Recent Parliamentary Questions on the National Vehicle Crime Intelligence Service (NaVCIS) were intended to clarify how this body is funded and governed.
The Government’s answer was familiar:
‘NaVCIS is funded by industry partners, including finance and leasing companies, insurers and hauliers’.
However, this broad description raises as many questions as it answers.
What remains unclear?
- Is funding diversified across multiple sectors, or is it predominantly derived from one body?
- Does the funding model include seizure-linked or outcome-based payments?
- What governance safeguards exist where funding is connected to operational results?
- What proportion of NaVCIS income derives from each category of “industry partner”?
- Why are detailed accounts not publicly available?
Transparency matters.
Where a body works alongside police forces, influences vehicle seizure activity, and participates in national intelligence discussions, clarity about its funding structure is essential for public confidence.
This is not a question of whether NaVCIS performs useful work. It is a question of:
- how it is resourced,
- how incentives are structured,
- and how oversight is exercised.
The Government has confirmed it does not directly fund NaVCIS. That much is clear.
What is not yet clear is the precise nature of the industry funding model, the mechanics of remuneration, and the accountability framework surrounding it.
FOIA requests are ongoing.
In the meantime, Parliament and the public are entitled to specific answers — not general descriptions.