Hansard

I thank the members who signed my motion so that it could be debated in the chamber. I particularly thank Tess White and Michelle Thomson, whom I have worked with to raise the profile of non-fatal strangulation. As both members have indicated that they will not seek re-election, I recognise their commitment to fighting violence against women and girls in Scotland. I look forward to hearing their contributions as well as those of others from across the chamber.

At the outset, I commend the researchers whose work has prompted the debate. Led by Professors Sonia Oreffice and Climent Quintana-Domeque of the University of Exeter, the research on intimate partner homicide and non-fatal strangulation is not only academically rigorous but profoundly human in its implications. Their work has brought new evidence into focus and it gives renewed urgency to the discussion.

Non-fatal strangulation is not a new concern. It is an issue that I and others have been raising in the Parliament for a number of years with successive justice secretaries and First Ministers, as well as in debates and through questions. The normalisation of non-fatal strangulation, driven by pornography, should be challenged. I welcome the intention of the Online Safety Act 2023 to outlaw choking in online pornography, making it a priority offence.

The Institute for Addressing Strangulation has carried out two surveys. In less than a year, there was an increase, from 35 to 51 per cent, in the number of people aged 16 to 34 who reported being choked during sex. While 70 per cent of people said that consent was established before choking and 38 per cent reported that they enjoyed it, 27 per cent said that there was no consent and 36 per cent felt scared by the action.

Although the focus of today’s debate is the research that seeks to strengthen the legal framework, we must recognise that IFAS research shows that 29 per cent think that there are safe ways to strangle, 38 per cent enjoy it and 18 per cent think that it is a normal part of sex. We can legislate more, but that will not necessarily stop non-fatal strangulation in intimate relationships.

Non-fatal strangulation is not risk free. It can cause serious internal injury, brain damage or loss of consciousness within seconds. It can cause incontinence, coughing, neck pain and confusion, and can lead to anxiety and depression. However, it might not leave visible marks, and the absence of visible injury can affect how incidents are recorded, investigated or prosecuted. It can be used as a tool of control and coercion. Survivors describe how terrifying the experience can be, not only because of the physical danger but because of what it represents—an assertion of total control over breath, consciousness and life.

As a Parliament and as a society, are we prepared to challenge the normalisation of strangulation within sexual relationships? What are we going to do about it?

In 2019, research for BBC Radio 5 Live found that a third of women under 40 had experienced unwanted slapping, choking, gagging or spitting during consensual sex. The Centre for Women’s Justice said that the findings showed the

“growing pressure on young women to consent to violent, dangerous and demeaning acts”.

I have pressed the Scottish Government to undertake research into the normalisation of violence and sexual activity, including choking, reflecting the evidence and unease that acts that carry a high risk of serious harm are being continually framed as routine or expected.

In Scotland, there should be a multidisciplinary approach that encompasses public health, education and justice. It would appear that that is not the case and that there is very little recognition of the prevalence of the practice and its consequences. Non-fatal strangulation in intimate partner relationships is too often minimised, misunderstood or treated as a lesser form of assault, but the evidence that is being presented today often recognises it as a strong predictor of future lethal violence.

Consent does not exist in a vacuum, and where there is fear, coercion, power imbalance and risk of serious harm, the concept of consent becomes problematic. The survey shows that 46 per cent of respondents consent to being strangled or strangling others because their partner enjoys it, not necessarily because they enjoy it. Treating strangulation as normal, mutual or harmless risks obscuring abuse and silencing victims.

The research that is highlighted in today’s motion reinforces why that matters. It is the first known international study to examine the impact of stand-alone non-fatal strangulation laws on intimate partner homicide rates across multiple jurisdictions, and its findings are striking. In US states where non-fatal strangulation has been criminalised as a distinct serious offence, intimate partner homicides fell by double-digit percentages. Female victim homicides declined by around 14 per cent, and male victim homicides fell by 27 per cent.

The researchers estimate that more than 1,500 lives have been saved as a result of those laws. Those represent people—overwhelmingly, though not exclusively, women—who are alive today because earlier intimate-relationship violence was recognised, taken seriously and interrupted before it escalated into something fatal. They suggest that when the law clearly recognises non-fatal strangulation as serious, dangerous and criminal in its own right, it can disrupt patterns of escalation and coercive control.

Scotland has made important progress in recognising domestic abuse as a pattern of behaviour and not a series of isolated incidents. However, the evidence raises a legitimate and pressing question: does our current law sufficiently recognise non-fatal strangulation within that framework, or is there a gap that leaves victims at risk? We should examine whether existing offences adequately capture the harm, risk and intent that are associated with non-fatal strangulation.

In a previous meeting that Tess White and I sponsored, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service set out the argument that one cannot consent to harm in Scotland, so the offence already exists. I accepted that, and I would be reluctant to legislate unnecessarily. However, the research from the University of Exeter adds weight to the calls for a stand-alone offence. If criminalising non-fatal strangulation as a stand-alone offence could help to prevent escalation, improve recording and prosecution and, ultimately, save lives, I believe that Parliament has a responsibility to consider it. We should engage seriously with the evidence that is before us and ask whether our existing offences capture the reality of harm, risk and intent associated with strangulation, particularly when there are no visible injuries and no weapon.

I want to acknowledge the survivors and advocacy organisations that have long highlighted non-fatal strangulation as a critical issue. They are often sharing their lived experience at a time when it is unfashionable to challenge the culture and when there is a minimisation of the experience that being strangled can be terrifying and life-threatening and is never minor.

This debate reflects a conversation that has been building in Parliament for a few years. I hope that it marks the point at which we move from recognising the problem to actively exploring solutions, which should be grounded in evidence, informed by survivors and driven by the shared aim of preventing a further loss of life.