Equipment Theft (Prevention) Bill

Debate between Sally-Ann Hart and Ben Everitt

2nd reading
Friday 2nd December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) on bringing this Bill to the House. Equipment and tool theft is a major issue, not just in my beautiful constituency of Hastings and Rye, but across the United Kingdom. The impact of equipment and tool theft should not be underestimated. In an instant, hard-working people’s lives are destroyed by criminals who have no regard for their victims, and it is right that we are discussing this issue today, and I hope that we as lawmakers can make it as difficult as possible for those remorseless criminals to succeed.

Crime in our rural areas causes high levels of anxiety and disruption, and many farmers and rural residents feel vulnerable due to their isolated locations. Sleepless nights are common. We have tool theft in rural areas, and the numbers do not make for pretty reading. Research in 2019 by the Federation of Master Builders estimated that more than three quarters of Britain’s builders have been victims of tool theft, with some having lost more than £20,000 worth of tools in the past 10 years. Of builders who had tools stolen between 2009 and 2019, the most common value of loss was £2,500. One in 10 builders say that they had at least £10,000 worth of tools stolen; 2% said the loss was at least £20,000. Over a 40-year working life, therefore, a builder will typically lose £10,000 worth of tools.

The crime puts a financial burden on roofers, electricians, plumbers, carpenters and builders, but it also has an impact on their mental health. The Federation of Master Builders estimates that 15% of builders suffer from anxiety and 11%—around one in 10—suffer from depression, with some reporting panic attacks and suicidal thoughts.

Equipment theft is also relevant in rural areas such as in beautiful Hastings and Rye, where residents in villages such as East Guldeford, Iden, Camber and Pett all suffer from the theft of garden and farm equipment. The Countryside Alliance’s 2021 rural crime survey revealed that 95% of respondents believed that crime in their community had been significant in the past year, and 70% thought it had increased during the period. Last year, the rate of rural crime in East Sussex cost £500,000, as the insurer NFU Mutual revealed recently; that is a 12% fall from 2020, but there are worries for the future, with the figure rising again towards the end of 2021. In East Sussex, farm vehicles remain a top target, with thieves going after Land Rovers, quad bikes and trailers. Alarmingly, rustling has become more lucrative for criminal gangs. The latest analysis shows that farm animals worth an estimated £2.4 million were stolen in 2021. East Guldeford in my patch is on the west Kent-East Sussex border and has suffered from sheep rustling—it is hard to think that that sort of thing happens in this day and age.

[Ben Everitt]

Is my hon. Friend aware that, in recent years, there have been reports of sheep being not only rustled but butchered in the fields and then taken off to wherever that dodgy meat is sold?

[Sally-Ann Hart]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; that is known to have happened in my constituency as well. Fuel theft is also on the rise. We might not think of sheep or fuel as equipment for farming and rural pursuits, but they are in many ways.

The south-east is the second-worst affected region in England after the midlands. For the sake of clarity, it is worth highlighting that legislation is in place to tackle tool and equipment theft, such as under the Theft Act 1968 and the Consumer Rights Act 2015, but that needs to go further. I agree with the Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham is bringing forward to widen the protection of many people’s livelihoods.

There are many things that people can do to reduce the risk of having their tools stolen. Sussex police set up a rural crime team, because some 62% of the Sussex police area is dedicated to farming and Sussex is defined as a significantly rural area by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Last month, Sussex police had an action day to tackle burglaries in rural areas and visited many farms and small rural businesses. People were given DNA kits to mark their valuable tools, equipment and machinery, as well as CCTV posters and information on using the UK’s national property register. That might be laborious and not always possible for larger equipment, but it is important for people to protect their property.

The Bill intends to prevent the theft and resale of equipment and tools used by tradespeople in agricultural and other businesses. It has much merit and deserves our support. In this period of high inflation, it is simply unfair and cruel that tradespeople and farmers live with the constant fear of having their equipment, which provides them with a livelihood, stolen and sold to others. I am glad that we are having a serious discussion about how to confront the issue and protect hard-working tradespeople and farmers across the country, particularly in my beautiful constituency of Hastings and Rye.

Medical Cannabis (Access) Bill

Debate between Sally-Ann Hart and Ben Everitt

Friday 10th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sally-Ann Hart]

I thank my hon. Friend for that comment. Very often in political debate we are driven by emotion, and that is right, because we have that emotion driving us forward to make change. However, that emotion must be tempered sometimes by evidence. When we are trying to get legislation through Parliament, we all know that there must be a good evidence base for us to work with to drive that legislation through.

In addition to the licensed cannabis-based products, since the change in regulations, doctors on the GMC’s specialist register have been able to prescribe unlicensed cannabis-based products for medicinal use if clinically appropriate for their patients. The law allows GPs to prescribe those products under the direction of a specialist, as part of a shared care arrangement.

If a GP decides to accept ongoing shared care responsibilities and prescribing, they must be competent to exercise their share of clinical responsibility and confident and happy to accept the associated legal and professional responsibilities of doing so. It is right that we put those decisions in the hands of specialist clinicians, those with the best knowledge of all the treatments available for the conditions they are specialist in.

However, the law did not relate to funding those products within the NHS, which is governed by a range of processes and procedures to ensure equitable distribution of funding, prioritising funding for those medicines that have proved their safety, quality, whether they work and their cost-effectiveness. This is where the evidence base is vital.

Currently, almost all cannabis-based products for medicinal use prescribed by specialist doctors are unlicensed medicines, which, unlike licensed medicines, have not undergone rigorous tests for quality, safety and efficacy. They are treatments of last resort, and patients will be at a stage in their treatment pathway where they will be under the care of a specialist doctor who has expert knowledge of their field and of all treatment options and will take responsibility for prescribing. Prescribing is limited to specialist doctors because it is important that that restriction forms part of the checks and balances that the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs asked the Government to put in place when rescheduling cannabis-based products for medicinal use to minimise the risk of misuse and diversion. No matter how much we all want to see a change made, we are all aware that unfortunately there are people out there who would use medical cannabis as an excuse for recreational drug use. We have to avoid that at all costs.

[Ben Everitt]

On specialist prescribers, perhaps the barrier is not just the fact that prescription is limited, but the stigma around it. GPs are reluctant to engage with anything to do with cannabis because they almost feel that they might get professional blowback as a result of prescribing it.

[Sally-Ann Hart]

My hon. Friend raises a very good point. I would add that perhaps the reason why GPs are not forthcoming when it comes to working with specialist doctors is that they want to prescribe medicines that they know have been rigorously tested and to be aware of the possible side effects. We have to be aware that GPs take an oath, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher) said, and part of that oath is that they will not do anything that will damage a patient. If a GP cannot be sure of the side effects or sure that drugs have not been rigorously tested with clinical evidence, they will be less inclined to offer those drugs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sally-Ann Hart]

I would agree with my hon. Friend on the basis that GPs have a lot on at the moment. I know that they are having to get involved in the roll-out of boosters and more vaccinations for covid. Therefore, when doctors in general practice are actually looking after patients, whether face to face or in a telephone conversation, they need to have the certainty, surety and confidence that whatever they are prescribing for their patients has been approved by NICE or whichever organisations are required to approve our medicine prescriptions.

[Ben Everitt]

I am very grateful for my hon. Friend’s generosity, and perhaps this intervention may allow her to pivot to the rest of her speech. We are almost in a chicken and egg situation now, with only three treatments available through the licensing system, but needing to get so many more through. With GPs or prescribers having only those three to choose from and really not trusting all the evidence before them, we need more evidence. This goes back to what my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) said about needing more hard evidence to give the licensing authorities the confidence to push these things through and, crucially, GPs and prescribers the confidence to be able to make the call about whether these things are the right medicines for the right people. Again, as he pointed out, not every treatment is suitable for everybody, and we need to be absolutely clear that we have the evidence to show that the side-effects are minimal for all groups before prescribers make such calls.

[Sally-Ann Hart]

Yes, I absolutely agree with what my hon. Friend says, and I will be coming to the call for evidence a little bit later in my speech—

--- Later in debate ---

[Sally-Ann Hart]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend.

[Ben Everitt]

On that point, broadly, not many of the tricky problems that we deal with in this place are solved by the addition of more Government. Certainly, the danger of undermining NICE and the role of CCGs should not be underestimated. We need to take action to speed up the licensing of drugs as they come through, but I do not think that more Government is the way to do it.

[Sally-Ann Hart]

I agree on that point, and I wholeheartedly agree that we need to take more action to speed up the registering of prescription drugs, particularly if they are cannabis-based and there is an evidential base that they help many people who are in desperate need of that sort of medication.

The legislative changes presented in the Bill will not improve or expedite the development of the evidence required to support routine prescribing and funding on the NHS. I have raised the issue that manufacturing businesses and pharmaceutical companies need to come forward with their products for clinical trial. That is the most important thing.



I welcome the fact that the Government continue to support the establishment of clinical trials with NHS England and the National Institute for Health Research. From 1 April, a national patient registry was introduced to record patient outcomes. We talk about the amount of funding to do this or to do that, but we need closely to examine outcomes, because we need to know whether whatever goes in has a beneficial effect at the other end; that is vital, and we all have to take responsibility to ensure that it happens.

In recent years, there has been a lot of research into how medicinal cannabis can help epilepsy, mainly involving children with rare and serious epilepsy syndrome. Most studies have focused on CBD. The studies suggest that CBD may be an effective treatment for some rare types and hard-to-treat forms of epilepsy. There have been reports of side effects in about one in three people taking CBD, including drowsiness, reduced appetite and fatigue.

Most studies look at cannabis as an additional treatment for those who already take a number of prescribed epilepsy medicines, so it is difficult to tell whether cannabis works when taken on its own, and we have to be honest with ourselves about that. In addition, there do not appear to be any studies comparing medical cannabis with other medicines already licensed for treating epilepsy, so there seems to be no evidence—or not enough evidence—on whether medical cannabis is more or less safe, or more or less effective, than other epilepsy treatments.

[Sally-Ann Hart]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention, but more clinical evidence is required on cannabis-based drugs. It is really important that that clinical evidence is there for everybody to see.

[Ben Everitt]

My point relates to the evidence available for the CBD-related products and therapies to which my hon. Friend has been referring. There is a lack of evidence on the THC end of things. THC is the chemical in cannabis that gets people high, and there has therefore been a reluctance for researchers and so on to look into the evidence base. We need more structured and reliable evidence on medicinal cannabis across the board. As my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich has said in interventions, the evidence needs to be something on which we can rely, so that we can make better policy and push these treatments through the licensing paths quicker.

[Sally-Ann Hart]

I completely agree.

It is a really positive step that the NHS refractory epilepsy specialist clinical advisory service has been established to support clinicians working with patients to optimise the treatment of refractory epilepsy, and that an e-learning model has been developed by Health Education England. This shows what can be done as we move forward.

I have to highlight my concern with some of the arguments surrounding the legalisation of cannabis for medicinal use in the UK, especially those that call for sick people to be permitted to grow their own cannabis under licence. I recognise that the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington mentioned my concern that, if we give permission, we have to be careful that people do not abuse it for recreational purposes. We have to be aware of that. The argument that the continued ban on cannabis is irrational because cannabis works as a medicine for a number of medical conditions indicates that there may well be a push for cannabis to be legalised without any real proof required of safety and effectiveness.