My Lords, I confess that when I see a list of almost 50 government amendments that the Minister describes as technical and drafting, I realise that I am becoming quite cynical as I get older. By and large they are technical and drafting amendments, but I have some questions, some of which the noble Earl has sought to address in his comments. However, if I may, I will press him on a couple of points for an explanation.
On government Amendments 10 to 12, compensation of NCA specials is addressed. The amendments take out “NCA” with regard to compensation. The Minister said that that is because they may be compensated from elsewhere. I am not quite clear where the elsewhere would be that would allow for expenses and compensation to NCA specials. Does he envisage a greater role for the private sector to pay them, for example? I do not know, but is he able to elaborate further? That was clearly not envisaged during Committee or when the Bill was first drafted. I am unclear why the Government have felt the need to change it. Who else will compensate or pay the expenses of NCA specials?
I also thank the Government for dealing with the comment made by my noble friend Lord Rosser about clarifying the position on which Secretary of State would apply regarding transport. That was helpful. As regards the transitional provision, I am sorry that this was not in a separate group of amendments because that might have been helpful to your Lordships’ House. We discussed this in some detail during earlier stages of the Bill and I have asked Parliamentary Questions about the transitional costs and how the transition should be arranged. The concept of the transition from the predecessor organisations to the NCA is extremely important.
4.15 pm
One of the issues the Minister sought to address in his comments was the new proposals in the government amendments—which he described as a precaution—in regard to staff from the NPIA being transferred to the Home Office, presumably on their way to the NCA. I am unclear about how many staff we are talking about. The Government say that it is a precaution but, surely, not being able to make the transition of staff in time should have been envisaged when the Bill was first drafted and these issues were discussed. Have issues arisen so that the Government are not in a position to transfer staff and so on in the timescale first envisaged? It would be helpful to know what progress is being made because there is nothing helpful regarding this in the outline of the framework document.
There is also nothing about finances in relation to the transitional position. The Minister will understand my concern—I have raised the issue and asked Parliamentary Questions on it—that the new National Crime Agency will take on not only the responsibilities of the predecessor bodies but new responsibilities, particularly in relation to CEOP. I understand that no additional funding is being provided so can the Minister
explain, when he is responding on transition, why there is nothing in the amendments to deal with the increased costs of transition? Is he still satisfied that all the new responsibilities and transition arrangements can be met from the new, reduced budgets?