Spiking Incidents: Prevention

Debate between Richard Graham and Alex Sobel

Wednesday 11th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[Richard Graham]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, because she has said what I think many Members of this House are saying. Indeed, I know that the daughter of one colleague has been spiked and that a Minister has been spiked, so this is something that, unfortunately, is not remote from us at all. It has happened to people in this House, it has happened to their families and it has happened to our constituents. That is why I was so encouraged when Ministers were saying last autumn that there was a positive solution within their grasp. I believe their intention was to come back very early this year with a specific proposal, but, alas, that has not come to pass.

Instead, the Minister for Safeguarding, my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Miss Dines), who is not in her place because she is attending a Select Committee hearing, has written to me and the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North, whose Committee has done such valuable research on spiking, which I will come on to. The Minister’s letter was six dense pages of argument that amounted to two letters: no. In almost 13 years as an MP, I have not read such an extraordinary letter. The Minister in attendance is the Minister for Security, but, to be frank, his portfolio has the least relevance to spiking. He should be focused on major threats to the nation, such as terrorism. I am sure he is grateful for this hospital pass. For his sake, it is relevant to comment on the letter. The Select Committee has today put in the public domain, so other Members may not yet be aware of it.

Let me first say what is helpful in the letter to those of us concerned about the prevalence of spiking, the lack of knowledge about relevant law and the lack of data about instances of spiking.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

After the pandemic, the first students to return to university in my constituency saw a huge increase in spiking—both of young males and females, and both by needle and in drinks. West Yorkshire Police responded by buying testing kits because they had no evidence base at all. Surely part of the solution is that all police forces should have testing kits and test in all incidents, so that we can collect data. We are not getting very far with prosecutions under the current law, because there is no evidence base.

[Richard Graham]

The hon. Member makes good points. I was going to mention this as the first point that was constructive in the Minister’s letter. To be fair to the Home Office—this is the first constructive point in the Safeguarding Minister’s letter—it has

“supported Universities UK and the Department for Education to provide guidance to universities on spiking published ahead of the Autumn term and the ‘freshers’ period.”

That is precisely because of the point the hon. Member made about the sharp increase in spiking before term started in 2021. That is a positive.

It is also positive that the Minister has proposed, subject to consultation, amendments to section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, which

“could include explicit reference to spiking, providing a government definition of the crime, highlighting the existing offences which can be used to prosecute incidents of spiking including examples of spiking”.

She suggests that the Government could also direct licensing authorities to send a strong and explicit message that

“no matter how you spike someone…it is against the law.”

I agree. That is exactly the message that we need in law through a simple amendment to the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, so why do the Minister for Safeguarding and the Home Office not get it?

The letter then puts out various straw man arguments, which I will deal with in turn. I place the first point the heading, “Existing offences coverage”. The letter goes into considerable detail and concludes that

“all methods of spiking are already covered within the current legislation.”

It highlights section 24, which includes a crime described as

“Maliciously administering poison, &c. with intent to injure, aggrieve, or annoy any other person.”

That could cover, the Minister argues, a potential gap regarding spiking done “for fun”. Personally, however, I believe that proving an intent to annoy could be easily met by the defence, “I didn’t mean to annoy or upset”. Should we not recognise that spiking is, at the least, annoying, full stop, without prevaricating about it? Most importantly, cannot all of these sections of the 1861 Act be grouped under a single, compelling umbrella statement very similar to that proposed for the guidance to the night-time economy?

I place the second point under the heading, “Absence of the word spiking in law”. The Safeguarding Minister recognises, while arguing that existing law already covers spiking, that there is currently no agreed definition of spiking. But she has also suggested that Government provide a definition for section 182 of the Licensing Act, so that point is already dealt with—the Government have already promised to provide that. She goes on to say that introducing a new offence would “overlap with existing offences”, but I am arguing that adding a grouping to include existing offences under the simple term “spiking” would do the job. We do not need a new offence; we need to amend existing law, not create a new law.

The Minister acknowledges that the law does not actually reference spiking, but she argues that, while it can be tempting to “reflect modern terminology”, effectively we should not do so. But we have done exactly that with legislation on upskirting, a term I am confident did not exist in 1861 any more than spiking by needle in nightclubs did. We do reflect modern terminology in law. We can do so and we should do so.

Thirdly, on the name of the offence, the Minister goes on to say that the general public

“believe that spiking is illegal, even if they cannot name the specific offence it comes under.”

If the first part of that were true, I doubt any of us would be here, nor would my and many other Members’ constituents—one victim is here today—be pressing us to action, such as Dawn Dines, founder of Stamp Out Spiking, and our police and crime commissioners and the police lead on this issue would not be saying that they believe action is necessary.

The second part of the Minister’s letter on naming the specific offence shows precisely why an amendment is necessary. The offence is known to the public as spiking, and that is what the law should reflect. Although the detail of a 162-year-old Act may be fine, the law can also play a vital role in behavioural change. An amendment reflecting modern language would do just that, making the law unambiguous, especially for a younger generation, who are largely the victims and sometimes the perpetrators of spiking offences.

Fourthly, on data collection, data is critical to understanding both why we need laws and what is happening in society. The Minister writes that a specific spiking offence would

“add to the existing offences…hence potentially confusing the data analysis picture further.”

But that is not what the Select Committee was told. I will quote from former deputy chief constable and lead for drugs at the National Police Chiefs’ Council, Jason Harwin, who highlighted to the Select Committee that it is near impossible to get reliable data on drink spiking, saying:

“A challenge is that if it goes on to a second offence—rape or other offences—the original offence that could be linked to spiking, while recorded, is no longer identified in terms of how we flag it within our records.”

In answer to a question from the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) about a specific criminal code for spiking helping, he said that

“we cannot get the data together as quickly, because it might be spread over a number of offences.”

He went on to say:

“The reality is we cannot readily connect offences or offenders straight away”,

and that having a separate offence—effectively, as I would call it, an umbrella offence—

“would help us identify the picture quickly now.”

Fairs and Showgrounds

Debate between Richard Graham and Alex Sobel

Thursday 17th December 2020 Westminster Hall

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is always a pleasure to be chaired by you, Mr Hollobone. I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) for securing this vital debate on an important matter, as well as colleagues from across the House for their contributions.

The hon. Member for Glasgow East passionately showed his connection to and support for showpeople in his comprehensive speech. I was particularly grateful for his support for showpeople in Belgium, and thank him and the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) for highlighting the importance of red diesel.

I thank the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) for showing his passion for the King’s Lynn mart, which, I must admit, I had not heard of before, and for his points about local authorities and the need for support from the coronavirus relief fund, which I will come to. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) gave a great exposition of the Ocean Beach Pleasure Park in her constituency, which I look forward to visiting when possible. She also raised the issue of the 3 million excluded, which affects showpeople and those who work in fairs and fairgrounds in particular, as well as the issue of the debts that showpeople have accrued.

The hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), as an honourable member of the Showmen’s Guild of Great Britain, is uniquely qualified to comment on and represent the concerns of showpeople, and I thank him for his speech. The hon. Member for Southend West mentioned the decline of the importance of fairs and fairgrounds to Parliament, and the falling away of the all-party parliamentary group, but I am sure that under his and other Back-Bench Members’ leaderships, we can return to the glory days of supporting showpeople. The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) highlighted the outdoor nature of fairs and fairgrounds, and their benefits for people’s wellbeing during the pandemic. The hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) highlighted the specialist manufacturing sector. I will also mention that, as it is important to this debate.

This year, we have seen the Conservative Administration show disdain for workers’ industries across all sectors in the UK. Fairgrounds have been ignored entirely. From the Great British seaside to the commons of our towns and cities, fairgrounds present a unique source of fun to be enjoyed by friends and families alike. Many of us have really fond memories of going to fairs when growing up, particularly in small towns. It was one of our first experiences of being able to go to something independently of our parents, in our early teens. My memories are of going to the Becky fair with my mates and, more recently, of taking my own children to the Leeds Valentine’s fair.

Fairgrounds employ thousands of workers nationally, but with more than 90% of events cancelled this year the sector faces unprecedented hardship, even though fairgrounds have made huge efforts to become covid-secure. The fairs are real family businesses, as so many hon. Members have said, with generations of people owning and working on them. Most are represented by the Showmen’s Guild of Great Britain, which speaks for nearly all our travelling funfairs.

[Richard Graham]

The hon. Gentleman is making a good speech, but I say gently to him that it is a bit unkind to say that the Government have done nothing at all for showpeople. The key element to all this is the local council. My council, Gloucester City Council, not only granted the Willie Wilson funfair its usual fair, but actually extended the amount of time it could open, so more people could benefit from it. It is really down to councils, and I hope that both Labour and Conservative councils will respond to our points about supporting showmen.

[Alex Sobel]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. Local authorities cannot provide the financial support and grants that the Government can, but I will come to the point about the trading aspects of fairs and fairgrounds, which is hugely important, as he said.

I recently met representatives of the Showmen’s Guild of Great Britain, and the stories that I heard were heartbreaking. As the Minister knows, and as we have shared during the debate, many of those family businesses, which underpin much of our cultural heritage, sit at the heart of communities and often raise huge amounts of money for charity and engage with social initiatives. During covid-19, many showpeople became key workers: many used their heavy goods vehicle licences to help to supply supermarkets across the country, while others delivered fresh produce to local people who were struggling in lockdown. Some even donated supplies to NHS staff and hospitals across the country.

Swathes of the hospitality sector have spent a great deal of time and resource refactoring their businesses to allow them to provide a safe environment for their patrons during the pandemic. Fairground businesses, as we know, are based outdoors in the open air, and are no different. People across the industry have gone to great lengths in that regard, but while businesses in other sectors have been given priority to operate, they have been stymied and blocked. The Government seem to have totally forgotten about the travelling fairgrounds, or are just passing on responsibility without sufficient guidance and support. Businesses are struggling without adequate support from Government, as the direct cash grants for closed businesses are worth—at most—half what they were during the first lockdown.

Meanwhile, the one-off additional restrictions grant for local areas is inadequate and fails to take into account the circumstances of various restrictions in different places. Operators alone have had access to piecemeal self-employment grants that completely overlook each fairground’s numerous additional workers. In my neighbouring constituency of Leeds Central, the Valentine’s fair employs more than 700 people. None has received any financial support or reassurance that they can return to work next year.

The industry has been denied access to the closed local restrictions support grant, and does not appear to be receiving funding from the open discretionary local restrictions support grant—in any case, those grants will be worth at most half. Fairgrounds also do not seem to be in receipt of support from the additional restrictions grant, which, again, is flawed in its design, failing to take into account the circumstances of various restrictions. Grants from those imperfect schemes would still be better than nothing to the fairground sector, which desperately wants to be able to protect jobs, protect the industry, and offer much needed support to both employers and employees, many of whom operate without rateable premises and often as sole traders. The winter months are a period of preparation for the new year in the fairground industry. With no clear plan for their return and no financial support, operators have been left mired in uncertainty. Many find themselves unable to even pay for services missed during peak times of operation.

The Government gave local authorities the power to close travelling fairgrounds while retaining power over theme parks, which are allowed to open while travelling fairgrounds are denied the same opportunity. The Government need to create a level playing field and take a stronger hand with local authorities, as the hon. Member for Gloucester intervened on me to say.

The fairground sector was already facing significant hurdles before the additional complications caused by covid-19. Travel ambiguity and rising costs, a direct result of Brexit, add additional unnecessary strain. Those factors, alongside the squeeze and the pandemic, have left many on the brink.

When I met the Showmen’s Guild, it noted that 40% of members have reported rising insurance fees. Last year alone, one ride saw an insurance cost rise from £177 to £532, which is another issue that the Minister needs to address. He also needs to consider the supply chain. Many manufacturing businesses with a unique set of skills, which the hon. Member for Glasgow Central raised, are worth £200 million to the national economy.

On support elsewhere in the UK, the Scottish Government have issued £1.5 million to Scottish showmen to compensate for their loss of income, which was mentioned by the hon. Members for Glasgow Central and for Glasgow East. The devolved Administrations in Northern Ireland and Wales are likewise offering specific tailored support. The industry is really struggling. The Minister knows that nearly a quarter of the cultural recovery fund is yet to be allocated, but travelling fairgrounds are currently excluded. Could they now be included, even at this late stage? I want to hear the Minister’s views on that.

Who could deny that fairs and fairgrounds are a part of our nation’s cultural heritage? Even Simon and Garfunkel knew of Scarborough fair, although it ceased to exist 200 years before they penned their classic song. I hope the Minister has urgent solutions, or it might be only in song that people know of our great fairs and travelling fairgrounds in future.

European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill

Debate between Richard Graham and Alex Sobel

3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 4th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Richard Graham]

I rise to seek colleagues’ patience in proposing something that I believe is a compromise that many Members in this House have long sought and many people have expressed support for. The compromise goes like this. There are many of us on both sides of this House who do not want no deal and yet, as has been pointed out by many Members, including the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), many colleagues have not supported a deal. My simple amendment to the Bill would require the Government to have a vote on Monday 21 October—the first sitting day after the EU Council—on a deal, whether it be a new deal or the previous deal. Should that vote be successful and approved by Members of this House, the Government would be required, if they needed more time, to ask for an extension from the European Union, purely in order to get the legislation through Parliament.

Whereas other amendments that will be debated today require the Government to ask for an extension and then set about trying to find the deal, mine does the opposite. It gives us all the chance to vote for either the existing deal previously negotiated by the last Government or whatever new deal is successfully negotiated by the new Government. That means that everyone in this House who wishes to prevent no deal would have the chance to do so by voting for that deal. I hope that many colleagues around this House who have been able to prevent making a decision between a deal and no deal would realise that that was the last chance to do that—merely a week before no deal became the default on 31 October.

I know there are some colleagues for whom the business of asking for an extension is part of the circuit of trying to prevent Brexit from happening at all, and I understand that. However, I believe there may be a majority in this House who have accepted the will of the people in the referendum, and who have said and told their constituents that they respect the referendum result, and a lot of us were elected on a manifesto pledge to do so. This would be the moment when we could put that to the test and vote for a deal.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Gentleman’s amendment mentions our having a motion of the House. The last time we had a withdrawal agreement motion, we had five days of debate. Is there sufficient time to have five days of debate before 31 October, if we pass his amendment?

[Richard Graham]

The short answer to that is almost certainly no. However, we have had not just five days of debate, but weeks and months and years of debate on these issues. The previous deal, which I regarded as a good deal, was debated ad infinitum in this House. I do not believe that we would need five more days of debate to be able to reach a decision about whether we wanted a deal or no deal.