Call for evidence outcome

Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act: summary of call for evidence responses and conclusion

Updated 17 October 2025

Ministerial foreword

Rural crime can have devastating consequences for countryside communities.

The government is determined to take action so that rural communities are safeguarded, with tougher measures to clamp down on anti-social behaviour, strengthened neighbourhood policing and stronger measures to prevent farm theft and fly-tipping.

We recognise the enormous impact on those who have machinery and equipment stolen, especially those who rely upon it to earn a living. We need the most effective technology to be rolled out and fitted as standard to drive down these thefts and act as a deterrent against rural crime.

The NFU Mutual Rural Crime Report 2025 states that in 2024 the theft of quad bikes and All-Terrain Vehicles (ATVs) in the UK that were reported to NFU Mutual, cost £2.7 million. The cost of GPS theft was an estimated £1.2 million.

An estimated 900 - 1200 quad bikes and ATVs are stolen in England and Wales each year. They are desirable to steal, and, because of the lack of security features, vulnerable to theft. The fitting of immobilisers and applying forensic markings as standard is inexpensive and readily available – yet despite significant technological advancements made across the ATV market - the inclusion of basic security features on machines remains outstanding.

We supported the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act when in opposition, as a way to put measures in place to help prevent these increasing thefts of ATVs. The introduction of immobilisers and forensic marking as standard would help prevent them being stolen. Importantly, it would also make it harder for criminals to sell-on stolen valuable property, acting as a strong deterrent.

As the Bill passed through Parliament, there were calls to extend its scope. The National Police Chiefs’ Council and the National Farmers Union were keen to see the legislation extended to larger agricultural equipment. Additionally, there were calls from groups representing tradespeople such as builders, plumbers, and electricians to introduce a requirement for forensic marking of power tools, to prevent theft and re-sale.

To that end, the then government published a Call for Evidence on 18 May 2023, seeking views on these detailed and additional matters from those who may be affected by the proposals should they become legislation, including manufacturers, dealers, retailers, tradespeople, and law enforcement practitioners. Subsequent engagement with the sector also took place to fully understand the impacts of the proposals. I am grateful to all of those who contributed.

The Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act gained Royal Assent on 20 July 2023, which then gave the Home Secretary the power to make regulations from 20 January 2024. Proposed regulations are then subject to Parliamentary debate. The Act will not come into effect until the necessary secondary legislation commences.

I inherited this Act from my predecessor, and I am committed to its implementation and bringing forward the secondary legislation to enact. I recognise the regulations require careful consideration to ensure the technical detail is correct. We need to ensure regulations are practical and operationally workable, do not drive-up costs or place disproportionate burdens on manufacturers and retailers.

This document sets out the results of the consultation process and what the government intends to do next. This legislation shows just what can be achieved by government, law enforcement and industry when we work together, and I look forward to seeing the proposed measures helping to tackle crime that blights our rural communities and protecting hard-working people from theft.

Sarah Jones MP
Minister of State for Policing and Crime

Executive summary

1. The Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023 seeks to prevent the theft of All-Terrain Vehicles (ATVs), such as quad bikes. It provides the Secretary of State with the power to make regulations to ensure, prior to sale, that immobilisers are fitted as standard to all new ATVs and there is a visible marking and forensic marking applied on all such new vehicles. The seller will also be required to record the buyer’s details for a period to be determined in regulations. This will assist police to identify the owner of a recovered stolen ATV.

2. The Act provides a power for the Secretary of State to extend the legislation via secondary legislation to other equipment designed or adapted primarily for use in agricultural or commercial activities. This could include, for example, requiring forensic marking of tradespeople’s power tools.

3. The legislation applies in England and Wales only. Under the market access principles of the UK Internal Market Act 2020 (UKIM Act), vehicles and equipment can continue to be sold by sellers in Scotland and Northern Ireland to customers in England and Wales without immobilisers and forensic marking. However, there have been calls to replicate the Act from MSPs in Scotland and MPs in Northern Ireland.

4. On 18 May 2023, the Home Office launched an eight-week Call for Evidence, targeted at those who may be affected by the proposals should they become legislation, including manufacturers, dealers, retailers, forensic marking companies, trade associations, tradespeople, and law enforcement practitioners.

5. We made use of a number of different means to encourage as many people as possible to make their views known. We also wrote to organisations directly inviting them to give their views, providing the web link to the Call for Evidence survey. The link was also promoted via email to other government departments, trade associations and law enforcement agencies to distribute further to their members or interested parties.

6. The consultation asked for views on the following measures:

• Definition of ATVs and agricultural equipment
• Whether removable Global Positioning Systems (GPS) should be required to be forensically marked
• The Recommended Retail Price (RRP) threshold for requiring hand-held power tools to be forensically marked and registered on a database prior to sale
• The specifications of immobiliser, and any implications for vehicle type approval
• The specifications for forensic marking; and
• The specifications for registration on databases.

7. The total number of responses was 218. Not all respondents answered all questions.

8. Individuals and organisations could respond to the consultation either via an online survey through GOV.UK, via email to a dedicated email address or by post. Of the 218 responses, 190 were received via the online survey and 28 via email to the dedicated address.

9. The government has analysed the responses, which are summarised in this document. We are grateful to those who took the time to respond, and we have carefully considered the views and evidence provided. The responses have informed the measures which we are proposing:  the government will seek to introduce the following regulations to Parliament this year:

• Forensic marking to be applied to all new ATVs and for the details to be registered on a property database
• Additionally forensic marking applied to all new GPS units for use in agricultural and commercial settings and for the details to be registered on a property database

We are eager to move forward and implement the necessary regulations this year. The requirements for these measures will be set out within secondary legislation made under the Act. The secondary legislation will set out the detail around the types of permitted forensic marking, and the defined ATV. The property database will need to meet certain criteria, such as being accessible 24/7 by police officers.

Due to concerns about the compatibility of the requirement to fit an immobiliser with existing Type Approval regulations, designed to ensure the safety of vehicles, we will not be including the fitting of immobilisers to new ATVs at this time. We will continue to explore options for mandating the fitting of immobilisers, while ensuring the legislation does not have an adverse impact on safety.

We will not be including other large agricultural machinery within the regulations at this time. Should the Act become effective in tackling rural theft, the legislation can be widened in the future by including other large agricultural machinery in a further tranche of regulations. Other large agricultural machinery that are at risk of theft can then be properly defined for the purposes of legislation.

Call for Evidence responses

Proposal A: A requirement for agricultural machinery to be fitted with immobilisers, forensically marked, and registered on a database. A requirement for removable GPS trackers to be forensically marked and registered on a database

This proposal gave the definition of the agricultural machinery to be covered in the legislation as being “Mechanically propelled machinery designed or adapted primarily for use in agricultural activities; designed or adapted primarily for use other than on a road”. The legal definition for an All-Terrain Vehicle (ATV) for the purposes of this legislation can be found at Section 2(a) of the Act and is as follows:

2(a) mechanically propelled vehicles that—

(i) are designed or adapted primarily for use other than on a road,

(ii) have an engine capacity of at least 250 cubic centimetres or two kilowatts,

and

(iii) travel on more than two wheels or on tracks.

Question 1: “Is there any further detail that needs to be added to the legal definition of an ATV as described above and at Clause 2(a) of the Bill^{[footnote 1]}, to avoid capturing vehicles that are not intended to be covered by this legislation?” 

We received a total of 114 responses to this question and gave respondents a free text box to provide any answer.

Many comments received stated the definition was too broad and could capture other machinery used in non-agricultural industries. It was commented that the definition in Section 2(a) is too wide and relies on a yet undetermined definition of agricultural machinery to limit the scope. Many pieces of non-road mobile machinery (NRMM) can be used in an agricultural setting and could, therefore be included in the scope according to the definition proposed in clause 2(a).

It was commented that while the term ATV stands for ‘all-terrain vehicle’, the definition proposed would capture most NRMM irrespective of the terrain it is intended to operate over - for example, industrial trucks, such as forklifts and warehouse trucks, that weren’t intended for inclusion in the legislation as originally drafted. Other comments asked expressly to exclude horticultural machinery such as lawnmowers and high grass mowers.

It was noted that earth moving equipment used on construction and agricultural sites may be captured by Section 2(a). An upper weight limit and an upper power/engine capacity limit could be included within the definition to assist with this.

Many commented that the definition worked as it stood. It is quite concise and there were suggestions to use additional defining factors:

• Has a minimum and maximum kerb weight - but with the advent of electrically powered ATVs - a minimum and maximum weight limit could potentially be problematic, unless there was a differing weight variation specified dependent on the propulsion system fitted.
• Is designed to travel on a minimum of three low-pressure tyres or is fully or partially tracked.
• Has a seat designed to be used and straddled by a single operator, or a single operator and passenger.
• Has handlebars for steering control.
• Has a minimum of three wheels or is fully or partially tracked.
• Having a primary role of being a device for transporting persons / goods with a gross vehicle mass of less than 2000kg.
• Has a minimum value of £10,000.
• Excludes anything mechanically propelled with a maximum travel speed less than 20km/h.

There were other suggestions that the definition should clearly state ‘two wheels or more’ since hill farmers use motocross scramblers. It was also suggested clarity was needed around quads/ATVs for agricultural use and for that intended use they cannot carry more than one person.

It was also commented that to allow for electric vehicles in the future, detail should be added to include an engine power output and suggestions that the Act should be extended to cover similar vehicles used in the construction industry.

Government response

The legislation will need to provide a clear definition of an ATV – which are often colloquially referred to as quad bikes - to ensure it is legally robust. Section 2(a) provides a basic definition of an ATV; however, this definition will need to be added to the regulations to make it clear, so it does not conflict with other existing regulations or captures any other unintended vehicles. We will continue to work with industry experts to ensure the definition of an ATV is fit for purpose.

Question 2: What are the fundamental features of an ATV that distinguish it from other types of vehicles?

We received 112 responses to this question and gave respondents a free text box to provide any answer.  Responses included:

• Engine size, off-road capabilities, load carrying capabilities
• 4x4 capability
• Has four wheels
• Built for off road use but can be road legal in certain models
• For carrying agricultural equipment or livestock in purpose-built trailers
• Low pressure tyres
• Has a staddle seating position and steered by handlebars
• Self-propelled and operator controlled
• Primarily intended to travel on unpaved surfaces
• Single person use
• Features which are prescribed in BS EN 15997 (excluding internal combustion engines)

Government response

The government will ensure the correct features of an ATV are included within the regulations. Following the published Call for Evidence additional discussions were held with representatives of industry, including the Agricultural Engineers Association (AEA) and the Construction Equipment Association (CEA) and we will continue to work with them to ensure the detail in the Acts regulations is correct.

Question 3: “Mechanically propelled machinery designed or adapted primarily for use in agricultural activities; designed or adapted primarily for use other than on a road” will be required to be fitted with an immobiliser, forensically marked and registered on a database. Does this definition capture the machinery we aim to protect, without inadvertently capturing machinery it would not be appropriate to include?

We received 145 responses to this question and gave respondents a free text box to provide any answer.

Comments received stated the definition does not make a distinction between ATVs designed for agricultural activities and those for recreational purposes. Respondents provided suggestions on what the definition should also include, such as other off-road vehicles like ride on mowing equipment used by landscaping contractors. There were also suggestions the definition should include electric motorbikes and all off road bikes, as thefts of these were on the increase. Some respondents commented the definition was too broad and it would be beneficial to have a shorter, but more specific, definition. Concerns were raised that the current definition would encapsulate forager harvesters, combine harvesters, grape harvesters, self-propelled lime spreaders and self-propelled sprayers. There was also a suggestion the definition does not differentiate between a small agricultural tractor used on a farm or the same tractor if it were used on a golf course. These types of machinery are designed for use in agriculture, but often used in many other industries, for example in landscaping, grounds maintenance and by local authorities.

Other comments stated the definition should include ‘used for an industrial or commercial purpose’ and would remove leisure items unless specifically required. The current definition would not include woodchippers as these are usually towed vehicles, not self-propelled.

Question 4: Does the definition need to specify any exemptions? For example, are there any vehicles or equipment that would meet the definition but that are not vulnerable to theft and therefore do not need to be covered?

We received 103 responses to this question and gave respondents a free text box to provide any answer.

Those who responded ‘yes’ were mainly referring to other agricultural vehicles that they did not believe were frequently stolen, such as harvesting rigs, combine harvesters, sprayers and large excavators. These types of machinery are challenging to steal due to their sheer mass, which also makes them difficult to hide when attempting to prevent recovery. Also mentioned were side by side vehicles used in horticulture/equestrian/holiday parks/shopping malls that would be affected by this legislation. It was suggested the definition would be better if it included items to be covered rather than what is not covered since the list of non-coverage would be too long.

Government response to questions 3 and 4  

The government’s view is that side by sides are ATVs and are defined as such within the Act. We intend to include these types of vehicles in the legislation, regardless of what they are to be used for.

The government wants to protect all ATVs designed for use in agriculture or commercial activities from theft, even if it is being used for a different purpose. Therefore, the legislation will not distinguish between ATV’s used for agricultural, recreational or any other purpose. ATVs owned for leisure use are stolen less frequently, because they are less likely to be left unattended. All ATV owners will benefit from these additional security measures no matter what the predominant use of the machine is.

The government has considered including the fitting of immobilisers and the property marking, for example, the forensic marking of other large agricultural machinery within the Acts regulations. Many respondents to the Call for Evidence concluded other large agricultural machinery should not be included as the range of equipment is vast. There is a delicate balance to be struck between costs to businesses and achievability, and we do not intend to include other large agricultural machinery at this time.

Question 5: Should the definition of machinery also include a Recommended Retail Price (RRP) threshold, above which the legislation will apply? Yes / No. If yes, a) £5,000; b) £10,000; or c) other (please specify). Please provide reasons for your answer

In total we received 127 responses to this question. 21 responses favoured a £5,000 threshold. Comments in favour of this threshold felt it would capture most targeted vehicles, and there is a lower risk of theft for items below this price point.

90 respondents shared the view there should be no recommended retail price.

Respondents who answered no to this question provided more in-depth details for their answer. Comments provided the following suggestions:

• RRP does not reflect the likelihood of theft e.g., a £5,000 ATV is very desirable, a £5,000 tractor is not.
• The price may change over a short period of time. It would not be reasonable to include a price unless the legislation is to be changed accordingly.
• Prices are arbitrary. Setting a price-based threshold will only distort the market for products close or either side of the threshold.
• The marking of most machinery will have financial implications for owners and businesses.

Government response

The intention of this question was to see if using an RRP threshold could be helpful in defining larger machinery. From the answers received, we have ascertained that using an RRP threshold is not a useful way to distinguish. However, as stated above, the government will not be including other large agricultural machinery within the Act’s regulations at this time.

Question 6: Are you in favour of a requirement for Global Positioning Service (GPS) used on agricultural machinery to be forensically marked and registered on a database? Please provide reasons for your answer

In total 160 responses were received. 129 respondents answered, ‘yes’ and 31 answered ‘no’. Those who responded in favour cited the advantages it would bring such as acting as a theft deterrent and allowing for easier recovery and return if located or seized by police. Further comments included that busy harvest seasons have been disrupted by thefts of essential GPS technology, impacting the farm business and potentially food security and were therefore in favour of this requirement to protect the farming industry.

Comments were made in support of the requirements only applying to GPS units that are easily removable and that the regulations should be limited to cases where the receiver is visible from the outside of the vehicle/machine when it is not in operation.

Those who weren’t in favour commented there were better options available, such as a system linked to software that can be turned off remotely - therefore disabling the system. Some questioned if property marking, for example forensic markings, have any significant impacts on theft levels. Concerns were raised whether there is any potential for interference between radio frequency identification (RFID) or near field communication (NFC) tags and the GPS receiver. It was raised that depending on what parts of the GPS unit were to be property marked, testing may be required to ensure the positioning of any RFID/NFC tags or similar can be made without negatively affecting performance​.

Further comments of note were that many GPS devices are sold separately from machinery (after-market systems), and these are not necessarily designed specifically to be fitted to agricultural equipment. Without including such systems in scope of any regulations, at least where they are to be fitted to an agricultural machine or vehicle, any reduction in theft levels would be limited and manufacturers of after-market systems would be at an unfair competitive advantage.

Government response

We recognise that GPS units are a vital piece of equipment to farming and when stolen can cause disruption to harvest and cultivation work. The NFU Mutual Report 2025 reported that the cost of GPS theft was an estimated £1.2 million in 2024.

Following further consultation with stakeholders, we propose to include removable GPS units – those where the receiver is visible from the outside of the vehicle/machine when it is not in operation - within the regulations. We recognise there are a host of complexities around different types of GPS. Therefore, we propose to exclude any systems which are integrated into the cab or located on parts of the machine/vehicle which are not readily accessible, since these systems are much less vulnerable to theft. We will continue to consult industry and assess which exact parts of the GPS unit would require marking.

Further consultation with industry also suggested we may want to avoid using the term ‘GPS’, as the more generic term is “Global Navigation Satellite Systems”. We will ensure the correct terminology is used within the regulations.

Proposal B: A requirement to forensically mark hand-held power tools

Question 7: Where do you think the threshold should be set to require hand-held power tools to be forensically marked and registered on a database prior to sale? a) £250; b) £500; or c) £750 d) other (please specify). Please provide reasons for your answer

We received a total of 165 responses to this question. 55 respondents were in favour of a £250 threshold, 28 respondents in favour of a £500 threshold, 10 respondents in favour of £750 threshold and 72 respondents gave other answers.

Comments in favour of the £250 threshold included:

• This price point differentiates between a DIY device and an industrial tool
• Tools marked at this price point should capture the majority of corporate and Small Medium Enterprise tools most frequently stolen from sites and farms
• Tools for professional use tend to be higher specification and more expensive that normal ‘domestic use’.

Comments in favour of the £500 threshold included:

• This price point would cover most professional tools and generally excludes tools used in DIY
• The associated costs of marking items below this price would not be cost-effective

Comments in favour of the £750 threshold included:

• Even domestic users now pay for quality
• This threshold amount is realistic for insurers to be onboard with
• Marking a tool lower than this value is logistically problematic

Other answers included:

• Tradespeople are more likely to be impacted by overall cost of tools stolen rather than the value of any individual tool
• The indirect costs are more important – for example, the hours of not being able to work and lost revenue.

Other concerns were raised around the lack of definition of a ‘power tool’, that the proposed threshold prices are arbitrary, i.e., would the prices proposed include or exclude VAT. Some power tools are sold on their own while others include separate components and/or accessories. It was suggested there would need to be clear detail on what the marking would be, and where and how a tool should be registered. Furthermore, concerns were raised around who would be responsible for applying the marking to the item.

Concerns were also raised about the multiple ways in which tools are sold and the constraints that some of those sellers would have, for example, non-servicing dealers, builders’ merchants and trade shops that are mainly collection hubs so would have no staff or the facilities to mark.  

Responses to the Call for Evidence raised practical problems with implementing property marking, for example the forensic marking of tools with the main concern being that retailers should not have the burden of being responsible for marking tools and many do not have the resources to be able to do so. Specifically, concerns were raised around practicalities: logistics, complexity, cost and time for sellers in unboxing, applying forensic marks and entering purchasers’ details into a database.

Government response

We acknowledge those issues raised by industry would create additional burdens to retailers.

Separate to the work done in developing this legislation, there has been ongoing work to help tackle the theft of tools that will not be covered by this legislation. The Home Office has been working with the police to understand where and how tools are sold and are examining ways to ensure tools are identifiable and traceable. The Home Office has also been working with Combined Industries Theft Solutions (CITS) and the police-led National Business Crime Centre to take appropriate marking and registration steps which can be used by individuals, businesses, and manufacturers.  

The intention of the legislation is to prevent the theft of equipment designed for commercial use. However, distinguishing tools designed for professional tradespeople and those used for DIY purposes is not practical. A recommended retail price (RRP) threshold was suggested as it would be too complex to define different types of hand-held power tools in legislation any other way. Using an RRP was deemed to be a practical way to define the scope of what is covered by the legislation.

We recognise the devastating impact theft of tools can have for tradespeople. It is the view of the government there are more effective ways of tackling tool theft and the re-sale of stolen tools rather than legislating via this Act. Introducing legislation to mark high-value tradespeople’s tools would not solve the issue of tradespeople’s vans being broken into and wiped out so they are left unable to work.

All retailers, be it national chains or small independent shops, selling the defined power tools would be required to comply with the legislation – therefore always having a trained person to property mark available – which, especially for those small businesses, would be impractical. Furthermore, with a good proportion of tools being brought online, dispatched via heavily automated distribution centres, costly changes would be required as these are not set up to provide marking/registration before dispatch and do not have an interaction with a ‘salesperson’.

In addition, the economic impact assessment findings indicate that the total cost to business would be disproportionate to the benefits of implementing this proposal.

For all the above reasons, we will not include tools in the secondary legislation. However, we recognise the significant impact theft of tools can have for tradespeople. We will be considering alternative ways to help prevent and tackle the theft of power tools.

Proposal C: The specifications for immobilisers and forensic marking and the functionality of the databases

We proposed the specifications must be for an electronic immobiliser, which has the following functions and features:

• A permanently installed system – the whole immobiliser is permanently and securely fixed to the vehicle.
• The main source of power for the immobiliser must be the vehicle’s battery.
• It must be passively set. Setting of the immobilisation function may be achieved by the ignition being off; or the ignition key being out of the ignition. Setting of the immobilisation function should be achieved within 60 seconds of the ignition being off and/or the ignition key being out of the ignition. In addition, the setting of the immobiliser may be achieved by a deliberate action or actions by the user.
• The immobiliser should be unset by the application of a coded signal or key to the system; it must not be possible to unset the immobiliser without the specific coded signal or key. This must not be a universal or generic code or key.
• The immobiliser must isolate or block a minimum of two operating circuits or systems; this may be two or more of the following: fuel supply, ignition, starter, engine management system, fuel pump assembly, or fuel cut-off solenoid; or a minimum of one control unit with coded intervention. If only one control unit with coded intervention is used, the control unit cannot be the starter motor, because this would enable the vehicle to be pushed and/or bump-started.
• The immobiliser must be concealed from view and accessible only by the removal of an access panel or trim panel which should require tools to access.
• The user/owner of the vehicle should have no facility directly to change or override the functionality or performance of the immobiliser system. In particular, it should not be possible for the user/owner to permanently isolate detectors or change the immobilisation function.
• The immobiliser should be visibly marked with the following information, which should not be visible from the outside of the vehicle:
  • The manufacturer’s name or trademark
  • The model number or name
  • The serial number or batch number or date of manufacture.

Question 8: Manufacturers/dealers: does this cover the appropriate requirements for an immobiliser? Yes / No / to some extent. If no / to some extent, please provide further detail

We received 124 responses to this question. 84 responded yes and 40 responded no or to some extent.

Those that responded no or to some extent stated that legislation should be technologically neutral and manufacturers should be permitted to develop solutions appropriate to their application and technology.

Further comments received were around the fitting of immobilisers at the dealership adding additional costings to the customer. Also, it was commented that mandating the fitting of an immobiliser as part of the vehicle specification would mean regulatory divergence for England and Wales, and therefore, could lead to manufacturers withdrawing products for English and Welsh customers.

Question 9: Manufacturers/dealers: Are there any features/functions missing from the list, or any on the list that are not needed? Do these requirements in relation to immobilisers expect you to do something which will be extremely difficult or will cause an increased burden as a result?

We received 85 responses to this question. The list that was provided in the Call for Evidence was based on Thatcham^{[footnote 2]} standards. Some of the further comments we received were that immobilisers should be fitted by the manufacturer at the time of build, otherwise it is not needed. It was also commented that this list was based on after-market fitted immobilisers and therefore doesn’t capture ones that might be fitted by the manufacturer.

Government response to questions 8 and 9

We acknowledge the issues raised by industry around the fitting of immobilisers. We have explored at length solutions to resolve this issue, including with the Department for Transport. As such we will not be including the fitting of immobilisers to new ATVs in the regulations at this time.

However, the government is committed to working with industry to explore including immobilisers at a later date. All stakeholders engaged on the development of this Act agreed that Thatcham standards would be the minimum standard required for immobilisers if fitted. We will continue to work with our engaged stakeholders to ensure the requirements in relation to immobilisers are correctly reflected in any future regulations. Furthermore, the legislation will not endorse any particular product, product line or service – simply an expected standard. The regulations will be drafted in a way that will allow for innovations in technology.

Question 10: Dealers/manufacturers/retailers: do you foresee that installing the immobiliser will present any problems for the type approval already granted for the vehicle? Yes / No. If yes, what are these and how can they be overcome?

We received 100 responses to this question.

Before being placed on the market and registered for use on the road, vehicles, including ATVs, require Type Approval. This is a process used to test the roadworthiness of a vehicle and to demonstrate it complies with the relevant technical standards. Type Approval is generally secured by the manufacturer, prior to being released to the dealer.

Many respondents were concerned that by placing a responsibility on the dealer to retrofit an immobiliser system, therefore making modifications to the Type Approved vehicle before it enters into service, would invalidate the existing Type Approval preventing the legal sale of the vehicle. The responsibility for the Type Approval would then automatically pass to the dealer who made the modification and who would then be responsible for seeking a new vehicle Type Approval at a significant cost.

There were many concerns raised that by retrospectively fitting an immobiliser, if done incorrectly, could compromise the vehicles safety systems.

Government response

The Home Office, which carried out this Call for Evidence, has worked with the Department for Transport which has responsibility for Type Approval policy and the corresponding legislation.

The government acknowledges that the fitting of an immobiliser to comply with the requirements of the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act must not affect the responsibilities of the manufacturer or the other responsible person under the Type Approval process. We are aware that alterations – in this case the fitting of an immobiliser by a dealer – to approved parts or systems of the vehicle before its entry into service or registration could invalidate the ATVs type approval certification.  

Due to these concerns, we will not be including the fitting of immobilisers in the secondary legislation at this time.

We will continue to explore a solution with the Department for Transport and also explore alternative options.

The government recognises the potential implication this proposal could have on manufacturing processes, and we will continue to engage with industry fully to understand and mitigate any impacts of this future legislation.

Question 11: Dealers/manufacturers/retailers: do you foresee that installing the immobiliser will present any problems for your responsibilities under the Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 2008 and/or the manufacturer’s responsibilities under the Electromagnetic Compatibility Regulations 2016. Please answer Yes / No. If yes, what are these and how can they be overcome?

We received 100 responses to this question. 78 responded yes and 22 responded no. Those responding yes commented that this should be manufacturer installed not dealer led. The same concerns were raised, as with Type Approval highlighted above, that if a dealer fits an immobiliser to a machine, it takes on the obligations of a manufacturer, takes the responsibility away from the manufacturer and may not be completed to a consistent standard.

It was commented that problems would only be overcome by obtaining manufacturer approval prior to immobiliser fitting if dealers are completing the process. However, responses from manufacturers were that if the immobiliser was fitted during production, the likely scenario was that the manufacturing company would only be able to offer a reduced range of products that meet with these specific requirements – which would only apply to the England and Wales markets – significantly reducing consumer choice.

Government response

The Home Office, which carried out this Call for Evidence, worked with the Department for Business and Trade which has responsibility for the Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 2008 and the Electromagnetic Compatibility Regulations 2016.

The government acknowledges that the fitting of an immobiliser to comply with the requirements of the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act must not affect the responsibilities of the manufacturer or the other responsible person under the Electromagnetic Compatibility Regulations 2016 and the Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 2008.

However, as previously stated the government will not be including other large agricultural machinery within the Act’s secondary legislation at this time, so will not be pursuing any further engagement on this issue.

Question 12: Manufacturers/dealers/retailers: does this cover the appropriate requirements/features of forensic markings?

We asked respondents if ATVs and other agricultural equipment subject to this legislation must be overtly marked using a visible security label and forensically marked using a minimum of two of the techniques set out in Column A of the table below.

The techniques used should comply with the standards listed in Column B. Visible security labels must also meet the standard of Section 6.5 of British Standards Institution (BSI) Kitemark BS10121. The visible security label will state the equipment is forensically marked, which system/company has been used and how to contact that company for details. 

Column A	Column B
Forensic marking technique	Standards
Chemical or laser etching.	Section 6.5 of BSI Kitemark BS10121
Stamping or Engraving Microdots and/or forensic DNA.	Section 6.5 of BSI Kitemark BS10121
Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tags or Near-field Communication (NFC) tags.	Section 6.5 of BSI Kitemark BS10121
UV footprint or tracer.	Section 6.5 of BSI Kitemark BS10121

We received 100 responses to this question. 78 respondents answered yes, and 22 respondents answered no. Reasons in favour were that including RFID and NFC marking would allow for future improved technology to meet the Act’s standard. Those who answered no were mainly concerned that there is insufficient competition in the forensic marking market today for the provision of such markings, which could create a monopoly for the few existing providers.

Government response

The government is committed to working with stakeholders to get the detail of regulations right. The government has consulted relevant stakeholders including the British Security Industry Association’s Asset and Property Marking Chair.

All those engaged on the development of the Act agreed the standards/specifications used for the CESAR^{[footnote 3]} scheme should also be the minimum standard used for property marking here. This legislation will not endorse any particular product, product line or service.

We consulted the British Security Industry (BSI) in relation to those standards suggested above. The BSI group is a national standards body and a commercial testing body, testing that products comply to their standards. The BSI Kitemark is a proprietary mark, owned and operated by BSI as way to provide a reliable basis for people to share the same expectations about a product or service. The kitemark has the standard at its core and the licensee pays BSI to kitemark its product.

Kitemarks are designed for voluntary use but can make organisations more successful and indicate safety for consumers. By specifying BSI Kitemarks within legislation, it would create a monopoly since there are other bodies who also create ideal standards.

Therefore, we will not specifically refer to kitemarks within the regulations, but we will look to refer to ‘designated standards’.   

BSI10121 is the new standard for Asset Marking of Vehicles and Associated Equipment. Due to it being newly published, and suitable test houses still being sought, the standard has not yet been attained by any property marking provider. The BSIA Asset and Property Marking Section is still investigating which laboratories can test to the new standard.

We intend to consult further to ensure we are not endorsing any particular product, product line or service.

Further consultation with industry experts also suggested that we may want to avoid specifically using the term ‘forensic marking’ as the more generic term is ‘property marking’. Property marking includes a host of different types of techniques including chemical etching, laser etching, engraving, microdots, stamping, security labels, RFID and forensic marking. Specifically, forensic marking is the method of identifying property (or offenders) with a uniquely coded solution that is only visible under UV lights.

We will ensure the correct terminology is used within the regulations which will allow for the various options available to property mark ATVs and removable GPS units.

Question 13: Manufacturers/dealers/retailers: Are there any features/functions missing from the list, or any on the list that are not needed?

We received 64 responses to this question. Those respondents who provided further detail indicated that chemical or laser etching and stamping or engraving microdots are not worthwhile since such markings can easily be removed and they outlined methods by which this could be done.

A concern was raised that requiring systems to use two or more options from a list of currently available technologies might limit innovation to the detriment of security in the longer-term. There were comments that the regulations would need to be future proofed to reflect any new improved technologies that become available.

In relation to the property marking of tools, a concern was raised that on hand-held power tools there would not be space to attach RFID or NFC.

Government response

The government is committed to working with industry specialists to get the detail of regulations right and we will speak to specialists in this area, such as the Police Crime Prevention Initiatives (PCPI) organisation, to examine the concerns raised in response to this question.

Question 14: Do these requirements in relation to forensic markings expect you to do something which will be extremely difficult or will cause an increased burden as a result?

We received 89 responses to this question.  

There were many comments that there would be an increased burden for the dealer network. There would be cost burdens and issues surrounding the training of dealers on the correct installation of property markings. It was commented that the dealer will need to establish a high level of knowledge regarding all marking techniques and providers. Concerns were raised that dealers would also have to ensure the markers are correctly registered in the database for the correct customer. It was commented that ultimately these additional costs would be passed on to the end customer, but it is important sufficient time (minimum 12 months) is given for the dealer network to prepare for this change. Overall, many mentioned the increased administrative and financial burdens – especially in relation to tools where there are many more smaller and independent sellers.

Also, a point was raised in relation to power tools that are sometimes purchased on finance or credit agreements and that any database may need to record the information of such purchase agreement or scheme.

Comments were received from those who have used property marking, such as forensic marking schemes, stated the technology is simple and can be applied in a matter of minutes. Some manufacturers commented that they did not see any great difficulty in applying forensic marking but, if more machines require it, a larger number of dealers will need to be trained.

There were other suggestions that whilst marking tools may be burdensome it is a reasonable safety measure and acts as a deterrent, meaning the benefits outweigh the cons.

Government response

We will continue to consult closely with security industry associations in relation to the property marking of ATVs and removable GPS units. We intend to publish guidance on the requirements of the legislation and communicate this widely to those affected before the legislation commences.

The government consulted with tool manufacturers and retailers. It was clear there would be far reaching practical implications by legislating for the property marking, including the forensic marking, of high-value tradespeople’s tools and for the reasons as stated earlier in this document, the government will not be legislating for the property marking of high-value tradespeople’s tools but will be considering alternative methods to help prevent and tackle tool theft.

Question 15: Manufacturers/dealers/retailers/forensic marking companies: does this include all the information that should be recorded? Yes / No. If no, what else do you think should be included?

We received 103 responses to this question.

It was commented that all ATVs, side-by-side vehicles and other mobile agricultural equipment have a unique serial number (VIN or similar) and most will be registered with the DVLA (and, hence, have a registration mark), so it was suggested that consideration should be given to including these additional details within the database, to aid identification of the machine or vehicle. There were also comments that email address contacts should be included.

There was a suggestion of an alternative to using property marking companies for ATVs – an existing database maintained by the not-for-profit European ATV Safety Institute (EASI).

Government response

The legislation will not endorse any particular product, product line or service. There are several property marking databases that are already widely adopted and used by the agricultural sector and construction industry.

EASI does not have 24-hour access for police officers to obtain an owner’s details, so it is not considered to be a suitable database for the purpose of this legislation.

Question 16: Do you foresee any practical implications or unforeseen consequences of the legislation proposed in this call for evidence?

We received 102 responses to this question and there was a mixed response. Some comments included concerns around the shrinking of a dealer market as they might not be able to afford the additional responsibilities. There were concerns raised around a possible reduction in products available for the UK market and increases in price to the consumer.

Concerns around property marking (including forensic marking) were that providers would have to be regulated, property markings (including forensic markings) are of no use to law enforcement agencies outside the UK so an internationally agreed scheme should be considered but the importation of specially forensically marked items to England and Wales would add a burden and cost to these customers.

There were concerns raised around the training of manufacturers, dealers and professionals that would be required as a result of the Act and its regulations.

There were also comments that were highly supportive of the Act on the basis that having an opportunity to have stolen goods reunited with their owners is a good thing and such legislation is overdue.

Government response

This government is committed to preventing crime and wishes to see people being protected from theft. This Act will have a significant effect on farmers, individuals, and businesses and have an impact on the thefts of ATVs and removable GPS units. Additionally, the Act’s measures will make it harder for stolen property to be sold on, therefore having a deterrent effect.

Question 17: Overall are you in favour of the proposed legislation?

We received 218 responses which were of mixed opinion. Some expressed full support for the effort for change and the effect it would have on those who were victims of crime. Comments received in favour stated that it was time legislation was introduced as theft is a huge burden on people’s livelihoods and also that legislation is required to combat the current scale of the problem of theft and that more needs to be done to deter criminals.

Some responses indicated that whilst they support the spirit of the Act, they believed it was too broad and encompassed too many elements. Others suggested it would have a positive impact on industries, but the regulations had to be practical for businesses.

Those who were not in favour expressed that added costs for businesses were not proportionate and dealers could not afford to take on added responsibilities. Other comments not in favour concluded that it was a waste of time with little or no chance of prosecutions.

Government response

The government believes that preventing the theft and resale of such equipment is vital to tradespeople and agricultural businesses. The overarching intention of the Act is to deter and reduce theft, as well as providing an important additional tool to help the police drive down crime. This has been balanced alongside impacts to businesses which are affected by the Act’s provisions.

We remain confident that farmers in this country, who play a critical role in our economy, will benefit from this legislation. We are confident the Act will help prevent equipment from being stolen in the first instance and will also make it harder for criminals to sell on any stolen ATVs and removable GPS units that are so valuable to farming businesses.

Question 18: Please indicate which sector you are from or work in (retail, manufacturer, law enforcement etc)

We received 190 responses and 28 emailed responses.

We asked respondents to indicate the sector they were from:

• Retail - 17
• Manufacturing - 25
• Law enforcement - 33
• Agriculture – 37
• Other – 60 (responses given were construction, tradesmen, plumbing industry vehicle security, farmers/rural residents, associations)

46 respondents preferred not to indicate which sector they were from.

Annex A: The Call for Evidence analysis methodology

1. The questions stated throughout this document were the questions as worded in the questionnaire of the full Call for Evidence listed on gov.uk - Equipment Theft (Prevention) Bill: Call for evidence - GOV.UK

2. Call for Evidence responses were analysed, and a view also had to be taken on what correspondence constituted a formal response. We took all responses – even if not all questions were answered – since not all the questions would be relevant to those responding.

3. Data from responses to the quantitative (closed) questions in the call for evidence (i.e. those that invited respondents to choose an answer) were extracted and analysed. All qualitative responses (i.e. those responses to open questions or where a respondent had submitted a paper, letter or email rather than answering specific questions) were also logged and analysed. Findings have been reported in this document.

4. We held detailed conversations with key industry and technical experts – including AEA, NPCC, Thatcham Research. These fed into the government’s response to the Call for Evidence.

1. Now Section 2(a) of the Act ↩

2. Thatcham Research is an organisation that tests and rates the effectiveness and reliability of car alarms, immobilisers, tracking systems and other security devices (www.Thatcham.org). ↩

3. CESAR is an equipment security and registration scheme, owned by the Construction Equipment Association (CEA), which combines Datatag (supplier of security marking technologies and secure registration) ID technologies, both overt and covert, with registration on a secure database which is accessible 24/7 UK (www.cesarscheme.org) ↩