Vehicle Theft

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) for securing the debate. I start by thanking the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead in this area, Assistant Chief Constable Sarah Grahame, and her colleague Oli Fisher, who lead the work nationally on our response to vehicle crime. Vehicle crime soared in the 1970s and 1980s, but there was then a big fall as new technology designed out vehicle theft and vehicle crime. As the hon. Member suggested, it then increased over about the last 10 years, although it has dropped over the last two. That is partly because of some of the disruption the police have been able to do. Ridiculously, issues such as the strait of Hormuz also make a difference, because vehicles are often shipped abroad when they are stolen. Just as global trade is interrupted, global criminals are interrupted when there are big global shifts such as those in Iran. There are multiple reasons, but numbers have gone down over the past two years. At the moment, several bodies are looking at how to solve the problem. There are local police forces; the hon. Member pointed to numbers of police officers, and we are committed to putting 13,000 more police in our neighbourhoods. In her area, there are 88 more full-time neighbourhood officers than when we came to power, on the streets and policing our neighbourhoods in the way she would expect. Large criminal gangs are driving the changing nature of vehicle crime. Cars are stolen, using the technology in the way she explained, and then shipped abroad and sold on. Neighbourhood policing is an important part of the picture, but we need to address large criminal gangs nationally. Some bodies are doing really good work in this area. The National Vehicle Crime Intelligence Service, which is financed by the private sector, does some of the work opening containers at ports, and there is more we can do in that space if cars are stolen and taken abroad. The hon. Member referred to Opal, which is the NPCC intelligence unit, and the National Vehicle Crime Reduction Partnership has been in place for about two years. We in the Home Office give it £1 million, but is funded by the private sector. The fundamental problem with serious organised crime that is not drugs, guns or very high-harm crime is that quite often a car will be stolen in one place and taken somewhere else. It might go to a port or pass through three or four different forces, but because of the nature of the 43 police forces, the system is not joined up. Our reform programme will help with those kinds of serious, specialist crime. When we have a national police service responsible for serious organised crime, which brings together the different national agencies and oversees a more regional structure of policing, with local policing units that are responsible to their local communities at the bottom, that will enable the forces to flex those specialisms more where they need to be. Our organised crime strategy needs to look at drugs and guns and at very high-harm crimes such as people-smuggling, but while car theft is less high harm it has a huge cost. This is a very lucrative business for the criminals, and an expensive business for us. Assistant Chief Constable Sarah Grahame will be able to tell us the annual cost, but it is something in the order of £1.7 billion. We need to look at this centrally, and the reform programme will help to tackle that challenge. At an Interpol conference last year or earlier this year—forgive me, I cannot recall—lots of countries came together to talk about this challenge. Lots of countries have the same problem: Canada, the Netherlands and Japan are net exporters of stolen vehicles. Those vehicles are taken to certain ports in the Democratic Republic of the Congo or the United Arab Emirates, for example, and then sold on to other parts of the world. There are lots of problems with that network. For example, if a car enters Russia there are no checks on who owns it and whether it is stolen or not, so basically as soon as that car gets to Russia, off it goes. Some vehicles are sent into warzones, such as Ukraine, via nearby countries, and the more high-end vehicles are sold on to be used in other countries in the normal way. There is a pattern that we are increasingly understanding, but the question is how we disrupt it. Part of the answer is through the legislation we have introduced, which is a good first step. Some of the kit that criminals use, such as a device that logs into a vehicle, can cost £30,000 to £50,000; these are obviously serious organised criminals who have the money to buy such kit. We now have the legislation, although it has not been enacted yet; we have passed the law, but it has not commenced. Nevertheless, it will make a difference. I noted the hon. Lady’s point about online platforms and the videos on them, and I will take that away. It was not something that I was well aware of, but I will definitely take it away as something to raise with the tech companies, alongside the very long list that we are raising with them of other dangerous things online that should be taken down. How do we work with manufacturers to design out vehicle crime and how do we ensure that the legislation is in place to disrupt vehicle crime as much as possible? In addition, there is a question about ports and how easy it is to get vehicles out of the country, which we need to look at. There is also the international picture and ensuring that we share information with police forces around the world, where we can. There is the central capability that I think we need as part of the national police service to ensure that we treat this crime with the seriousness it deserves. The hon. Lady talked about the impact that vehicle theft has on individuals and communities, and she is right. There are some similarities with the theft of mobile phones and how the police respond to that, which is evolving. For an extended period, more and more people had their phones stolen, with each theft being dealt with by a local police force individually as an individual crime. The Metropolitan police in particular put some of this information together and realised that organised criminal networks were taking these phones, wrapping them in silver foil, putting them on a plane, sending them to China and selling them on from there. We understood the criminal network involved, and the police are now targeting and trying to disrupt them in various ways. There is a similar picture with vehicle theft, and we need to respond to it in a similar way. As I have said, I think the reform programme will help with that. Of course we need to keep looking at new technology, new legislation and other things that we can do. I am very grateful to the police, who are already tackling this challenge, and I am particularly grateful to ACC Sarah Grahame, who is leading this work and pushing us in the Home Office to go further and do more. With the reform programme, we in the Home Office are trying to design a structure that not only enables the police to do their job but enables us to step back and not have to provide small bits of funding for each individual crime type, and instead give the police the resources in the right place to tackle the problem. There is some evidence—not lots, but some—that the criminals stealing cars and sending them abroad also take part in other organised criminality of a more dangerous kind, involving guns and drugs. We need to gather more intelligence on that, but it is often the case that criminals do not stick to one type of crime; they do lots of things all at the same time. There is probably a network of organised criminals we should target who are not only stealing cars and moving them abroad but doing other things that are more high harm. This debate has been a timely conversation on an issue that we in the Home Office are very alive to. We want to enable the police to respond to it. It is part of the changing nature of crime. People see a spate of car thefts in one area because the cars are stolen to order by serious and organised criminals who know what they are doing. They come into an area, they steal the cars there and they move on somewhere else, in part because they know that different police forces will not be joining up with each other, in the way that I described. I thank the hon. Member for Eastleigh again for securing this debate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Sureena Brackenridge) for raising the issues that her constituents are facing. Hopefully, what I have said today will reassure the hon. Lady that we are taking this issue very seriously, and I appreciate all suggestions and ideas as to what more we can do. Question put and agreed to.