The House of Commons Home Affairs Committee has published a report on ‘drink spiking’ (that you can download below), within which one of its recommendations states:

We are concerned that the Government is not doing enough to monitor licensing authorities’ use of powers to regulate the night-time economy, both with specific regard to spiking incidents and more generally in relation to violence against women and girls. Within three months the Government should:

(i) collect data on local licensing authorities’ use of their powers to impose conditions or revoke premises licenses, where venues do not take sufficient measures to protect and provide support to customers in spiking incidents;

(ii) work with local authorities to develop an anti-spiking strategy which encourages local licensing authorities to make better use of these powers; and

(iii) as part of this, review guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 with a view to requiring licensing authorities to consider the prevalence, prevention and reporting of sexual harassment and misconduct and gender-based violence in statements of local licensing policy.

The Committee’s own summary of the report reads as follows:

Drink spiking is a heinous crime which often has a damaging physical or mental health impact on its victims and that undermines their confidence. Improvements in reporting, investigating and prosecuting spiking incidents are urgently needed, to improve support for victims and to act as a deterrent.

Victims often experience memory loss or blackouts that hamper their ability to provide details of the spiking incident, if indeed they are prepared to report it at all. Barriers to reporting include: the belief that the police won’t do anything; not knowing where to report; and concern that it’s too late to report. The Home Office should conduct a national communications campaign to encourage victims to report spiking, tell them how to go about it, reassure them they will be believed, and signpost where and how to access support.

Even when victims report the crime, a victim-blaming culture can compound trauma and mean missed opportunities to collect evidence. Despite safeguarding training requirements for door supervisors, many victims criticise nightclubs’ treatment of victims, saying staff dismiss their concerns, eject them for “being drunk”, or refuse to provide CCTV footage. The Government should support night-time industries to help boost security measures such as recruitment and training of security staff.

Inadequate forensic testing capacity is another barrier to successful prosecution. Victims are often ping-ponged between the health service and the police, who told us they have insufficient forensic testing capacity and that late reporting reduces the viable testing window. The police piloted a rapid forensic testing service in response to a spate of needle spiking in autumn 2021. To help drive up prosecution rates, the Government should extend this service to all spiking victims, to ensure timely provision of forensic testing, admissible as evidence in court.

In 2018, licensing authorities conducted 600 licensing reviews, and revoked 212 licenses. There are 212,800 premises licenses in England and Wales. Local licensing authorities could make better use of their powers to regulate the night-time economy. We call on the Government to work with local authorities to develop an anti-spiking strategy. We are encouraged by a range of anti-spiking initiatives but concerned that some, while well-intentioned, may give victims false assurance about safety. The Government should evaluate the relative efficacy of anti-spiking initiatives and develop a national strategy that promotes best practice and requires all police forces and local authorities to publish their chosen approach.

Several offences may be used to prosecute spiking but there is no specific offence. This, together with limited reporting, investigation and prosecution, means there are few deterrents for offenders. As part of our recommended national anti-spiking communication campaign, the Home Office should send a clear message to offenders that there is no acceptable defence for spiking, that it can have devastating consequences for victims and that it is punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

We are pleased that the Government is considering the case for a separate criminal offence for spiking. However, the most pressing need is for police to collect more data on perpetrators and their motives for spiking innocent victims. The Home Office should commission research to feed into a national strategy for prevention, detection and prosecution of spiking.

The Committee’s overall conclusions and recommendations are listed below (as they appear within the report):

Conclusions and recommendations

Scale of the problem

1. We recommend that all staff working at music festivals, including vendors, be given compulsory safeguarding training, and this be a requirement that licensing authorities consider when approving events. This might be done along lines similar to training provided in voluntary schemes in other licensed premises, such as Ask Angela or the licensing security and vulnerability initiative (Licensing SAVI). (Paragraph 12)

2. We believe that a more formal and higher standard is required for outdoor music festivals owing to the comparatively younger age of festival-goers and the additional vulnerability that arises from their camping over at such festivals. (Paragraph 12)

3. No-one knows how prevalent spiking is, whether by drink, drug or needle, and no-one knows what causes perpetrators to do it. Anecdotal evidence suggests the practice is widespread and dangerous, and that many people, particularly young, particularly women, are affected by it and are afraid they will be spiked on evenings out. An absence of accurate data makes it impossible, however, to judge accurately just how widespread, how dangerous spiking is. Policy initiatives to reduce both spiking and the fear of it cannot be well-founded or well-targeted without reliable evidence. (Paragraph 18)

4. We call on the Home Office to increase education and awareness about spiking and welcome its considering whether a specific new offence of spiking is required. We urge the Home Office, however, to focus its efforts first on improving reporting of the crime of spiking and on gathering information about the reasons for and outcomes of such reports. We invite the Home Office to set out steps it will take to improve data on the prevalence, scale and dangers of spiking. (Paragraph 19)

Legal framework

5. The Home Office should give the Committee a written update six months from the date of publication of this Report on progress towards creating a separate criminal offence of spiking. (Paragraph 26)

6. The existence of a spiking offence would not in and of itself stop spiking, but it would have several benefits. First, it would facilitate police work under way to identify perpetrators and patterns of offending by enabling the police to collect better data on the prevalence of spiking incidents. Secondly, it would act as a deterrent by sending a clear message to perpetrators that this is a serious crime which attracts severe penalties. And thirdly, victims would be more likely to report spiking it if it were a recognised criminal offence. (Paragraph 26)

Preventing and deterring spiking

7. There is an urgent need for improved education and awareness around spiking across several sectors. (Paragraph 47)

8. As part of its national communications campaign to say “Enough” to violence against women and girls, the Government should engage with the night-time industry, the education sector, and the health sector to produce a national anti-spiking communications campaign. The awareness raising campaign should:

(i) send a clear message that there is no acceptable defence for spiking, whether done for fun or malicious intent; that it can have devastating consequences for victims; and that spiking is a crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison;

(ii) encourage victims and venues to report incidents to the police, with the promise that all reports will be investigated; and

(iii) communicate immediate and longer-term sources of support for spiking victims, including testing.(Paragraph 47)

9. There is strong support for increased security measures in night-time venues, but critical shortages in door security staff. (Paragraph 54)

10. As part of its wider VAWG strategy, the Government should consider a support package for night-time industries to boost security measures including the recruitment and training of additional door security staff, particularly female staff. (Paragraph 54)

11. We are concerned that the Government is not doing enough to monitor licensing authorities’ use of powers to regulate the night-time economy, both with specific regard to spiking incidents and more generally in relation to violence against women and girls. (Paragraph 59)

Within three months the Government should:

(i) collect data on local licensing authorities’ use of their powers to impose conditions or revoke premises licenses, where venues do not take sufficient measures to protect and provide support to customers in spiking incidents;

(ii) work with local authorities to develop an anti-spiking strategy which encourages local licensing authorities to make better use of these powers; and

(iii) as part of this, review guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 with a view to requiring licensing authorities to consider the prevalence, prevention and reporting of sexual harassment and misconduct and gender-based violence in statements of local licensing policy. (Paragraph 59)

12. We are pleased to learn there are many initiatives across the country to tackle spiking but are concerned that without a national strategy to ensure a consistent, wholesale approach, the current patchwork of initiatives may make those in parts of the country that have not yet taken action more vulnerable to spiking. (Paragraph 66)

13. The Government should evaluate the efficacy of different anti-spiking partnership initiatives and develop a national strategy which promotes best practice and requires all police forces and local authorities to publish their chosen approach. (Paragraph 66)

Detecting and investigating spiking

14. The Home Office, in partnership with key stakeholders, should conduct a national communications campaign to raise awareness of how to act when people suspect they have been spiked. This campaign should emphasise the importance of individuals and venues reporting incidents or concerns to the police. An option to report spiking incidents anonymously should also be included, possibly via Crime Stoppers.Increased data from increased reporting of incidents would help the police to profile offenders and identify the causes of offending. (Paragraph 75)

15. Accessibility to testing is an issue for many victims and the lack of forensic testing capacity creates evidential difficulties for the police. (Paragraph 85)

16. To ensure adequate, timely provision of forensic sampling of a standard sufficient to be admissible as evidence in court, the Government should introduce a duty on all police forces to provide those who report any spiking incident with the rapid testing service introduced in response to the outbreak of needle spiking. (Paragraph 85)

17. We are pleased that the Home Office is planning a scientific review of testing kits but are concerned that in the meantime victims could get false assurances from such kits. (Paragraph 89)

18. The Home Office should require commercially available drug-testing products to carry warnings about their limitations; expedite its planned scientific review of the relative merits of the various spiking testing pilots being run by the police, universities and hospitals and report back to the Committee in three months’ time; and provide support to allow wider adoption of the best schemes across the country once the review is completed. (Paragraph 89)

19. Limited police understanding of the motives and profile of spiking offenders hampers their ability to develop a national strategy on tackling spiking. (Paragraph 96)

20. The Home Office should commission academic research into the motivations and profile of spikers, to feed into a national strategy for preventing, detecting and prosecuting spiking offences. (Paragraph 97)

21. Successful prosecution has a deterrent value for both actual and would-be spikers and sends a clear message that spiking is a crime. We are therefore disappointed by the very low number of successful prosecutions for spiking offences. (Paragraph 103)

22. To increase the deterrent effect of increased prosecutions, Government should devise a strategy to address each of the factors that inhibit prosecution from lack of reporting through to failure to collect forensic evidence. (Paragraph 103)