I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about sentencing for theft in relation to the theft of tools of trade; and for connected purposes.
Over recent years, there has been a sharp increase in the theft of tradespeople’s tools, usually from vehicles. One in 10 tradespeople can expect to have their tools stolen this year, and the same proportion have already experienced three or more such thefts in their career. The impact on an individual or small business from the theft of critical tools goes well beyond the value of the tools themselves. In addition to the average value of stolen tools of about £2,730, repairing damaged vehicles costs about £1,300 and the immediate loss of work and business interruptions amounts to almost £2,000. It is harder to put a value on the longer-term damage suffered as small businesses find themselves unable to honour commitments or complete contracts on time, but 40% of victims report a negative reputational effect, and one in 10 described it as a significant reputational blow to their business and future business.
More than four out of five victims of tool theft report an impact on their mental health and emotional wellbeing, with more than one describing it as major. The construction industry has one of the highest suicide rates in the UK compared with other occupations and professions.
Van Watch, a not-for-profit organisation working in my constituency, has provided much of the research and inspiration for the Bill. It has been campaigning tirelessly to protect tradies from tool thefts from their vans. Van Watch’s research suggests that there is little confidence among the trade community that either the police or the courts are on their side, with over 85% dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with sentencing policy. In another study it found that, in 451 cases of tool theft, less than 10 came to court and less than two resulted in a custodial sentence.
I have heard some really difficult examples from my constituents of the impact of these crimes, and I will share a couple with the House. Calum had just got married and bought his own house. One morning in 2018, he woke up to find the driver’s door and rear door broken on his van. Overnight, someone had taken over £10,000-worth of power tools that he used to run his business. The thieves escaped prison despite having previous offences for similar thefts. He lost more than £10,000 in tools, not to mention the loss in earnings of several days as he scrambled to get a working vehicle and basic tools just to get back to work. It took a toll on its mental health, and he struggled desperately with anger at the apparent lack of justice. Six years later, he tells me that he finally managed to replace all the tools. He also had to size up a garage and pay extra to fit his Transit van in as he does not believe that his van is safe on the road at night.
Pete told me how in the middle of the night he woke up to a drilling sound outside his house. He looked out and saw his van being drilled and his tools being stolen. He confronted the thieves, who did not seem fazed at all at being caught. He feels that the thieves committing these crimes have no fear of repercussions. He called the police, and although the thieves did end up getting caught, they did not go to prison and none of his tools were recovered.
It is simply not practical to empty work vans every single night. People should reasonably expect to be able to keep the tools of their livelihoods in locked and alarmed vans, with them being safe outside their houses and on the streets.
I turn to current sentencing guidelines, which look at culpability rate and harm rate, with culpability defined as a letter—A, B or C—and harm measured on a numerical scale from one to four. Anyone taking a leadership role in crime, coercing others or targeting vulnerable people is likely to get a culpability rating of A, people who are coerced into crime get a culpability rating of C and everyone in the middle gets a B. Harm caused by crime is measured on a four-point scale, with harm category one reserved for high-value stolen goods—over £100,000 —category two covering theft between £10,000 and £100,000 and category three covering thefts between £500 and £10,000.
When considering the sentence, the magistrate refers to a chart in the guidelines to find the appropriate sentence. For example, if the culpability rating is B and the value of the stolen goods is £5,000, that would be a category three offence. The sentence can range from a low-level community service order to 36 weeks’ custody. In addition, the guidance gives a starting point; in this example, that would be a higher-level community service order. The maximum sentence for theft is seven years in prison. However, for a category three offence with a medium, B culpability rating, the sentencing guidelines tend to direct courts towards a much lesser, non-custodial sentence. How do we reform that and ensure that tradespeople have justice?
If the courts had a better understanding of the impact of tool theft on individuals and small businesses, the system would deal with the crime in a much more just way. In the Bill, I propose the following reforms. First, there is a provision for the harm category to be uprated to the next higher category if there is evidence of significant additional harm to the victim or others. The sentencing guidelines give examples of what might constitute significant additional harm. Theft of tools of trade would be added to the list of those examples, to prompt magistrates to consider applying category two for greater harm, instead of the usual category three.
Secondly, there is a lack of clarity about how to calculate monetary values in order to determine the category. In one section, the guidance refers to financial loss; in another, it refers to the value of stolen goods. In the case of tool theft from vehicles, there is often a big difference between the value of the stolen tools and the total financial loss, including repairs to the van, loss of work and business interruptions. On average, the latter cost more than replacing the tools does. The wording should be standardised as “financial losses”, so that more tool thefts would fall into category two.
Finally, a crime with a medium culpability rate of B and category two for harm would result in a sentence ranging from six months to two years in prison, with the starting point being one year in prison, rather than a community order. Those reforms would make it more likely that tool theft would lead to a custodial sentence, strengthening the deterrent and leading to a potential reduction in this crime.
I thank Ray and Van Watch for their considerable and thorough research, which has contributed significantly to the shaping of the Bill, and their unwavering support. I also thank Jambu, the chief executive officer of Checkatrade, the home improvement platform based in Portsmouth North that is backing the Bill on behalf of the 100,000 tradespeople and 500,000 small businesses on its platform.
I would welcome Members of the House sharing this campaign with trade groups and small businesses across the country, so that they can join us in backing the Bill. Tradies are the backbone of our country and our small business economy. They deserve to operate their businesses free from the constant threat of crime. Reforming the sentencing guidelines and tackling the theft of tools of the trade is not just a matter of justice; it is about recognising the essential role that tradespeople play every day in our economy. Increasing the penalties for tool theft would send a clear message that these crimes will no longer be tolerated.
We must afford tradespeople greater protection in the justice system. I ask the House to back my Bill and stand up for workers in the trade sector, whom we rely on, and who work hard every day to build, repair and serve our communities.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Amanda Martin, Ms Stella Creasy, Margaret Mullane, Mrs Sharon Hodgson, Jodie Gosling, Dr Allison Gardner, Laurence Turner, Shaun Davies, Gurinder Singh Josan, Darren Paffey, Chris Bloore and Mark Ferguson present the Bill.
Amanda Martin accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 April 2025, and to be printed (Bill 143).