ADOPTING COMMON SOLUTIONS
193. Implementation of new technology poses significant
challenges for the police. A recent article in Police Review,
based on interviews with Hampshire Constabulary and the City of
London Police, notes that forces are often forced to buy-in or
develop their own solutions as they cannot afford to wait for
roll-out of national systems.[226]
The NPIA's Chief Executive, Chief Constable Peter Neyroud, agreed
that the agency's major challenge is how to speed up the process
of rolling out new technology, because "the constant tale
is that it has taken so long. We are looking at ways in which
we can speed things up by re-using what we have, by taking things
off the shelf, and also by stopping the re-invention of the wheel".[227]
194. Sir Ronnie Flanagan noted in his Review of
Policing that forces may also be unwilling to adopt common
solutions. One of the key barriers to efficient purchase and implementation
of new technologies is the historically fragmented approach taken
across the service. Favourable conditions need to be in place
at the same time in 43 force areas, which of course rarely happens.[228]
195. However, this results in unnecessary duplication
of effort. One example of duplication that we discovered concerned
the use of 999 call playbacks in interviews with those arrested
for domestic violence, to assist with bringing charges. Staffordshire
Police demonstrated their Webplayer 999 system, developed by a
force inspector to circumvent the minimum four-week wait to receive
a recording of the call. We wrote to the Home Secretary to request
that this practice was implemented across forces, only to discover
that Devon and Cornwall Police have developed a similar system.
196. Police systems do not link up across forces,
necessitating a large amount of duplication in data entry: up
to 70% of information is entered into police systems more than
once.[229] Sergeant
Rooney argued: "We need to be able to move it through the
criminal justice system so that once I have put that information
in, nobody else has to input the same information. At the moment,
that does not happen".[230]
The Police Federation agreed:
Any new technology must come in the form of an
integrated system that is fully compatible across all forces and
the Criminal Justice System. We simply cannot afford to continue
the current trend of multiple forces procuring multiple new technology
solutions that are unique and not compatible in either resource
or functionality across the force. This is a difficult challenge
that will require investment in hardware and training—but
it will be worth it in terms of how it could add real value to
policing.[231]
197. In addition to the operational drawbacks, the
Royal Academy of Engineering explained the negative financial
impacts:
The overheads and cost of transition to new systems
can be significant, especially as individual police forces represent
relatively small operations. In addition, many police forces operate
in an autonomous manner. Implementing solutions on a force by
force basis risks fragmentation, which would be a barrier to integration
across police forces and wider emergency services. In addition,
a fragmented approach may not attract the attention of the global
technology companies who would implement new complex programmes.[232]
Mr Moonan described the experience of his company,
G4S, when trying to win work from the police:
It is more difficult. We are dealing with 43
customers who have got different specifications. It is harder
for us to give economies of scale and to give a solution that
will provide the optimum value for money for the police because
we have to work with each one in turn and develop a solution just
for their needs … When those people join together or when
there is a framework agreement, there is more opportunity to provide
a more efficient service, I would suggest.[233]
The Police Federation argued for more central control
over the contracting of new systems to make it easier for forces
in this regard.[234]
198. Some witnesses warned that complete centralisation
would create its own problems. Ms Eggberry told us that Research
in Motion work very closely with individual police forces, because
each force has particular technology requirements based on the
environment they are serving.[235]
Inspector Hitch said:
I think it is a mistake to centralise it and
to have everybody doing exactly the same. There are different
requirements in different parts of the country. For example, in
parts of Scotland the Airwave coverage is the only coverage; there
is hardly any mobile phone coverage in the Highlands. Airwaves
is the only thing that can be used, whereas here mobile phone
coverage is absolutely superb and there is no problem in using
it … I think there needs to be retained some of the element
of if we want to make a change to the system we can do it fairly
quickly.[236]
199. Chief Constable Johnston argued it did not always
make sense for an individual force to invest in new technology
at a juncture that is decided centrally: "With the Airwave
system, when I was with the Metropolitan Police, we had just bought
a new radio system. So although for United Kingdom policing the
business case stood up, for the Met, actually, it did not".[237]
200. However, Mr Bobbett, of Airwave Solutions Ltd,
considered it was possible to achieve a balance between a centralised
and individual force approach:
Making sure that you have a common platform does
not deny localisation, because there are local issues that are
needed to be dealt with, but I think starting with a standard
and a standard platform enables you then to build the localisation
that makes the most efficient use for those individual officers
but gives you the comfort of common information and common sharing.
I think we have already done it with the Airwave system and, hopefully,
we can have many more examples of that right across policing.[238]
201. The Airwave radio network is a rare example
of a technology that was centrally procured and implemented across
all forces. Universal implementation of the platform, which is
based on Terrestrial Trunked Radio (TETRA) digital technology
and used primarily for secure voice communications, allows for
consistent standards, economies of scale and operational efficiency:
If you go back to the old days of the analogue
systems that the police forces had, they did not have the ability
to communicate across their police force boundaries, they did
not have the ability to communicate with other services, so they
were very restricted in the things they could do with their previous
systems; so Airwave is clearly a major step forward for them.[239]
Sir Ronnie Flanagan observed that the Airwave project
had met with considerable resistance: "the lack of ability
to compel forces to adopt this new technology meant it took almost
ten years to implement".[240]
202. The National Policing Improvement Agency is
intensifying its efforts to establish a practice of purchasing
one system and making the framework available to the rest of the
forces. For example, forces that have not yet got a mobile
data platform will be able to buy into the platform purchased
by the NPIA. Chief Constable Neyroud, noting that the service
as a whole spends around about £1 billion pounds
on technology each year, agreed that "to make best use of
the cash you have to start thinking about operating some functions
as one rather than 43 [forces], and this is one of them".[241]
203. Collaboration across forces is one means of
ensuring that forces do not have to 'reinvent the wheel'. For
example, Nottinghamshire and Leicestershire forces, which have
advanced plans for the use of mobile devices, are assisting Derbyshire,
Northamptonshire and Lincolnshire to develop their ideas on the
use of this technology.[242]
Inspector Hitch noted that Bedfordshire works very closely with
other forces who deploy Blackberries, specifically Thames Valley
Police, West Yorkshire and Cambridgeshire, to share ideas, but:
I do sometimes wish that people were more willing
to do that, and that there was more of a national focus on that,
because I think it would be quite beneficial. Some people are
rather precious about their ideas and their little inventions,
which I think is a shame.[243]
204. The fruitfulness of the collaborative approach
is perhaps demonstrated by the fact that the forces bidding as
part of the East Midlands and Yorkshire collaborations comprised
nearly half of those forces in England who were awarded funding
for PDAs.
205. Central procurement of new technology allows
for economies of scale, consistent standards and integrated systems,
and makes the police service a more attractive client for providers.
In addition, while we commend individual innovations towards more
effective policing on the part of individual forces, we query
how much time is wasted in duplicated efforts. In our view, it
is possible to achieve a balance with meeting the needs of individual
forces by developing a common platform that can then be tailored
to suit the local situation.
206. The National Policing Improvement Agency
should take the lead in negotiating the purchase of PDAs and their
supporting infrastructure on a uniform basis, in order to reduce
costs and remove contractual burdens from individual forces. In
doing so, they should give careful consideration to the supporting
infrastructure to ensure ease of use and flexibility to adapt
to future innovations. It is important that officers who will
use the technology are involved in system design to ensure it
meets their needs.
DIFFICULTIES EXPERIENCED BY THE BRITISH TRANSPORT
POLICE IN ACCESSING NEW TECHNOLOGY
207. The British Transport Police (BTP) experiences
difficulties in securing funding for new technology developed
by the NPIA for Home Office forces. As a force that is financed
by the rail industry rather than the Home Office, the BTP is not
always included in the specification for new technology. Of particular
concern is the Home Office's refusal to fund BTP access to the
Police National Database. Its Chief Constable warned of the consequences
should the force fail to gain access:
We would be out-with the whole intelligence system
for the UK, so we would not be able to interrogate the central
database, we would not be able to feed the intelligence base,
and we would not be able to draw off records that are freely available
to other forces up and down the country.[244]
208. In response to the Home Office contention that
access should be paid for by the railway companies, Chief Constable
Johnston argued:
The BTP's contribution to the national intelligence
database is for the benefit of UK, not just for the railway companies,
and there is a very clear rationale for the scope of the programme
to be widened to include BTP and for it to be fully funded by
government.[245]
He said it was inevitable that BTP access to the
database would have to be funded at some point, but any delay
would have a "dramatic impact" on the force's ability
to operate.[246]
209. The British Transport Police play a key role
in protecting against the threat of terrorism. It is therefore
essential that the force is able to access the Police National
Database on the same basis as Home Office forces, to enable intelligence
to be shared fully across the service. We hope that, in its reply
to this report, the Home Office can provide assurances that funding
for this will be forthcoming.
Collaboration
210. In addition to the operational benefits of collaborating
to provide protective services, which we explore in the next chapter,
the Government has encouraged shared support services as a means
of achieving economies of scale and therefore saving money. This
means forces pooling back-office functions, such as payroll and
pensions, and human resources management. The Audit Commission
has cited collaboration as a key factor in efficient use of resources
by police authorities.[247]
211. We heard evidence of good practice in such work,
particularly in Wales and the East Midlands, with the latter area
pursuing the following shared services:[248]
