My Lords, I will speak in support of the Amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Miller, to which I have added my name. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, for his support, and those who have spoken already.

The amendment addresses an issue that has for too long been treated as peripheral: the growing crisis of rural crime. For those who live and work in our countryside, there is the reality of financial loss, fear, and a deep sense of vulnerability and isolation. After rising to around £52.8 million in 2023, the estimated cost of rural crime stood at around £44 million in 2024. Despite some improvements, the resources devoted to addressing this remain inadequate. Freedom of information requests from my party submitted last April uncovered the shocking fact that only 0.4% of the police workforce across England and Wales is dedicated to rural crime teams. In Norfolk, for example, there are just two dedicated full-time officers, and some forces have no rural crime forces at all.

I acknowledge that, over the past year, police chiefs and Ministers have begun work on recognising what farmers and villagers have known for a long time—that rural crime is serious, organised and damaging. We welcome the three-year rural wildlife crime strategy, which rightly identifies priority areas for machine theft, livestock worrying, illegal hunting and poaching, and the need to protect our species and wildlife. The Government have committed funding to keep the national rural crime unit and the national wildlife crime unit going, and we welcome that. These are positive moves but they are not enough.

The very documents that promote this strategy also set out why a more ambitious strategy for a rural crime prevention framework—the kind envisaged in this amendment—is desperately required. The national policing lead accepts that specific rural offences are cross-border, involve a high degree of planning and co-ordination, increasingly rely on and relate to international networks, and have substantial impacts on our rural communities. This is not just localised offending but serious organised crime networks, as has been said. We need to recognise that this type of crime is different. The geography, the victim profiles and the opportunities are different. Crucially, the sense of isolation and vulnerability is extremely different from those who live in our urban areas. We must not allow our rural communities to become the playgrounds for serious organised criminal networks.

This amendment seeks to bridge the gap between strategy and delivery. First, it would require the Secretary of State to establish a rural crime prevention taskforce with a clear remit to examine a full range of rural offences, producing a rural crime prevention strategy within six months. That is consistent with existing policies. Secondly, the taskforce would have to determine whether we have the right specialist capacity, enough rural crime officers, and the specialist equipment and training required. Thirdly, this amendment would deliver the accountability that is currently missing.

I accept that the Government have made a start on these issues, but there is more to do. We seek further progress on these matters. If we accept, as Ministers and police chiefs now do, that rural crime is complex, cross-border, organised and uniquely problematic, we need more action to take these matters forward. I support this amendment.