Vehicle Theft

Liz Jarvis Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)]

I will call Liz Jarvis to move the motion; I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and from the Minister. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of vehicle theft.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. Data commissioned by the Liberal Democrats shows that since the start of 2025 115,448 instances of vehicle theft have been recorded across England and Wales. Home Office data shows that vehicle theft has risen by 75% in the past decade. Even accounting for the increased number of cars on our roads, theft rates have risen from 2.71 to 4.42 cases per 1,000 privately owned cars. To put those figures into perspective, that is one vehicle stolen in England and Wales every four minutes. According to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, 357,000 cars and vans have been stolen in the last five years alone.

In 2025-26, Hampshire and Isle of Wight constabulary recorded 2,408 cases of vehicle theft. Although that represents a slight decrease from the year before, when 2,455 cases were recorded, it remains far too many. Local police have told me that vehicle theft is increasing in my constituency. Car theft is not a victimless crime: behind every statistic is a person whose life has been disrupted.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for bringing forward the debate. In 2025, 154 aggravated vehicle-taking offences were recorded across Northern Ireland. Stolen vehicles are often driven dangerously, which places the public and emergency services at risk. In June 2026, a man was charged with attempted murder in Downpatrick after a stolen police car was driven at an officer, leaving him with serious injuries. Does the hon. Lady agree that we must do more to deter individuals from engaging in aggravated vehicle theft, including by having harsher penalties, which are necessary to reduce these offences, thereby protecting the public?

[Liz Jarvis]

The hon. Member makes a good point.

This is also about the human impact of these crimes. I have heard from constituents, including NHS workers who have not been able to get to work or do the school run because their car vanished overnight. In one case, a couple told me that they saw a van pull up outside their property, and then someone get out and simply drive their car away. In April this year two constituents woke up to find that their brand-new car had been stolen while they slept. The insurance payout did not cover the real cost of a like-for-like replacement. The feeling of intrusion was significant for my constituents, whose sense of personal safety and security have been violated by the thoughtless crime that took place just metres from where they slept. The emotional toll was difficult for them both, and being without a car for several weeks was very disruptive: they had to cancel hospital appointments and other commitments, including collecting their grandchildren from school.

For tradespeople, the impact can be even more direct. A van is stolen every 52 minutes in this country, taking with it the tools of someone’s trade and their ability to earn a living. For many of my constituents, there is not always a bus to fall back on. With the 61 bus service cut in late 2025, there is one less option for residents who no longer have a car to rely on. Losing a car to theft leaves people feeling exposed and unsafe in their own homes. Their sense of security, once lost, is hard to win back.

To understand why this crisis is accelerating, we need to look at how these thefts are being carried out. The methods being used today bear little resemblance to the car thefts of a decade ago. The most common method now is relay theft, where criminals used a signal amplifier to capture a key fob signal from inside the owner’s home and then relay it to a device held next to the car. That tricks the vehicle into unlocking and starting without the key being present. Another method is controller area network bus injection, which involves physically accessing the vehicle’s onboard computer through an exposed entry point, using plug-in devices disguised as harmless electronics.

What should concern us most is how accessible this technology has become. These are not improvised tools: devices targeting high-end vehicles can sell for more than £20,000, so there is a serious criminal market built around vehicle theft.

[Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

Vehicle theft across the west midlands has fallen by 13.6% since its peak in 2022-23, which is welcome news for my constituency of Wolverhampton North East, but little consolation for a person whose vehicle has been stolen—it is a devastating experience. Does the hon. Lady agree that the Minister and all of us must continue to work with the police and manufacturers to ensure that vehicles are harder to steal?

[Liz Jarvis]

I absolutely agree. Working with manufacturers is key.

As this technology has advanced, prices have fallen, with cheaper devices including low-cost models from China now appearing in the UK, and yet videos demonstrating exactly how to use those devices remain available online. I urge the Government to press platforms to remove that content. As things stand, we are allowing criminals to access step-by-step instructions on how to steal a car. The scale of the shift is reflected clearly in the data: in 2019 signal manipulation accounted for just 14% of vehicle theft methods, but by 2024 the figure had risen to 58%.

Manufacturers have made real strides in vehicle security. The introduction of electronic engine immobilisers meant that the unauthorised starting of an engine became far more difficult, requiring a key to transmit a unique cryptographic code to the vehicle. However, in 2013 the long-term decline in vehicle theft reversed—a shift that coincided with the introduction of keyless and remote-start vehicles, which introduced a new vulnerability into what had largely been a successful security system.

That is the core of the problem: manufacturers can defend only against threats that they already know about. They are investing to keep up, but criminals are innovating faster than the manufacturers can build. The numbers make this vulnerability hard to ignore. Vehicles between five and 10 years old are the most likely to be stolen, as their fixed security systems cannot be updated to keep pace with current threats, leaving owners exposed to threats their vehicles were never built to withstand.

Some 73% of vehicles stolen between 2024 and 2025 were taken straight from their owner’s driveway or street, so a steering wheel lock or wheel clamp adds a visible physical barrier that can be enough to deter a thief, even if a vehicle’s electronic security has been compromised. Something as simple as parking in a well-lit area can make a difference, given that 80% of vehicle thefts take place between 6 pm and 6 am, with thieves relying on speed and the cover of darkness.

I welcome the provisions in the Crime and Policing Act 2026 to tackle the current technological nature of vehicle theft. For years, criminals have exploited gaps in the law, using signal jammers and relay devices to bypass security systems that drivers, understandably, assumed were protecting their vehicles. By legislating to criminalise the possession, manufacture, sale and supply of these devices, the Act closes that gap. Anyone caught with one now must prove they have a legitimate reason or face up to five years in prison and an unlimited fine.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing the debate. In Northern Ireland in 2023-24, there were 2,393 vehicle thefts, with a population of 1.9 million, which equates to 126 car thefts for every 100,000 people. Does the hon. Member agree that tackling the problem requires a layered approach to vehicle security, with us making vehicles harder to steal, easier to trace and recover, and less attractive to target in the first place?

[Liz Jarvis]

I absolutely agree.

Although the Crime and Policing Act closes one gap, the right to repair allows another to remain wide open. Right to repair legislation exists to stop manufacturers overcharging drivers for repairs, which is a necessary principle designed to protect consumers. However, the practice of providing car owners with detailed insights into how a car’s security systems work is being exploited by criminal gangs, who are using that information to build new theft devices. While the Act starves thieves of one tool, right to repair is handing them the blueprint for the next. Will the Minister commit today to reviewing the connection between right to repair legislation and vehicle security to help combat vehicle theft?

Despite the Crime and Policing Act, the odds remain stacked in the thieves’ favour, with just a 6.7% chance of being caught, and fewer than one in four thefts even investigated. There is a widely held view that vehicle theft has effectively been decriminalised, with the perception that law enforcement has neither the will nor the resources to respond. In fact, Liberal Democrat research has found that police did not even attend the scene in over 70% of car theft cases, reinforcing the sense among many victims that no one is coming.

We are no longer dealing with opportunistic criminals. Organised operations are laundering stolen parts through online marketplaces and are adapting faster than our current systems can respond. This is a sophisticated, technological criminal industry and it requires a response to match. This is not just a regional concern: at a national level, intelligence collection on vehicle theft rests with a single Opal analyst. Does the Minister believe that one analyst is sufficient to build a national picture of an organised, cross-border crime? If not, what is being done to help resource these things properly?

Intense pressure on police force funding has resulted in forces scaling back their vehicle theft investigative units, causing not only a decline in manpower but a loss of officers’ expertise and skillsets, which are not being replaced. The Liberal Democrats have long called for a return to proper community policing to ensure we have a trusted presence in all neighbourhoods, focused on preventing and solving crimes.

In December 2024 the Government announced their neighbourhood policing guarantee, pledging 13,000 more officers in neighbourhood policing roles. However, since that announcement the number of officers has actually fallen. By March this year we had 4,000 fewer frontline officers protecting our streets than the year before. If the Government are serious about this crisis, they need deliver, not promise, more officers on our streets.

Crime reporting is processed primarily through helpline reporting. That has diminished the relationship between local police forces and the communities they serve. We call for a police front desk to be set up in every community to allow people to report crimes and to share information with the police face to face in accessible locations. I am proud to have helped to secure a police station for Eastleigh. More personal contact means that more crimes are properly investigated and more criminals are caught.

Vehicle theft has become an epidemic in this country. It is organised and evolving, and it is being met with a system that has neither the resources nor the co-ordination to keep pace. We have seen through the Crime and Policing Act what good legislation can achieve, but a single loophole is enough to undo that progress. We have seen manufacturers innovate, only to be outpaced by criminals who innovate faster still, and we have seen police forces stretched so thin that catching a car thief has become the exception not the rule. My constituents in Eastleigh deserve better than a 6.7% chance of justice. I hope the Minister will use this debate not simply to acknowledge this crisis but to act on it.

Murder of Henry Nowak

Liz Jarvis Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend speaks powerfully from deep personal and professional experience, and I pay tribute to him. As a constituency Member of Parliament, I have had many concerns about the length of time it sometimes takes the IOPC to report—concerns that I have raised with the IOPC directly since I have been Home Secretary. However, given that the investigation started in December, the criminal investigation and case in relation to the murderer have only just concluded, and the IOPC has said that it expects to report within three months, I believe that this investigation is proceeding at the pace that the House would expect. I am sure that the IOPC is reflecting on the tenor of today’s debate, and will understand the need for urgency and to make sure that the family have answers as quickly as is humanly possible.

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

My thoughts are with Henry Nowak’s family, friends and the local community. The prosecution said that the perpetrator had a “weapons obsession”. It should not have been so easy for somebody with a weapons obsession to amass an arsenal of knives. What is the Minister doing to reduce the availability of dangerous knives on our streets?

[Shabana Mahmood]

The hon. Lady makes a really important point. She will know that we have legislated through the Crime and Policing Act 2026, which became law just a few short weeks ago. The measures within the Act will be implemented at pace by this Government; they relate to the possession of weapons and the buying of weapons—whether online or elsewhere—and there are new duties on sellers of knives to report larger sales or bulk sales. The Government have introduced a broad range of measures to deal with the scourge of knife crime, and those measures have just become law. We will ensure that the law is implemented as quickly as possible, so that we can get on top of this issue.

Police Federation

Liz Jarvis Excerpts

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for Pendle and Clitheroe (Jonathan Hinder) on securing this important debate.

I was contacted by my constituent Dan, who is a serving police officer. He tells me that the current level of support from the Police Federation is, at times, woeful, and that the best alternative support available is often found in informal peer support networks run by volunteers. Dan wants to be represented by an effective body that better serves the interests of its members and provides meaningful support on the issues that affect officers. He has serious reservations about whether the federation is delivering on its core purpose. Dan wants fundamental change to ensure fairness, choice and genuine wellbeing for those who serve.

As we have heard, the Police Federation currently holds a de facto monopoly on representation, leaving officers with little real choice and limited accountability. That situation has been made worse by recent scandals. Dan tells me that those controversies have seriously undermined confidence in the federation. As acknowledged in the policing White Paper, it is vital that police officers have confidence and faith in the institution that represents them. Officers deserve robust support.

I reiterate that the mental health and wellbeing of officers are also major concerns. Police work long, demanding shifts, often with insufficient recovery time. That is not sustainable either for the individuals concerned or for the effectiveness of the service as a whole. There is a clear need for greater support to ensure that officers are able to rest adequately between shifts and for sufficient funding, so that local services can offer proactive mental health and wellbeing check-ups, for example, every six months. Prevention and early intervention are key to maintaining a healthy and resilient workforce.

Police officers are stretched, and they are having to do so much for so little, so I urge the Minister to consider the views of hard-working police officers when considering any reforms. I am sure she will agree that it is imperative that they have an organisation that truly speaks for them, and one in which they can have the utmost confidence.

I conclude by taking this opportunity to thank the police officers and support staff in Eastleigh for their dedication and commitment to our local communities. I am so pleased that, after several years of campaigning, our officers and support staff are going to get a centrally located police station at last. We must ensure that our police are properly resourced, fairly represented and fully supported to carry out their vital work.

Oral Answers to Questions

Liz Jarvis Excerpts

Monday 15th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

Recently, A. C. Models in my constituency was targeted by a series of thefts that cost the owners, Annette and Clive, thousands of pounds, yet the shoplifter was ordered to pay them just £240 in compensation. With retail losses due to theft at record highs, what measures are the Government taking to support small businesses that are preyed on by shoplifters?

[Sarah Jones]

We need to protect retail workers, and we need to do more to tackle shop theft. As I have just outlined, we are doing just that. I am very sorry that the hon. Lady’s constituents have had to suffer this terrible crime. We need to ensure that the message is loud and clear that we will not accept it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Liz Jarvis Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Yvette Cooper)]

On 7 July 2005, terrorists attacked London’s transport network at King’s Cross, Russell Square, Edgware Road, Aldgate and Tavistock Square. Fifty-two people, who were travelling by tube and bus across the capital, never came home. We remember them and the loved ones they left behind, and all those who faced terrible injuries and endured the trauma of that day, and we remember the incredible bravery and courage of those who responded—the emergency service workers and the fellow passengers who saved lives that day. In the words of the King, this was an act of senseless evil, but he also reminds us that we must

“remember the countless stories of extraordinary courage and compassion”

as

“the very best of humanity in the face of the very worst.”

I want to thank not just those who responded that day but those who have continued to work tirelessly in the two decades since against Islamist extremist terrorism, against other increasingly complex terror and national security threats, in counter-terror policing, in the security and intelligence agencies, and on prevention. Most importantly of all, this is about all of us, as we remember how our capital and our country came together across communities and across faiths to ensure that we never let hatred win.

[Liz Jarvis]

I associate myself with the Home Secretary’s remarks. Eastleigh police station was closed in 2019 after 95 years of service. In 2023, the Hampshire police and crime commissioner promised that a new station would be opening within 12 months, but we still do not have one. Does the Secretary of State agree that my constituents deserve a new police station?

[Yvette Cooper]

As the hon. Member will know, decisions about where police stations are located are for the local force, the chief constable and the police and crime commissioner. She will welcome the news that Hampshire is getting 65 additional neighbourhood police officers, who will be out on the beat this year as a result of the Government’s neighbourhood policing guarantee.

Crime and Policing Bill

Liz Jarvis Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 18th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)]

I rise to speak in support of new clause 25, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter). It seeks to repeal the unnecessary and arbitrary police powers introduced via the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which introduced new powers to seize the homes of Gypsy and Traveller families, and to fine, arrest and imprison them. The powers contained in part 4 of the Act have had a devastating impact on Romani Gypsy and Irish Traveller communities, and on a culture that is not only centuries old but protected by law. The Government have a legal and moral duty to facilitate this way of life, not to legislate it out of existence.

As we heard earlier from my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick, in May 2024 the High Court found certain provisions in part 4 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act to be incompatible with the Human Rights Act. The Government have so far failed meaningfully to respond to that, let alone correct it. In issuing the declaration of incompatibility, the High Court recognised the lack of transit provision for Gypsy and Traveller communities across England, and the impact that the Act’s powers have on Gypsy and Traveller families. If there is any doubt in people’s minds about the state of transit provision in England, I refer them to the research published this year by Friends, Families and Travellers, which found that 92% of the 362 local authorities have no transit provision at all.

Notably, the introduction of the powers has an effect on the community’s fears of being targeted and sanctioned. I will share the words of someone from the Romany community who has been directly impacted by these powers, which highlight the human consequences of these laws:

“This law adds to the knock-on effects we face daily with access to healthcare and education; being moved on constantly has been detrimental to my health, as sometimes I have to drive over 100 miles to see a GP. I could be made a criminal and lose my home, all because I have never known any different.”

It is painfully obvious that what we need are not criminal sanctions for families who have nowhere to stop; the answer is, of course, to create laws which ensure there are enough places for people to stop—I might add that the Planning and Infrastructure Bill provides the perfect opportunity for that.

As I stand here today during Gypsy, Roma and Traveller History Month, I urge the Government not to delay further. Let us repeal part 4 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act through this Bill, and take a meaningful step towards justice, inclusion and respect for all communities.

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

I would like to start by paying tribute to Berney Hall, who is in the Gallery today and who has been campaigning for a change in the law to remove the 12-month limitation period for historic cases of rape of 13 to 15-year-old girls, when they occurred before 2004. It can take years for victims of abuse to come forward. Baroness Kennedy of Cradley tabled amendments to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill in the other place which sought to close this loophole, but they were not taken forward by the previous Government. That is why I have tabled new clause 160. I hope the Government will give all survivors of this terrible crime the closure and justice they deserve.

I am supporting several amendments today, including new clause 9 tabled by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion). I recently met a mum from my constituency whose ex-partner was convicted of sexual communication with a child and put on the sex offenders register, but was then allowed to change his name. Understandably, my constituent was horrified to learn that he could take on a new identity, and that other women might not be aware. New clause 9 would stop offenders avoiding monitoring measures that are important for public safety, as well as reassuring victims that perpetrators cannot dodge the repercussions of their actions.

I am also supporting new clauses 85 to 88, new clauses 121 and 122, and new clause 102. In addition, I support new clause 120, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), which would strengthen protections for emergency workers by addressing hate-motivated offences committed against them in private dwellings. No one doing their job to protect others should face abuse. Whether on the street or in someone’s home, hate-fuelled attacks on those who serve the public must be prosecuted with the seriousness they warrant.

Finally, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) for tabling new clause 43, which would ensure the Government implement the Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Act 2023. No one should have to put up with sexual harassment and this change in the law is long overdue.

[Jess Asato (Lowestoft) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to new clauses 102 to 105 in my name. First, I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) for her engagement on the issues I am about to discuss, and I pay tribute to UK Feminista, which runs the all-party parliamentary group on commercial sexual exploitation, to CEASE—the Centre to End All Sexual Exploitation—and to Barnardo’s for its steadfast campaign on tackling violence against women and girls, and the protection of children.

My new clauses reflect the recommendations of the very thorough recent review conducted for the Government by Baroness Gabby Bertin into online pornography. I am so proud that this Labour Government have made a commitment to halve violence against women and girls. I truly believe that regulating violent online pornography, which is viewed by nearly 40% of men once a week in the UK, will make a clear impact on that commitment.

As the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) has already powerfully argued, sexual strangulation is one of the most frequently found acts across all categories on mainstream pornography sites. Despite its dangers, it is portrayed as perfectly safe and a normal part of sex. In a Google search, CEASE found 30 million videos immediately for “choke her” porn. I want to share the story of Hannah, who met her killer, James Morton, on the day she died. Morton

“was reported as being obsessed with strangulation, frequently watching porn featuring strangulation of women. Although the judge said Morton had strangled Hannah ‘without warning or permission’, Morton claimed he began to lightly strangle Hannah…before more forcefully strangling her.”

Women and girls are paying the price of both an industry that seeks to profit from the most violent kinds of content and laws that are not fit for purpose. Despite the clear evidence of a direct connection between viewing strangulation content in mainstream pornography and undertaking such acts, the law requires the removal of this type of pornographic content only if the threshold of “life-threatening” is clearly met. New clause 102 would ban pornographic content depicting all strangulation and, with the requirement in the Online Safety Act 2023 to remove illegal content, would place a duty on platforms to remove strangulation videos or face sanction.

It is clear that we need stronger regulation. Offline, we have been regulating pornographic content since the Video Recordings Act 1984, which specifically prohibits offline content that the British Board of Film Classification would find unsuitable, yet our online regulation has not kept pace.

Of particular concern is content that depicts sexual activity with children. Known as “teen porn” or “incest porn”, this content features young-looking performers made to look under age through use of props such as stuffed toys, lollipops and school uniforms. Such content normalises children as objects of sexual desire and drives the demand for child sexual abuse material. Pornography producers have got around the ban on incest material by promoting porn videos in which there is step-incest. In a society where many of us have blended families, it is simply not right that step-daddy/daughter pornography is legal, no matter whether the actor is over 18 or not. New clause 103 would ensure that what is illegal offline is illegal online.

We must also ensure that all illegal pornographic content is regulated equally online, regardless of where that content is hosted. Duties under the Online Safety Act to combat illegal content apply only to pornography websites that host user-to-user interactions or user-generated content, and pornography websites that host only commercially produced pornography are exempt from illegal duties. We must not allow that to continue. New clause 104 would ensure that all pornography sites must adhere to illegal content duties.

Finally, it is important to remember that the acts of sexual violence I have spoken about today are perpetrated against real women and girls. This is not acting or performing. Women are often forced or coerced into this industry, and, once in it, even the most famous pornography performers are exploited. For example, Kate was trafficked from the UK to the pornography industry in America, where she suffered horrendous abuse and was forced to take part in dangerous and degrading sex acts on film. The consequences of what she endured have stayed with her despite her escaping the industry.

The truth is, there is no way of knowing whether the women who appear in pornography have given their consent, or whether they are even adults. New clause 105 would ensure that pornography websites accessed from the UK must verify the age and consent of every individual featured on their site and, crucially, enable individuals featured in pornography to withdraw their consent to its publication at any time.

I look forward to working with the Government and colleagues across the House to tackle the harmful impacts of this multibillion-pound industry.