Equipment Theft (Prevention) Bill

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 19th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to support the principle behind the Bill. Equipment theft has been an increasing problem, particularly in rural areas, in recent years and is a serious drain on the resources of both farmers and the police. However, I want to raise a couple of specific queries. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, referred in passing to a couple of the issues that I am raising.

First, Clause 1(2)(b) allows regulations to specify

“other equipment designed or adapted primarily for use in agriculture or commercial activities”.

That is an extraordinarily broad statement, especially in contrast with Clause 1(2)(a), which is very specific in defining all-terrain vehicles. It is very unfortunate that the Government’s consultation on whether to extend this Bill, which sounds a very specific Bill, to other equipment was launched only yesterday—although of course I welcome the fact that the consultation has been launched at all. The consultation is about whether to extend the Bill to other

“large agricultural equipment and power tools”,

but that is not what the Bill allows. The Bill does not specify “large”, and I will be interested in the Minister’s definition of what “large” means.

The Bill also extends to equipment related to commercial activities. “Commercial activities” could mean almost anything. It could mean construction, and I think it probably does mean that. It could mean things connected with the leisure industries. There is a broad spectrum of leisure equipment. It could mean things connected with tourism—caravanning, for example. I would welcome specific answers from the Minister about what the Government have in mind here, because there is real concern among trade bodies and other sector representatives at the extent of the potential application. If you are making compulsory the sort of measures this Bill includes to apply to equipment which is rarely stolen, you are adding a considerable additional expense to those who purchase it without giving them the concomitant benefit, so the Government need to clarify their intent.

It is ironic that the Government are backing such a vague clause at the same time as they are avowedly trying to reduce regulations through the Bill to revoke EU law. We could have regulation gone mad here. I think the Government need to be very specific and make it very clear what they wish to apply this to, because it has potential for enormous benefit, but it could also be a real problem and an additional cost for people across a huge spectrum of society.

My second concern is much more specific. The Explanatory Notes refer to the CESAR scheme for identification. Why? There are loads of schemes out there. Clearly there has been no comparative work so far on the effectiveness of different schemes—the Explanatory Notes say so, at paragraph 10:

“The evidence of the impact of forensic marking is less certain, and mainly relates to domestic burglary”.


This refers to a benefit that we are not sure will actually exist.

The consultation gives a valuable opportunity to compare systems. I urge the Government to keep an open mind and draw up a specific scheme only after the conclusions of the consultation. It is important that the Bill is used as an opportunity to future-proof any scheme that the Government decide to adopt. The Bill sounds modest but could be expanded rapidly depending on the interpretation of that small clause.