to do its work. Annex D sets out details of the number of complaints made against police forces in England and Wales in 2011/12 and how these, and other conduct and DSI matters, were dealt with by forces and the IPCC.

Appointment of chief officers of police

53.The Independent Review of Police Officer Terms and Conditions carried out by Tom Winsor set out proposals for three direct entry schemes into the police. These were a fast track to inspector rank, direct entry at superintendent rank and, for those with equivalent experience from overseas, direct entry at chief constable rank.

54.In a Written Ministerial Statement on 27 March 2012 the Home Secretary welcomed these proposals seeing them as enabling policing to draw upon the best pool of talent available (House of Commons, Official Report, columns 126 WS to 128 WS). A public consultation was launched on 30 January 2013 on how to implement the direct entry schemes. The response to the consultation was published on 14 October 2013.(28) Section 140 of the Act makes the necessary amendments to the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 (“the 2011 Act”) to facilitate direct entry at chief constable rank.

Financial arrangements for chief officers of police

55.The 2011 Act established chief constables (and the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis) as corporations sole. Subject to the consent of their Police and Crime Commissioner (in London, the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime), these chief officers of police are able to spend and invest money and enter into contracts on their own behalf.

56.The 2011 Act does not apply local government legislation to chief officers of police, other than requiring them to have a qualified chief finance officer in the same manner as a local authority (or a Police and Crime Commissioner). In particular, Part 1 of the Local Government Act 2003, which sets out a framework of capital finance controls, was not applied. It is now considered desirable for this control framework to apply to chief officers of police. Section 141 achieves this. The section does not apply to the City of London Police as the 2011 Act did not change the policing arrangements in the City, and in particular did not establish the Commissioner of the City of London Police as a corporate entity.

Local commissioning of services

57.The 2011 Act established directly elected local Police and Crime Commissioners with responsibility for maintaining the police force in their area and holding the chief constable to account for the full range of their responsibilities. The first Police and Crime Commissioners were elected, and took up their posts, in November 2012.

58.Since the establishment of Police and Crime Commissioners opportunities for them to assume additional responsibilities on behalf of local communities have been identified. In particular, on 2 July 2012 the Government published its response to the consultation Getting it Right for Victims and Witnesses.(29) The response set out a package of reforms to the way the Government commissions support services for victims and witnesses of crime, outside of those directly provided by criminal justice agencies. These are services which support victims in coping with the immediate impacts of crime and, as far as is possible, to recover from the harm experienced. The intention is to move from the current centrally commissioned arrangements to a mixed model of national and local commissioning with support targeted at those who have suffered the greatest impact from crime: victims of serious crime, the most persistently targeted and the most vulnerable. Local policing bodies (that is, Police and Crime Commissioners and, in London, the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime and the Common Council of the City of London) are regarded as the most appropriate bodies to take on the local commissioning role, using grant funding provided to them by the Government for the purpose.

59.The kinds of services that Police and Crime Commissioners may provide or commission for victims of crime include practical support such as the provision of information, refuges or shelters, financial support and guidance, and advice and assistance on security measures. They may also include emotional support services such as counselling, treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder and peer support groups.

60.Section 143 expands Police and Crime Commissioners’ existing powers to provide or arrange for the provision of services which secure, or contribute to securing, crime and disorder reduction and creates a clear statutory basis upon which all local policing bodies can provide or commission services for the support of victims of, and witnesses to, crime and anti-social behaviour as well as for other persons affected by offences or anti-social behaviour.

Power to take further fingerprints or non-intimate samples

61.The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (“PACE”) currently allows DNA sampling only once in an investigation. If the Crown Prosecution Service (“CPS”) decides not to proceed with a case where the accused person has not previously been convicted or charged with a qualifying offence, that person’s DNA must be deleted. However, the CPS has now introduced a new procedure, Victims’ Right to Review, under which an investigation may be restarted. A successful review of a decision not to prosecute will thus allow no way to retake DNA as it has already been taken during the investigation. The same considerations apply to fingerprinting as to DNA sampling. Section 144 therefore allows the taking of fingerprints and DNA in an investigation, if the previous prints, samples or profile taken during that investigation had been deleted.

Power to retain fingerprints or DNA profile in connection with different offence

62.Section 63P of PACE, which was inserted into PACE by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, provides that where biometrics (DNA profiles and fingerprints) taken in the investigation of one offence lead to the person being arrested, charged or convicted of a different offence, they may be retained as if the biometrics had been taken in connection with the latter offence. For example, a person may be arrested for offence A and have their biometrics taken, then be investigated for offence B. No further action is taken in relation to offence A, but the person is prosecuted and convicted of offence B. The power to retain biometrics taken from a convicted person applies in this case, but only if the biometrics taken for offence A “lead to” the person being arrested for or charged with offence B. If there is no such causal link, the biometrics cannot be retained. This has particular implications for the retention of DNA profiles, as DNA is generally not taken more than once (to avoid unnecessary costs) whereas fingerprints are taken on each arrest, as they are used to verify identity as well as to check on possible links to crime scenes. If section 63P had been brought into force without qualification, DNA profiles taken in the past from many convicted persons could no longer be held. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Destruction, Retention and Use of Biometric Data) (Transitional, Transitory and Saving Provisions) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2013 (SI 2013/2770) made transitional provisions to address this until 30 September 2014. Section 145 makes these arrangements permanent.

Retention of personal samples that are or may be disclosable

63.The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“PoFA”) amended PACE to require that all samples taken from individuals (such as cheek swabs for DNA, blood, hair and urine) must be destroyed within six months. (This provision has not yet been brought into force fully.) This applies whether the samples were taken for the purpose of including the resultant profile on the National DNA Database or for evidence in court. It differs from PoFA’s treatment of all other evidence, where retention of evidence for court is governed by the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (“CPIA”) and its associated Code of Practice. During implementation of PoFA, concerns were raised by the CPS and the police that this requirement to destroy samples could jeopardise court proceedings because arguments about samples and the conclusions drawn from their analysis cannot be dealt with properly if they no longer exist. Section 146 therefore amends PACE so that samples which may be needed in court proceedings will be governed by the CPIA in the same way as other types of evidence – thereby enabling them to be retained during investigation and prosecution. If PoFA is brought fully into effect without this change, forces would have to seek court orders on an individual basis for retention of samples, which would be likely to result in a large number of applications for such orders, particularly in relation to serious cases. This would be procedurally cumbersome and would result in higher costs for the police and courts.

64.The amendment provides that once CPIA no longer applies, the sample must be destroyed, and prevents a sample retained under CPIA from being used other than for the purposes of any proceedings for the offence in connection with which it was taken.

Power to seize invalid passports etc

65.The Government’s ability to disrupt individuals from travelling abroad to engage in terrorism-related and other serious or organised criminal activity has become increasingly important with developments in various parts of the world. The Home Secretary has the power under the Royal Prerogative to refuse or withdraw a British passport on public interest grounds. The public interest criteria were updated in a Written Ministerial Statement on 25 April 2013.(30)

66.There are no explicit statutory enforcement powers specifically to require the return of a cancelled passport. There is also a need to provide clarity on the statutory powers available at ports to disrupt people from travelling on invalid documents. Section 147 and Schedule 8 address these issues by creating two new sets of powers. The first is for police officers, immigration officers and designated customs officials to search for and seize invalid travel documents (including cancelled passports) at ports. The second comprises powers for police officers to search for and seize passports cancelled on public interest grounds within the UK (not at ports) in specified circumstances.

Port and border controls

67.Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 (“the 2000 Act”) provides for counter-terrorism port and border controls. It enables an examining officer (who may be a constable, an immigration officer, or a customs officer designated for the purpose of the Schedule by the Secretary of State and the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs) to stop and question, and where necessary detain and search a person travelling through a port, airport, international rail station or the border area. Such an examination is for the purpose of determining whether the person appears to be someone who is or has been concerned with the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism. An examining officer may question a person whether or not he has grounds for suspecting that person may be concerned with terrorism. Equally, stopping an individual does not necessarily mean that the examining officer believes the person to be a terrorist.

68.An examining officer may require a person to answer questions or provide certain documents. No period of examination may exceed nine hours (reduced to a maximum of six hours by this Act). Wilful obstruction or frustration of an examination is an offence under the 2000 Act.

69.Only around three people in every 10,000 are examined as they pass through the UK’s ports and borders. Most examinations, 97%, last under one hour. Between 2004 and 2009, the number of terrorist-related arrests that resulted directly from a Schedule 7 stop was about 20 per year. In addition, Schedule 7 examinations have produced information that has contributed to long and complex intelligence-based counter-terrorism investigations.(31)

70.The Home Secretary launched a public consultation on 13 September 2012 on the review of the operation of Schedule 7 (House of Commons, Official Report, column 15WS) with a view to ensuring that the powers struck a proper balance between the need to maintain the protection of the UK Border and respect for individual freedoms.(32) The response to the consultation was published on 11 July 2013. Section 148 and Schedule 9 make the changes to Schedule 7 to the 2000 Act arising from the consultation.

Inspection of the Serious Fraud Office

71.The Serious Fraud Office (“SFO”) was created in 1988 by the Criminal Justice Act 1987 to investigate and prosecute serious or complex fraud. That Act provides the Director of the SFO with the power to investigate and prosecute any suspected offence which involves serious or complex fraud, and gives the Director the power to require a person to answer questions or provide information and documents in relation to matters under investigation.

72.HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (“HMCPSI”), established under the Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate Act 2000, is an independent inspectorate for the Crown Prosecution Service (“CPS”), the principal prosecuting authority for criminal cases in England and Wales. The purpose of HMCPSI is to enhance the quality of justice through independent inspection and assessment of prosecution services, and in so doing improve their effectiveness and efficiency.

73.In a Written Ministerial Statement on 4 December 2012 (House of Commons, Official Report, column 51WS to 52WS; House of Lords, official report, columns WS54 to WS56) the Attorney General announced his intention to extend the statutory power of HMCPSI to inspect the SFO. In his statement, the Attorney General noted that the first voluntary inspection of the SFO by HMCPSI, which took place in November 2012, was an important step in building the effectiveness of the SFO and showed the benefits to both the SFO and the Government of independent external inspection.(33) Providing a statutory duty for HMCPSI to inspect the SFO is intended to ensure the continued delivery of these benefits. Section 149 gives effect to this extension of HMCPSI’s statutory remit.

Fees for criminal record certificates

74.Since December 2012, the Disclosure and Barring Service has been responsible for issuing certificates to applicants containing details of their criminal records and other relevant information. This function was previously undertaken by the Criminal Records Bureau, which had for some years issued criminal record certificates to volunteers free of charge with the cost of these free certificates being cross-subsidised by fee-paying applicants. It is Government policy that criminal records checks, including the new update service provided by the Disclosure and Barring Service under measures in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, should continue to be provided free of charge to volunteers.

75.Interim measures are in place to ensure current fees can lawfully reflect such costs under section 102 of the Finance (No 2) Act 1987.(34) Section 151 places these measures on a more transparent legislative basis.

Powers of community support officers

76.Police community support officers (“PCSOs”) were introduced in 2002. The main elements of the PCSO role include engaging with the public; providing a visible police presence; enforcing the law and preventing crime, particularly low-level crime and anti-social behaviour; and gathering information.

77.The powers available to PCSOs are provided in Schedule 4 to the Police Reform Act 2002 (“the 2002 Act”). They comprise 20 standard powers that all PCSOs hold (for example, the power to issue a fixed penalty notice for littering and to seize tobacco from a person aged under 16) and further discretionary powers that may be designated by the chief constable.(35) The provisions in section 152 and Schedule 10 add further discretionary powers.

Use of amplified noise equipment in vicinity of the Palace of Westminster

78.Part 3 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 (“the 2011 Act”) authorises constables and authorised persons (the Greater London Authority and Westminster City Council) to direct that certain types of activity should not take place in the controlled area of Parliament Square, that is the central area of Parliament Square and the pavements immediately adjoining that area. The prohibited activities are set out in section 143(2) of the 2011 Act and include operating any amplified noise equipment. Section 147 of the 2011 Act provides the Greater London Authority and Westminster City Council (as the responsible authority) with the power to authorise a person to operate amplified noise equipment within the controlled area. Section 153 extends the controls on amplified noise equipment to the new “Palace of Westminster controlled area”.


The Official Side comprises, in the case of England and Wales, representatives of the Home Secretary, Police and Crime Commissioners (in London, the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime and the Common Council of the City of London police area) and chief constables. In Scotland and Northern Ireland the equivalent persons are the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Justice, the Northern Ireland Minister of Justice, the Scottish Police Authority, the Northern Ireland Policing Board and the chief constables of the Police Service of Scotland and the Police Service of Northern Ireland.


The Staff Side comprises the Chief Police Officers’ Staff Association, Police Superintendents’ Association of England and Wales, the Police Federation of England and Wales and their equivalents in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

22 Publication of the report was accompanied by a Written Ministerial Statement by the Home Secretary on 15 March 2012 (House of Commons, Official Report, column 38WS).


Recommendation 115. Associated recommendations dealt with the membership and terms of reference of the new police pay review body (recommendation 116), the transfer to the Policy Advisory Boards of the responsibility for considering changes to police pensions (recommendation 117) and the arrangements for setting the pay of chief officers (recommendation 118).


House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee report, ‘Independent Police Complaints Commission’, Eleventh Report of Session 2012–13: cmhaff/494/494.pdf">">cmhaff/494/494.pdfBack [10]


Data about the exercise of Schedule 7 is included in Annex C. Statistics about the operation of police powers under the Terrorism Act 2000, including Schedule 7 are published online at:


The report of the inspection is available at: [16]


The Police Act 1997 (Criminal Records) (Fees) Order 2004 (SI 2004/1007), as amended by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Consequential Amendments) No. 2 Order 2013 (SI 2013/1196), specifies functions which the Disclosure and Barring Service may recover the costs of when setting fees under the provisions in Part 5 of the Police Act 1997. The relevant functions are those of issuing, to volunteers, criminal record certificates and enhanced criminal record certificates, and up-date information in respect of such certificates.


A list of both standard and discretionary powers is available on

Back to top


Print Options


Explanatory Notes

Text created by the government department responsible for the subject matter of the Act to explain what the Act sets out to achieve and to make the Act accessible to readers who are not legally qualified. Explanatory Notes were introduced in 1999 and accompany all Public Acts except Appropriation, Consolidated Fund, Finance and Consolidation Acts.


More Resources

Access essential accompanying documents and information for this legislation item from this tab. Dependent on the legislation item being viewed this may include:

  • the original print PDF of the as enacted version that was used for the print copy
  • lists of changes made by and/or affecting this legislation item
  • confers power and blanket amendment details
  • all formats of all associated documents
  • correction slips
  • links to related legislation and further information resources