Spiking
(Gloucester) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about
the law in relation to administering or attempting to administer
drugs, alcohol or any other substance to a person without their
consent, whether or not with the intent to cause harm; and for
connected purposes.
The clue to the purpose of the ten-minute rule motion is the word
“spiking”, which is known and understood by everyone in this
Chamber and the vast majority of people in our country. Spiking
has been debated before in this House, most recently on 11
January in a Westminster Hall debate in my name. Many Members
here today spoke in that debate. Spiking was also the subject of
a Home Affairs Committee report published in April 2022.
Almost 5,000 cases of spiking have been reported to police forces
across the country. The fact that the police are not obliged
formally to collate data on spiking suggests that this is the
visible tip of a largely hidden iceberg. That is why spiking was
the subject of my earlier ten-minute rule Bill 18 months ago, why
the Select Committee focused on the issue, and why it welcomed
Ministers at that time looking closely at creating a separate
offence of spiking. The Select Committee recommended—rightly, in
my view—the creation of a specific offence that would improve
reporting of spiking and the gathering of more information about
it.
We all recognise that the current legislation on spiking centres
on the Offences against the Person Act 1861 and the Sexual
Offences Act 2003. One covers the use of noxious substances, the
other sexual gratification. However, both Acts are silent on the
word “spiking”, which does not exist formally. Indeed, search
engines describe it as an informal term meaning to
“add alcohol or a drug to contaminate (drink or food)
surreptitiously”.
That is part of it, but it is not all of it.
Some lawyers may argue that existing law covers all aspects of
what we term “spiking”—including even spiking by injection,
spiking for fun, and spiking without chemical addition—and that
we do not need a new informal term in law, a definition of it, or
any bringing together of existing laws in modern language and in
one place to inform the nightlife sector, the public, colleges
and universities, the police and the public at large. I regret to
say that the implied message from the Home Office is, “It is all
fine as it is.” Yet it is not fine, which is why I am here, like
Oliver Twist, seeking more—or rather, seeking action, which is
what colleagues from all parties want to see.
When the police do not have to collect the data but have still
recorded 5,000 reported cases; when Police and
Crime Commissioners want, and the Select Committee
recommends, a definition of and a crime described as “spiking”;
and when Government Ministers and MPs themselves have been
victims of spiking, I believe that it is time for the Government
to react and act.
Let me repeat what colleagues have said on previous occasions.
One said:
“I know from my inbox that people of all ages and areas will be
very pleased that this is being highlighted as it’s awful, can be
embarrassing and is often very grim”.
Another wrote that
“speaking to police they find that most cases are young women
with an unexpected response to drinks…I really worry about the
fear that our young live under, and wonder whether this is
another type of control of women.”
The Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member
for Kingston upon Hull North ( ), highlighted the problem
when she said:
“There is not a specific criminal offence. If a drink is spiked
or if an injection takes place, it is rolled into a different
criminal offence.”
Those things have all helped to build my understanding of this
nightmare experience, which was first drawn to my attention by
the experience of my constituent, Maisy Farmer. It is no longer
possible for an MP to claim credibly that reports of spiking are
unproven. However, it is true that it is not easy for a victim to
prove spiking by having a hospital examination of her—or
sometimes his—body prioritised to identify the drug, or to
provide the identity of a spiker from a crowded nightclub.
That raises two key questions: how should the law change, and
what would a change of law achieve? No MP has the responses of
Government Departments in advance, so whether it is best to amend
existing law or to create a new, defined crime of spiking that
covers all contexts is surely for the Government—the Home Office
and Ministry of Justice together—to decide.
As to what such a change might achieve, there is a clear
opportunity to send a simple message in the language of our times
to all those who might think spiking is clever or funny about the
criminality of spiking, or attempting to spike, those going out
to public or private places.
It is surely a legitimate aim of legislation to consolidate and
clarify, using modern language; to nudge behaviour; and to oblige
the police to do more than Operation Lester—a temporary
project—and to record what is happening accurately over time.
Legislation would allow us all in this place to focus on making
our constituents’ lives, and nights out, safer, and give our
businesses full support in driving down spiking crimes.
The overriding reason for pursuing doggedly the issue of spiking
is that we have not done enough and should do more. As the former
safeguarding Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch
(), said in January:
“We need a holistic response to this crime...We need…legislative
change…making sure that police forces can gather data and mount
prosecutions using forensic capabilities”—[Official Report, 11
January 2023; Vol. 725, c. 270WH.]
She and many colleagues highlighted, as does the National Police
Chiefs’ Council, the lack of a clear criminal offence of
spiking.
If the Home Office and Ministry of Justice need further
encouragement, I urge them to consider the matter as a violence
against woman and girls issue, as it so often is. Policing lead
Maggie Blyth said: “If you are spiked, you must come forward. If
you have taken illegal drugs, still come forward and report it.”
That would be much easier if spiking were a crime. So many of my
colleagues and constituents, as well as university groups,
student unions, and Dawn Dines of Stamp Out Spiking, have made
those points time and again. As the Security Minister said in the
previous debate,
“no one wants a gap in the law. No one wants to see crimes going
unpunished and no one wants to see victims unable to achieve the
level of protection that is absolutely essential.”—[Official
Report, 11 January 2023; Vol. 725, c. 282WH.]
That is true and fine, but we need to act, for the thousands of
people who have been spiked and those who might still be. The
House is here to reflect the concerns of our constituents. We
should recognise that spiking exists and should be defined. The
law should make all the criminal aspects of spiking clear, in one
place. It is quite simply time to stop spiking now.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That , , , , , , , , and present the Bill.
accordingly presented the
Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24
November, and to be printed (Bill 323).
