Equipment Theft (Prevention) Bill

Debate between Greg Smith and Jane Hunt

Committee stage
Wednesday 1st February 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her support for the Bill, and I entirely agree with her. It is important that we prove the concept of just how effective forensic marking in particular can be and, as soon as is practically and humanly possible, get it rolled out to every piece of equipment that we see being stolen far too frequently across our country.

In my own constituency, we had a spate of break-ins to trades vans where thousands on thousands of pounds of power tools were stolen. That knocks people out from being able to work; it can be days, weeks and sometimes months before they can get back to earning their living. These tools are critical, but it is vital that we prove the concept in negotiation with industry, manufacturers, the police and bodies such as the National Farmers Union and NFU Mutual. That company insures a large proportion of the equipment in this country, starting with quads and all-terrain vehicles. I believe the explicit powers in the Bill to roll it out further at a later date through secondary legislation is the right way to go.

[Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing forward such an excellent Bill. Farmers in Loughborough have explained to me the impact that the theft of their vehicles has on the farming community and business sheerly financially, as well as because they do not have those tools to work. In Loughborough, we also have Peter Booth, who set up the #noVANber campaign. As a plumber, he was sick to death of discovering that his friends were losing their tools from their vans. I urge the Minister to include that in future plans for the Bill.

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her support. I discussed the Bill with her in some depth during its creation, and I am grateful for her input in getting it this far.

Let me briefly explain what each of the clauses is designed to do. Clause 1 provides a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations to restrict the sale of equipment where certain requirements have not been met. The requirements are set out in clause 1(3), including that the equipment is fitted with an immobiliser, a unique identifier and

“a visible indication that it is marked with a unique identifier.”

Clause 1(2)(a) defines machinery to allow the provision to cover all-terrain vehicles such as quad bikes. Clause 1(2)(b) allows regulations to specify

“other equipment designed or adapted primarily for use in agricultural or commercial activities”—

for example, in the construction sector, or tools and equipment used by tradespeople. Clause 1(4) states that the provisions cannot relate to sales of equipment within the supply chain—for example, from a manufacturer to a trader—as the Bill is very much about the point of sale to the end user. I urge the Committee that the clause should stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 provides a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations to specify information to be recorded in connection with the sale—for example, the owner’s contact details and details of the specific forensic marking. At this point, it is important to note that there are many different types of forensic marking in the marketplace. The Bill does not seek to say one is necessarily better than the others—that is for the regulations that will be set out through secondary legislation in conjunction with negotiation with the industry. The regulations may include

“when the information must be recorded”,

how long it must be kept and what form it must be kept in. For example, the regulations may specify that the information must be held in an online database. In practice, I expect the information will be registered on the database maintained by the company whose forensic marking product has been used, rather than some form of new, national database. Clause 2(4) excludes second-hand equipment or sales within the supply chain. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Clause 3 covers enforcement of the legislation in the event of non-compliance. Clause 3(1) creates the offence. A person commits an offence if they sell equipment in breach of the requirements imposed by the regulations made under clause 1 or clause 2.

Equipment Theft (Prevention) Bill

Debate between Greg Smith and Jane Hunt

2nd reading
Friday 2nd December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Before I begin, while I have no direct or technical interest to declare, for the sake of transparency, I should bring the House’s attention to the fact that my in-laws are farmers and that we have agricultural equipment in the family, including quad bikes.

Fighting crime has been a priority for me throughout my political career. Some moons ago, I spent eight years as a councillor in a London borough where I was the portfolio holder for community safety. Working closely with the police, we reduced crime in that borough by a quarter, which showed me that, sometimes, simple ideas can make a huge difference to people’s lives in reducing their chances of being a victim of crime and deterring criminals from committing offences in the first place.

The Bill has been on something of a long and winding road from the base ideas that formed it, including the idea to shut down the resale of stolen power tools on online platforms that formed the basis of my 2021 ten-minute rule Bill, which was born on a community Facebook forum in the town of Buckingham in my constituency. That long and winding road has involved extensive negotiation with industry, insurers, the police, representative bodies such as the National Farmers Union, the Country Land and Business Association, the Countryside Alliance and others as well as, of course, the Government, to get to the plan before us. The framework started with a focus on combating thefts of equipment stolen far too often across rural communities, but is expanded in the Bill, having proven that the concept works on quads, all-terrain vehicles and side-by-sides, to other agricultural equipment such as tractor GPS units and way beyond. I sincerely hope that, once we have proved the Bill’s concept, that expansion can take place not just to further agricultural equipment but to equipment in other trades and industries.

More than 40 years ago, a significant change took place in UK farming, which transformed the way in which many farmers operate. The piece of machinery that precipitated that transformation has now become as synonymous with sheep farming as the sheepdog. That revolution in farming methods was brought about by the introduction of ATVs, which were originally three-wheel motorcycles, but are now most commonly four-wheel quad bikes. By allowing farmers to reach significantly larger geographical areas and previously impenetrable rough terrain, their impact on farming has been considerable. They are now a crucial element of livestock farming. However, the versatility of ATVs has meant that they have also become an essential piece of machinery in moorland management, urban parks and beaches, and even to spray weeds and clear snow off our streets in urban and rural environments alike.

Those machines also play fundamental roles in our military, emergency services, and mountain rescue teams across the country carrying out essential functions. They are not designed for fun—although of course there are leisure uses for them, too—but, like most other motorcycles or off-road vehicles, they really are workhorses for so many. On many farms, particularly around lambing time, they are in near constant use. They not only lighten the load of day-to-day activities but play an essential role in ensuring the wellbeing and protection of livestock, which is fundamental to the livelihood of so many farmers, land managers and their families.

Without all-terrain vehicles, many farms would simply not be able to meet the demands of caring for livestock over large geographic areas, which would have previously necessitated the employment of far larger numbers of people at a greater cost to the farmer and to the viability of the farm. In fact, they are so integral to contemporary farming businesses that many farmers choose to operate multiple ATVs, because being left without a machine in the event of a breakdown or theft is unthinkable.

[Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is an excellent Bill to help to support farming and farming communities at this time? I congratulate him on bringing forward such a Bill.

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what was quite an easy intervention because I am happy to agree with her. The Bill will make a huge difference to farmers and all businesses that use quad bikes as part of their day-to-day operations.

There is a difficult truth, which is why I felt it so important to bring the Bill before the House. The universal trend for all-terrain vehicle thefts in the United Kingdom has amounted to between 800 and 1,100 thefts per year for the last decade. I was informed only this morning that a search on the police national computer shows that we are already up to 800 such reported thefts this year alone, so the trend is not declining.

In the 43 years since their introduction, ATV technology has developed significantly. From the early three-wheel models that had only very basic handlebar controls and had to be kickstarted, modern machines are almost unrecognisable. Today’s ATVs are much more advanced and incorporate features such as four-wheel-drive, tank tracks, cabs, heaters, winches, power steering, electric start buttons and LED lights. Modern ATVs are, in short, infinitely more sophisticated than their predecessors. That is perhaps appropriate, given that they now have a market value of between £7,000 and £20,000, each.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

I absolutely agree. I have worked closely particularly with NFU Mutual in the preparation of this Bill. It is clear that, if these provisions are adopted and the Bill becomes an Act, having new quads and ATVs both immobilised and fitted with forensic marking should—of course, the market will always dictate this, but, in theory—massively bring down insurance premiums. Any slight increase in the cost of the machine to fit the immobiliser and install the forensic marking equipment should be far more than offset by the reduction in the insurance premium.

[Jane Hunt]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the current lack of security and safety measures here is almost a criminal waste of police time? Police still have to deal with the crime, try to identify the perpetrators and so on, yet they are not being helped by the manufacturer of the product.

[Greg Smith]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend’s analysis. The police are having to spend an inordinate amount of time simply trying to identify stolen pieces of equipment, such as a quad bike, if they find them. It is not uncommon for serial numbers or chassis numbers to be ground off, making the stolen items almost unidentifiable as to where they came from and were originally manufactured and who they were stolen from or, indeed, bought by. Some of the provisions I will outline, particularly forensic marking, will go some way to massively cutting that demand on police time, enabling our fantastic police officers across the whole country to more readily identify stolen property and return it to its rightful owners, as well as prosecuting the criminals who stole it in the first place.