My Lords, I hope I can persuade my noble friend Lady Hamwee and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, that these amendments are unnecessary. First, I will emphasise that the National Crime Agency will build on the policy of the Serious Organised Crime Agency, which is not to charge law enforcement partners for tasks, assistance and facilities unless agreed with partners beforehand; for example, in exceptional circumstances.
This means that law enforcement partners will have the opportunity to draw on the National Crime Agency’s specialist services, including investigative, overseas, cyber, forensic and civil recovery assets, free of charge. The National Crime Agency will make intelligence available to partners on a routine basis, which will result in more effective deployment of partner resources. For example, the National Crime Agency’s intelligence functions will ensure that multiple partners do not investigate the same criminals or gangs without being aware of each other’s activities.
6.45 pm
Where, exceptionally, there is cross-charging between the NCA and other law enforcement agencies, we fully expect that agreement will be reached between the parties as to the level of any charges. However, the provision for the Secretary of State to determine the appropriate amount payable for tasks, assistance or facilities between the director-general of the NCA and partners, is a necessary backstop power in the event that agreement cannot be reached. In this respect, the Bill broadly replicates current arrangements for payments for assistance and facilities that are set out in Part 1 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. It is important to note that agreement has always been reached between the Serious Organised Crime Agency and partners with regard to charging, and so these backstop provisions have never been used. But it is important to have them none the less, because without them, problems are more—not less—likely to arise. It is also a good reason why we do not need to establish an advisory panel, which I will come to in a moment.
I am not persuaded that my noble friend’s amendment takes us much further forward. Her amendment does not specify what alternative arrangements would be provided for in the framework document. We are still left with the conundrum as to what is the most sensible and efficient way to break any deadlock. It is also important to bear in mind that other law enforcement agencies are not a party to the framework document—that is, between my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and the director-general of the NCA. Therefore, they are not required to have regard to the arrangements in the framework document in the same way as the director-general is.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, would establish an advisory panel on payments to take the place of the Secretary of State in settling any disputes around payments. I put it to him that such an advisory panel would add an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy to the cross-charging arrangements. The Home Secretary is ultimately responsible for the efficiency and effectiveness of policing in England and Wales, and in these circumstances I see no reason, as with the Serious Organised Crime Agency, why she should not assume
responsibility for settling any disputes in this area. These arrangements may well concentrate the parties’ minds.
In short, this provision in paragraph 29 of Schedule 3 offers the most appropriate and streamlined mechanism for settling any disputes in respect of cross-charging. It has not given rise to any difficulties in relation to SOCA, and accordingly I ask my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, to withdraw their amendments.