The Bichard impact

Sir Michael Bichard’s final report raised concerns about delays in the delivery of the IMPACT program and the lack of progress in improving the national average for inputting arrest and summons on the PNC. Mat Hanrahan looks to IT for the answers.

Sir Michael Bichard is not a man who has gone out of his way to endear himself to the police service. It is perhaps a testament to the quality of his work, however, that he is held in such high regard by both senior and operational staff of all ranks.

During the press conference that marked the release of the original report in June 2004, Sir Michael told the assembled media that they should never forget how important apparently dry-looking systems could be – and should never undervalue the people who administered them. The Bichard Inquiry Report went on to be widely praised within the service for the even-handed and clinical way it met its brief. Sir Michael Bichard’s announcement that he would review progress on his recommendations six months later – a decision without obvious precedence – won him almost as much kudos with the police service as the inquiry itself.

Sir Michael explained his motivation during a Public Administration Select Committee in December 2004: “I have seen too many inquiries with excellent recommendations not followed up, and I did not want that to happen. These are serious matters. I have given up six months of my life; lots of other people have given up a lot of their time. It just seemed to me it was important that we reviewed it. The feedback I am getting from senior civil servants is that this has focused people, and that probably more has happened than would otherwise have been the case.”

In the press conference for the review this month, Sir Michael once again provided the kind of balanced analysis we have come to expect. He began by describing progress, and then outlined where more effort was needed. Successful delivery of a National Police IT Intelligence System was by no means guaranteed, he said, and the delay in providing a detailed business case was a cause for concern. He also expressed disappointment that the national average of putting arrest and summons data on to the PNC had not improved significantly ‘or in some respects at all’, and suggested forces that failed in this regard should be ‘named and shamed’.

This was news enough for the headline writers, and a smattering of articles followed in the national press in the familiar ‘IT project behind schedule’ groove.

Those who have spent time wrestling with the ICT implications of the IMPACT proposal can perhaps be forgiven for smarting a little at this. Although IMPACT has neither the budget nor the logistical weight of the Airwave roll-out, it could well be one of the most ambitious and demanding roll-outs ever undertaken by the police service.

Two issues make it particularly problematic: the first is the unnervingly abstract nature of the ‘intelligence’ product that IMPACT is supposed to deliver; the second is the level of co-operation and consensus it demands from 43 very different police forces.

The situation is further complicated by the fact that although these forces may be allies in the fight against crime, they still have to compete for the £160m of central funding the Home Office is providing to implement the project.

As Assistant Commissioner Tarique Ghaffur of the Metropolitan Police, and Chair of the IMPACT Programme Board, told Police Professional: “The key challenge is who pays? And the dilemma is that some forces who have moved quicker will say ‘well we’ve already paid’, and that those forces who haven’t moved should pay themselves.

“The second dilemma is that there is around £710m of cost within police IT departments so, quite clearly, the Government is saying, ‘well hang on, there’s the money we’ve provided for Bichard, but we should use this money too’.”

Co-ordinating separate budgets to serve both local and national interests would present a formidable undertaking even for a well-r