Question follow-through · 29292
Agricultural Machinery: Theft
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of whether sentences for theft of agricultural machinery and equipment adequately reflect the economic impact of such offences on farming businesses.
About this written question
A written question asks a government minister for information in writing. Parliament publishes the question and any answer.
- Answering body
- Ministry of Justice
- Tabled
- 11 Sept 2026
- Target answer date
- 15 Sept 2026
- Answer
- 18 Sept 2026 · 7 calendar days after tabling
Elapsed calendar days describe the record timeline, not whether Parliament considers an answer on time.
Votes on this topic
- Draft Code of Practice on Electronic and Workplace Ballots for Statutory Trade Union Ballots · 15 Jul 2026
- Draft Trade Unions (Permissible Means of Voting) and Employment Rights (Unfair Dismissal) (Amendment) Order 2026 · 15 Jul 2026
- Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill Committee: New Clause 5 · 1 Jul 2026
These Commons divisions share a topic label. The question did not necessarily lead to a vote.
Recorded timeline
11 Sept 2026
Question tabled
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of whether sentences for theft of agricultural machinery and equipment adequately reflect the economic impact of such offences on farming businesses.
15 Sept 2026
Target answer date
Date supplied by the official written-questions record.
18 Sept 2026
Answer published
The Government recognises the significant impact that theft of agricultural machinery and equipment can have on farming businesses and rural communities. These offences can result in substantial financial loss, disruption to business operations and wider ...
Official data retrieved 1 Oct 2026.
Later records
Possible follow-up questions
Strong links require the same MP, department and exact heading. Other same-department questions are shown as unreviewed candidates, not as confirmed follow-ups. No debate link is asserted unless a stable source relationship exists.
No later same-department questions indexed.
This is an absence in covered public data, not evidence that no follow-up occurred elsewhere.