Written questions by Ribeiro-Addy.

What assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of Universal Service Obligation reform on the affordability of postal services for consumers.

It is the responsibility of Ofcom, as the independent regulator of postal services, to ensure that the universal postal service is affordable for customers as well as being efficient and financially sustainable.In its consultation document proposing a package of reforms to better reflect people’s usage of postal services and support financial sustainability, Ofcom set out that it plans to consider options to ensure the continued affordability of USO services, including more targeted interventions than the current Second-Class safeguard cap.

If he will take steps to ensure that Universal Service Obligation reform retains a universal postal service for (a) people experiencing homelessness, (b) victims of domestic abuse and (c) other people without a secure address.

The government recognises the importance of access to post for all users, especially the most vulnerable and is committed to the universal service obligation.As the independent regulator for postal services, it is Ofcom’s responsibility to secure the provision of a universal postal service and must ensure the provision of sufficient access points to meet the reasonable needs of users of the service. In its proposals, Ofcom committed to continue to engage with other stakeholders on the issue of ensuring that specific vulnerable groups have access to post.

If she will make an assessment of the potential implications for her policies on the level of police resources for tackling cannabis use of the report by TRANSFORM Drug Policy Foundation, entitled High returns: the economic benefits of UK cannabis legalisation, published on 18 February 2025.

This Government has no plans to legalise cannabis.Cannabis is controlled as a Class B drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The maximum penalty for possession of a Class B drug is up to 5 years in prison, an unlimited fine or both.The maximum penalty for supply and production of a Class B drug is up to 14 years in prison, an unlimited fine or both.

If she will make an assessment of the potential impact of cannabis legalisation on (a) reducing county lines drug trafficking and (b) associated law enforcement costs.

This Government has no plans to legalise cannabis.Cannabis is controlled as a Class B drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The maximum penalty for possession of a Class B drug is up to 5 years in prison, an unlimited fine or both.The maximum penalty for supply and production of a Class B drug is up to 14 years in prison, an unlimited fine or both.

What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the proposed increase in the certificate of sponsorship fee on the adult social care sector; and if he will hold discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on making more funding available to support the adult social care sector.

The Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2025, laid on 21 January 2025, sets out increases to the fee maxima that applies to the Certificate of Sponsorship from £300 to £525. These changes were agreed via collective agreement. If fees increase as set out in the Explanatory Memorandum to this Order, an Impact Assessment will be produced by the Home Office.International recruitment has played a valuable role in helping grow the adult social care workforce. The Government recognises the scale of reforms needed to make the adult social care sector attractive, to support sustainable workforce growth and improve the retention of the domestic workforce. The Government is making available up to £3.7 billion of additional funding for social care authorities in 2025/26, which includes an £880 million increase in the Social Care Grant.Adult social care is a central part of local government’s responsibilities. Decisions about the funding of all local government priorities will be taken in the round at the Spending Review.

If she will make an assessment of the potential impact of (a) reduced criminal justice costs and (b) increased tax revenue from legal cannabis on the economy.

This Government has no plans to legalise cannabis.Cannabis is controlled as a Class B drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The maximum penalty for possession of a Class B drug is up to 5 years in prison, an unlimited fine or both.The maximum penalty for supply and production of a Class B drug is up to 14 years in prison, an unlimited fine or both.

If she will make an estimate of the annual cost of imprisonment due to cannabis-related offences.

As at 31 December 2024, the number of prisoners with cannabis-related offences recorded as their main offence was 1,073. This figure only includes cases where a cannabis offence (offence which directly involves and specifies cannabis) was recorded as the main offence and will cover prisoners held for varying lengths depending on their sentence.The overall average annual cost for keeping an individual in a prison is £51,108, which is taken from the latest published Prison Unit Cost statistics for 2022-23.

Whether her Department has reviewed international evidence on the impact of legal cannabis markets on (a) healthcare costs and (b) service demand.

This Government has no plans to legalise cannabis.Cannabis is controlled as a Class B drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The maximum penalty for possession of a Class B drug is up to 5 years in prison, an unlimited fine or both. The maximum penalty for supply and production of a Class B drug is up to 14 years in prison, an unlimited fine or both.

If she will make an assessment of the potential merits of directing tax revenue from regulated cannabis into NHS mental health services.

This Government has no plans to legalise cannabis.Cannabis is controlled as a Class B drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The maximum penalty for possession of a Class B drug is up to 5 years in prison, an unlimited fine or both. The maximum penalty for supply and production of a Class B drug is up to 14 years in prison, an unlimited fine or both.

Whether she has made an assessment of the potential (a) implications for his policies of international examples of state-run cannabis markets and (b) impact of those markets on (i) economic growth and (ii) public health.

This Government has no plans to legalise cannabis.Cannabis is controlled as a Class B drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The maximum penalty for possession of a Class B drug is up to 5 years in prison, an unlimited fine or both.The maximum penalty for supply and production of a Class B drug is up to 14 years in prison, an unlimited fine or both.

If her Department will make an assessment of the potential impact of reducing cannabis-related (a) arrests, (b) prosecutions and (c) court cases on the costs of the criminal justice system.

This Government has no plans to legalise cannabis.Cannabis is controlled as a Class B drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The maximum penalty for possession of a Class B drug is up to 5 years in prison, an unlimited fine or both.The maximum penalty for supply and production of a Class B drug is up to 14 years in prison, an unlimited fine or both.

If she will make an estimate of the annual cost of policing cannabis-related offences.

It is not possible from the available data to separate out the costs of policing these particular offences from other policing responsibilities, including in relation to other controlled substances.

What estimate her Department has made of the proportion of magistrates' court cases that involved cannabis possession in the last 12 months; and if she will make an estimate of the potential impact of legalising cannabis possession on the cost of these court cases.

The latest published data shows that 1.0% of magistrates’ courts proceedings in the year to June 2024 (12,429 defendants) in England and Wales were for cannabis possession offences. (Source: Criminal Justice System statistics quarterly: June 2024 - GOV.UK). Equivalent published data for the calendar year 2024 will be available on 15 May 2025. The number of proceedings is presented on a principal offence basis, this means that more serious offences accompanied by an additional cannabis possession offence will not be included in this number.The estimated sitting day cost to HMCTS for those cases is c. £1 million.

What training is provided to police (a) officers and (b) staff on the ethical use of police databases; and how frequently that training is updated.

The auditing of police systems is a matter for local forces, who use bespoke IT systems to conduct lawful business monitoring. Forces’ use of such systems is assessed as part of His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services’ (HMICFRS) integrity inspection programme. The provision of training is also a matter for local forces, dependent on the specific systems in usePolice officers must adhere to the statutory Standards of Professional Behaviour, which are clear that they must only access or disclose information in the proper course of their policing duties. This is further supported by guidance within the College of Policing’s Code of Ethics, published in 2024, on the accessing of data without authorisation. Allegations of system misuse are investigated by force Professional Standards Departments (PSDs), however the most serious and sensitive allegations of police misconduct are referred to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC)The number of finalised conduct matter, recordable conduct matter and public complaint allegations against police officers and staff is published on an annual basis within the ‘Police misconduct, England and Wales’ statistical bulletin, which can be accessed here: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/police-misconduct-statistics. The latest statistics, covering the year ending 31 March 2024 includes the number of allegations broken down by the allegation type, including ‘use of force systems’, where the threshold for recording a conduct matter, recordable conduct matter or complaint has been met. This can be found in the accompanying ‘misconduct allegations by type’ data table: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/police-misconduct-open-data-tables. This includes information on whether the allegation was referred to disciplinary proceedings, however does not however identify the specific subsequent disciplinary outcome of these proceedings or the characteristics of the officer or staff member in each individual allegation.The Home Office does not hold information on cybercrimes committed by police officers or staff and published Ministry of Justice data on criminal convictions is not broken down by the individual’s occupation. However, the College of Policing’s Barred List statistics do identify the reasons for dismissal. The total number of reasons is higher than the number of actual dismissals because individuals may be dismissed for multiple reasons. In 2023/24, there were 66 instances of unlawful access or disclosure of information which featured as part of a police officer’s dismissal, 5 in respect of special constables and 37 in respect of police staff. Data for previous years is available here: https://www.college.police.uk/article/barred-list The Government has committed to raising standards in policing and, last year, the Home Secretary announced a series of reforms to strengthen the police misconduct system, including a presumption of dismissal for proven gross misconduct and specific offences automatically amounting to gross misconduct The Government is also committed to disrupting and pursuing those responsible for Computer Misuse Act offences. We will continue to ensure we keep the public safe and use all of the levers available to us to achieve this. This includes using our capabilities to pursue those responsible for crime, as well as protecting people and businesses at risk of being victims of crime

What assessment her Department has made of whether there is a correlation between the (a) (i) roles and (ii) ranks of police personnel and (b) likelihood of committing cybercrimes; and what steps her Department is taking to help mitigate identified risks.

The auditing of police systems is a matter for local forces, who use bespoke IT systems to conduct lawful business monitoring. Forces’ use of such systems is assessed as part of His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services’ (HMICFRS) integrity inspection programme. The provision of training is also a matter for local forces, dependent on the specific systems in usePolice officers must adhere to the statutory Standards of Professional Behaviour, which are clear that they must only access or disclose information in the proper course of their policing duties. This is further supported by guidance within the College of Policing’s Code of Ethics, published in 2024, on the accessing of data without authorisation. Allegations of system misuse are investigated by force Professional Standards Departments (PSDs), however the most serious and sensitive allegations of police misconduct are referred to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC)The number of finalised conduct matter, recordable conduct matter and public complaint allegations against police officers and staff is published on an annual basis within the ‘Police misconduct, England and Wales’ statistical bulletin, which can be accessed here: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/police-misconduct-statistics. The latest statistics, covering the year ending 31 March 2024 includes the number of allegations broken down by the allegation type, including ‘use of force systems’, where the threshold for recording a conduct matter, recordable conduct matter or complaint has been met. This can be found in the accompanying ‘misconduct allegations by type’ data table: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/police-misconduct-open-data-tables. This includes information on whether the allegation was referred to disciplinary proceedings, however does not however identify the specific subsequent disciplinary outcome of these proceedings or the characteristics of the officer or staff member in each individual allegation.The Home Office does not hold information on cybercrimes committed by police officers or staff and published Ministry of Justice data on criminal convictions is not broken down by the individual’s occupation. However, the College of Policing’s Barred List statistics do identify the reasons for dismissal. The total number of reasons is higher than the number of actual dismissals because individuals may be dismissed for multiple reasons. In 2023/24, there were 66 instances of unlawful access or disclosure of information which featured as part of a police officer’s dismissal, 5 in respect of special constables and 37 in respect of police staff. Data for previous years is available here: https://www.college.police.uk/article/barred-list The Government has committed to raising standards in policing and, last year, the Home Secretary announced a series of reforms to strengthen the police misconduct system, including a presumption of dismissal for proven gross misconduct and specific offences automatically amounting to gross misconduct The Government is also committed to disrupting and pursuing those responsible for Computer Misuse Act offences. We will continue to ensure we keep the public safe and use all of the levers available to us to achieve this. This includes using our capabilities to pursue those responsible for crime, as well as protecting people and businesses at risk of being victims of crime

How many instances of unauthorised access to police databases by (a) officers and (b) staff have been recorded in each the last five years; and what disciplinary actions were taken in each case.

The auditing of police systems is a matter for local forces, who use bespoke IT systems to conduct lawful business monitoring. Forces’ use of such systems is assessed as part of His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services’ (HMICFRS) integrity inspection programme. The provision of training is also a matter for local forces, dependent on the specific systems in usePolice officers must adhere to the statutory Standards of Professional Behaviour, which are clear that they must only access or disclose information in the proper course of their policing duties. This is further supported by guidance within the College of Policing’s Code of Ethics, published in 2024, on the accessing of data without authorisation. Allegations of system misuse are investigated by force Professional Standards Departments (PSDs), however the most serious and sensitive allegations of police misconduct are referred to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC)The number of finalised conduct matter, recordable conduct matter and public complaint allegations against police officers and staff is published on an annual basis within the ‘Police misconduct, England and Wales’ statistical bulletin, which can be accessed here: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/police-misconduct-statistics. The latest statistics, covering the year ending 31 March 2024 includes the number of allegations broken down by the allegation type, including ‘use of force systems’, where the threshold for recording a conduct matter, recordable conduct matter or complaint has been met. This can be found in the accompanying ‘misconduct allegations by type’ data table: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/police-misconduct-open-data-tables. This includes information on whether the allegation was referred to disciplinary proceedings, however does not however identify the specific subsequent disciplinary outcome of these proceedings or the characteristics of the officer or staff member in each individual allegation.The Home Office does not hold information on cybercrimes committed by police officers or staff and published Ministry of Justice data on criminal convictions is not broken down by the individual’s occupation. However, the College of Policing’s Barred List statistics do identify the reasons for dismissal. The total number of reasons is higher than the number of actual dismissals because individuals may be dismissed for multiple reasons. In 2023/24, there were 66 instances of unlawful access or disclosure of information which featured as part of a police officer’s dismissal, 5 in respect of special constables and 37 in respect of police staff. Data for previous years is available here: https://www.college.police.uk/article/barred-list The Government has committed to raising standards in policing and, last year, the Home Secretary announced a series of reforms to strengthen the police misconduct system, including a presumption of dismissal for proven gross misconduct and specific offences automatically amounting to gross misconduct The Government is also committed to disrupting and pursuing those responsible for Computer Misuse Act offences. We will continue to ensure we keep the public safe and use all of the levers available to us to achieve this. This includes using our capabilities to pursue those responsible for crime, as well as protecting people and businesses at risk of being victims of crime

What independent oversight mechanisms are in place to monitor and investigate the misuse of police databases by officers and staff.

The auditing of police systems is a matter for local forces, who use bespoke IT systems to conduct lawful business monitoring. Forces’ use of such systems is assessed as part of His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services’ (HMICFRS) integrity inspection programme. The provision of training is also a matter for local forces, dependent on the specific systems in usePolice officers must adhere to the statutory Standards of Professional Behaviour, which are clear that they must only access or disclose information in the proper course of their policing duties. This is further supported by guidance within the College of Policing’s Code of Ethics, published in 2024, on the accessing of data without authorisation. Allegations of system misuse are investigated by force Professional Standards Departments (PSDs), however the most serious and sensitive allegations of police misconduct are referred to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC)The number of finalised conduct matter, recordable conduct matter and public complaint allegations against police officers and staff is published on an annual basis within the ‘Police misconduct, England and Wales’ statistical bulletin, which can be accessed here: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/police-misconduct-statistics. The latest statistics, covering the year ending 31 March 2024 includes the number of allegations broken down by the allegation type, including ‘use of force systems’, where the threshold for recording a conduct matter, recordable conduct matter or complaint has been met. This can be found in the accompanying ‘misconduct allegations by type’ data table: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/police-misconduct-open-data-tables. This includes information on whether the allegation was referred to disciplinary proceedings, however does not however identify the specific subsequent disciplinary outcome of these proceedings or the characteristics of the officer or staff member in each individual allegation.The Home Office does not hold information on cybercrimes committed by police officers or staff and published Ministry of Justice data on criminal convictions is not broken down by the individual’s occupation. However, the College of Policing’s Barred List statistics do identify the reasons for dismissal. The total number of reasons is higher than the number of actual dismissals because individuals may be dismissed for multiple reasons. In 2023/24, there were 66 instances of unlawful access or disclosure of information which featured as part of a police officer’s dismissal, 5 in respect of special constables and 37 in respect of police staff. Data for previous years is available here: https://www.college.police.uk/article/barred-list The Government has committed to raising standards in policing and, last year, the Home Secretary announced a series of reforms to strengthen the police misconduct system, including a presumption of dismissal for proven gross misconduct and specific offences automatically amounting to gross misconduct The Government is also committed to disrupting and pursuing those responsible for Computer Misuse Act offences. We will continue to ensure we keep the public safe and use all of the levers available to us to achieve this. This includes using our capabilities to pursue those responsible for crime, as well as protecting people and businesses at risk of being victims of crime

What measures her Department has put in place to prevent the misuse of police databases by (a) officers and (b) staff; and if she will make an assessment of the effectiveness of those measures in the last five years.

The auditing of police systems is a matter for local forces, who use bespoke IT systems to conduct lawful business monitoring. Forces’ use of such systems is assessed as part of His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services’ (HMICFRS) integrity inspection programme. The provision of training is also a matter for local forces, dependent on the specific systems in usePolice officers must adhere to the statutory Standards of Professional Behaviour, which are clear that they must only access or disclose information in the proper course of their policing duties. This is further supported by guidance within the College of Policing’s Code of Ethics, published in 2024, on the accessing of data without authorisation. Allegations of system misuse are investigated by force Professional Standards Departments (PSDs), however the most serious and sensitive allegations of police misconduct are referred to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC)The number of finalised conduct matter, recordable conduct matter and public complaint allegations against police officers and staff is published on an annual basis within the ‘Police misconduct, England and Wales’ statistical bulletin, which can be accessed here: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/police-misconduct-statistics. The latest statistics, covering the year ending 31 March 2024 includes the number of allegations broken down by the allegation type, including ‘use of force systems’, where the threshold for recording a conduct matter, recordable conduct matter or complaint has been met. This can be found in the accompanying ‘misconduct allegations by type’ data table: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/police-misconduct-open-data-tables. This includes information on whether the allegation was referred to disciplinary proceedings, however does not however identify the specific subsequent disciplinary outcome of these proceedings or the characteristics of the officer or staff member in each individual allegation.The Home Office does not hold information on cybercrimes committed by police officers or staff and published Ministry of Justice data on criminal convictions is not broken down by the individual’s occupation. However, the College of Policing’s Barred List statistics do identify the reasons for dismissal. The total number of reasons is higher than the number of actual dismissals because individuals may be dismissed for multiple reasons. In 2023/24, there were 66 instances of unlawful access or disclosure of information which featured as part of a police officer’s dismissal, 5 in respect of special constables and 37 in respect of police staff. Data for previous years is available here: https://www.college.police.uk/article/barred-list The Government has committed to raising standards in policing and, last year, the Home Secretary announced a series of reforms to strengthen the police misconduct system, including a presumption of dismissal for proven gross misconduct and specific offences automatically amounting to gross misconduct The Government is also committed to disrupting and pursuing those responsible for Computer Misuse Act offences. We will continue to ensure we keep the public safe and use all of the levers available to us to achieve this. This includes using our capabilities to pursue those responsible for crime, as well as protecting people and businesses at risk of being victims of crime

How often audits are conducted on police database access logs to detect and deter unauthorised access by officers and staff.

The auditing of police systems is a matter for local forces, who use bespoke IT systems to conduct lawful business monitoring. Forces’ use of such systems is assessed as part of His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services’ (HMICFRS) integrity inspection programme. The provision of training is also a matter for local forces, dependent on the specific systems in usePolice officers must adhere to the statutory Standards of Professional Behaviour, which are clear that they must only access or disclose information in the proper course of their policing duties. This is further supported by guidance within the College of Policing’s Code of Ethics, published in 2024, on the accessing of data without authorisation. Allegations of system misuse are investigated by force Professional Standards Departments (PSDs), however the most serious and sensitive allegations of police misconduct are referred to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC)The number of finalised conduct matter, recordable conduct matter and public complaint allegations against police officers and staff is published on an annual basis within the ‘Police misconduct, England and Wales’ statistical bulletin, which can be accessed here: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/police-misconduct-statistics. The latest statistics, covering the year ending 31 March 2024 includes the number of allegations broken down by the allegation type, including ‘use of force systems’, where the threshold for recording a conduct matter, recordable conduct matter or complaint has been met. This can be found in the accompanying ‘misconduct allegations by type’ data table: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/police-misconduct-open-data-tables. This includes information on whether the allegation was referred to disciplinary proceedings, however does not however identify the specific subsequent disciplinary outcome of these proceedings or the characteristics of the officer or staff member in each individual allegation.The Home Office does not hold information on cybercrimes committed by police officers or staff and published Ministry of Justice data on criminal convictions is not broken down by the individual’s occupation. However, the College of Policing’s Barred List statistics do identify the reasons for dismissal. The total number of reasons is higher than the number of actual dismissals because individuals may be dismissed for multiple reasons. In 2023/24, there were 66 instances of unlawful access or disclosure of information which featured as part of a police officer’s dismissal, 5 in respect of special constables and 37 in respect of police staff. Data for previous years is available here: https://www.college.police.uk/article/barred-list The Government has committed to raising standards in policing and, last year, the Home Secretary announced a series of reforms to strengthen the police misconduct system, including a presumption of dismissal for proven gross misconduct and specific offences automatically amounting to gross misconduct The Government is also committed to disrupting and pursuing those responsible for Computer Misuse Act offences. We will continue to ensure we keep the public safe and use all of the levers available to us to achieve this. This includes using our capabilities to pursue those responsible for crime, as well as protecting people and businesses at risk of being victims of crime

How many and what proportion of cybercrime convictions involved (a) police (i) officers and (ii) staff and (b) other people in each of the last five years.

The auditing of police systems is a matter for local forces, who use bespoke IT systems to conduct lawful business monitoring. Forces’ use of such systems is assessed as part of His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services’ (HMICFRS) integrity inspection programme. The provision of training is also a matter for local forces, dependent on the specific systems in usePolice officers must adhere to the statutory Standards of Professional Behaviour, which are clear that they must only access or disclose information in the proper course of their policing duties. This is further supported by guidance within the College of Policing’s Code of Ethics, published in 2024, on the accessing of data without authorisation. Allegations of system misuse are investigated by force Professional Standards Departments (PSDs), however the most serious and sensitive allegations of police misconduct are referred to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC)The number of finalised conduct matter, recordable conduct matter and public complaint allegations against police officers and staff is published on an annual basis within the ‘Police misconduct, England and Wales’ statistical bulletin, which can be accessed here: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/police-misconduct-statistics. The latest statistics, covering the year ending 31 March 2024 includes the number of allegations broken down by the allegation type, including ‘use of force systems’, where the threshold for recording a conduct matter, recordable conduct matter or complaint has been met. This can be found in the accompanying ‘misconduct allegations by type’ data table: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/police-misconduct-open-data-tables. This includes information on whether the allegation was referred to disciplinary proceedings, however does not however identify the specific subsequent disciplinary outcome of these proceedings or the characteristics of the officer or staff member in each individual allegation.The Home Office does not hold information on cybercrimes committed by police officers or staff and published Ministry of Justice data on criminal convictions is not broken down by the individual’s occupation. However, the College of Policing’s Barred List statistics do identify the reasons for dismissal. The total number of reasons is higher than the number of actual dismissals because individuals may be dismissed for multiple reasons. In 2023/24, there were 66 instances of unlawful access or disclosure of information which featured as part of a police officer’s dismissal, 5 in respect of special constables and 37 in respect of police staff. Data for previous years is available here: https://www.college.police.uk/article/barred-list The Government has committed to raising standards in policing and, last year, the Home Secretary announced a series of reforms to strengthen the police misconduct system, including a presumption of dismissal for proven gross misconduct and specific offences automatically amounting to gross misconduct The Government is also committed to disrupting and pursuing those responsible for Computer Misuse Act offences. We will continue to ensure we keep the public safe and use all of the levers available to us to achieve this. This includes using our capabilities to pursue those responsible for crime, as well as protecting people and businesses at risk of being victims of crime