Official Report 1035KB pdf
The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-19504, in the name of Claire Baker, on non-fatal strangulation laws and intimate partner homicides. The debate will be concluded without any question being put. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes the calls for legislation to create a standalone offence of non-fatal strangulation (NFS), in light of new research led by Professors Sonia Oreffice and Climent Quintana-Domeque at the University of Exeter on intimate partner homicides and NFS; understands that this is the first known study to examine the impact of standalone NFS laws on intimate partner homicides across multiple jurisdictions internationally; notes that the study finds that, in US jurisdictions where NFS has been criminalised as a standalone serious offence, intimate partner homicides fell by double-digit percentages, with female-victim homicides declining by around 14% and male-victim homicides by 27%, and estimates that more than 1,500 lives have been saved since the adoption of such laws; expresses concern regarding the view that these reductions could highlight a significant gap in Scots law; understands that criminalising NFS could be considered as a potential approach to reduce the deadliest consequences of intimate partner violence; further understands that NFS often leaves no visible injuries, yet is a strong predictor of future lethal violence, and that, in the absence of a standalone offence, NFS may go unrecorded or be prosecuted only as minor assault due to the absence of visible injuries or a weapon; notes with alarm the scale and salience of violence against women and girls in Scotland, including in the Mid Scotland and Fife region; considers that standalone NFS laws could disrupt any escalation of violence and coercive control and help prevent lethal outcomes and wider harms, and commends the research team for its ongoing work in this area.
12:49
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.
We move to the open debate.
12:56
I, too, thank Claire Baker for her work in this matter and for obtaining the debate, and I accord my own respects to the power of collaborative cross-party working.
I want to speak a little more about the research paper “Disrupting Violence, Protecting Lives: Strangulation Laws and Intimate Partner Homicides”, which is very compelling and shows beyond reasonable doubt that treating non-fatal strangulation as a stand-alone criminal offence saves lives. The paper analyses nearly 30 years of data linking non-fatal strangulation laws across the United States with detailed homicide statistics. The researchers show that, where non-fatal strangulation laws were introduced, intimate partner homicides fell dramatically.
Among adults aged 18 to 49—the age group that is most affected—US states saw a 14 per cent reduction in female intimate partner homicide and a 27 per cent reduction in male intimate partner homicide, compared with what would have otherwise occurred. Those are not modelling assumptions or advocacy claims; they are causal effects derived from a rigorous two-stage difference-in-differences methodology. The study goes further. It finds no similar reductions in killings by strangers, which tells us that the laws did not simply coincide with wider crime declines. Instead, the drop is specific, targeted and clearly linked to non-fatal strangulation legislation.
Why do we care? We care because non-fatal strangulation is one of the strongest predictors of later homicide. We know that it often leaves little visible injury and, historically, it has been treated as a simple assault. The research explains that that legal vacuum has had fatal consequences. Victims would be nearly killed, yet the police could often charge only a minor offence. That had the effect of weakening justice responses, sending the wrong message to perpetrators and leaving the victims exposed.
Where laws have been introduced, things have changed, as the study shows. Police classify more intimate partner violence cases as aggravated assault and arrest rates for aggravated IPV have increased, especially in cases involving women who are most exposed. In other words, the law empowers earlier, stronger intervention, thus breaking the pathway from non-fatal strangulation to homicide.
The evidence is clear that a stand-alone non-fatal strangulation offence saves lives. In Scotland, we do not yet have such an offence. I know that the Scottish Government has stated that it does not believe that a stand-alone offence is necessary at this time, and it has made various arguments about existing laws on assault, attempted murder and so on. I also know that ministers have said that they will keep the matter under review. However, the current legal framework is insufficient.
Although we might introduce additional legislative complexity with a stand-alone offence, we would also improve outcomes. Fundamentally, the evidence that is before us shows that general assault laws do not deliver the same prevention effect. The specificity of the offence—the formal legal recognition of strangulation as a distinct high-risk act—enables justice systems elsewhere to intervene earlier and more effectively.
The Government states that it is committed to reducing violence against women and girls but, on this matter, the evidence goes beyond principle: it is empirical. The question for us now is simple: if we know that, as proven by the research that I mentioned, action can prevent homicides, why would we wait? It is time for us to act.
13:00
I want to say a special thank you to Claire Baker for raising this topic and to Michelle Thomson for working on it over the past few years.
Emily Drouet was in her first year of university when she met a boy who went on to become her boyfriend, to strangle her and to engage in such demoralisation of her as a person that, in 2016, she committed suicide. Scotland is the only part of the United Kingdom that does not have non-fatal strangulation as a stand-alone crime. I pay tribute to Fiona Drouet for her dedication and persistence in progressing her petition on non-fatal strangulation and to Beira’s Place for its insightful cross-party event with leading experts.
Strangulation for sexual purposes is now part of our culture. It is especially common in the young. Research has shown that 43 per cent of sexually active 16 and 17-year-olds and 35 per cent of 16 to 34-year-olds have experienced it. What was niche has now become part of the mainstream via increasingly extreme pornography. The issue has crept up on society unnoticed with unthinkable consequences.
As we have heard, strangulation is a strong predictor of escalating domestic abuse and intimate harm. One woman in four accessing community and refuge services in this country reported that they had experienced strangulation or suffocation. However, strangulation often leaves no visible physical injury, which makes it difficult to assess and to prosecute under existing common-law assault offences.
The First Minister has said that he needs the gap in the law to be proven for non-fatal strangulation to be made a stand-alone crime, but is the data on NFS collected in Scotland? Markers are added to crimes if NFS has taken place but, as it is not always reported, there will always be underreporting. Many women are reluctant to come forward. A stand-alone crime would enable awareness and data collection to encourage women to report it to the police.
However, data is collected in many countries, and a research report from the University of Exeter published in December 2025 found that an NFS law might have prevented 1,029 female intimate partner homicides. Crucially, such a law stops perpetrators before violence turns deadly. As we have heard, the researchers, Professor Sonia Oreffice and Professor Climent Quintana-Domeque, say:
“Laws that explicitly define and criminalise non-fatal strangulation are a scalable and actionable policy tool for preventing lethal acts of domestic violence. Our findings show how laws can be designed to shift enforcement earlier in the violence cycle and meaningfully enhance victim safety.”
Fiona Drouet, in reply to the Lord Advocate’s rejection of a stand-alone NFS crime said:
“A specific law would reinforce to health professionals, educators, and frontline responders that this behaviour is a red flag for escalating harm, including homicide and suicide. It would also support victims in recognising the seriousness of their experiences and empower them to seek help.”
Emily Drouet was caught in the gap where the law should have been. In her name and that of so many others, it is time that we make non-fatal strangulation a stand-alone crime in Scotland.
13:05
I thank Claire Baker for bringing this important debate to the chamber, and I thank all those who have contributed so far. I associate myself with the remarks that everybody has made about the importance of cross-party working, particularly in this area, and of the quality of the research in this area. That research might be limited, but its quality is so important.
Today’s motion asks the Parliament to recognise and consider the benefits of creating a stand-alone offence for non-fatal strangulation, which, in my view, could see significant improvements to public awareness, data collection, and victim safety and support.
Non-fatal strangulation is a severe form of domestic abuse that is predominantly carried out by men against women. As we have heard, it can have serious and long-term side effects, including brain damage, organ failure and mental health issues. It has potentially life-threatening consequences and can cause extreme trauma for victims.
In her speech, Tess White showed the shocking reality and why we have to highlight it. As the motion highlights, non-fatal strangulation often leaves no visible injuries, but it is a strong predictor of future lethal violence and is becoming increasingly more common, particularly, as we have heard from other contributors, among younger people, who might not fully understand the consequences.
Although non-fatal strangulation is prosecuted as a criminal offence in Scotland under the common law of assault, as we have heard, that common-law route does not always work and can fall short of fully capturing the offence. I believe that exploring how and where improvements can be made might significantly improve outcomes for victims. If we cannot fully capture the offence, we cannot get improvements.
I want to recognise the bold and world-leading action that the Parliament is taking to tackle violence against women and girls. That has been done, because we work on a cross-party basis and listen to each other. I think that that should be put on the record.
As non-fatal strangulation is currently recorded under a range of offences, there is an issue with the recording of—and, indeed, the lack of—data. That is an important element; I do not need to explain just how important data is. It is important not only because it allows us to understand the scale of the problem and to increase awareness, as I have said. Capturing and recording that data is important in a medical sense; it is important for research, which will allow us to change the impacts; and it is important at an individual level, too, at the point at which a victim presents at a hospital. Therefore, it is very important that we get the data right, because doing so will help us increase public awareness of the dangers.
A strong case can be made that a stand-alone law would improve education and awareness of the effects of strangulation and could help improve the long-term safety and wellbeing of the victims. Underreporting is such an issue, and a stand-alone law might help if people really understood what we were trying to record.
I recognise the arguments that Claire Baker highlighted—I, too, was at that round table—from people who have cautioned against introducing a stand-alone offence, given the potential unintended consequences. We could look for a quicker alternative approach, but it might not be as effective and might fall short in addressing the core problems.
Tackling violence against women and girls must and should always be a priority for the Parliament. In my view, it is absolutely worth exploring the creation of a stand-alone offence, as it could send a message. It is important for Scotland that we see this as our absolute priority.
I thank Claire Baker and other members for their contributions.
13:09
Emily Drouet was a law student at the University of Aberdeen. She was kind, compassionate, intelligent and thoughtful. Emily died in 2016 when an incident occurred following a pattern of abuse by her boyfriend, Angus Milligan. The incident was initially treated as non-suspicious, but it later emerged that she had reported to the university an earlier assault that included strangulation.
At that time, non-fatal strangulation was poorly understood and often characterised as a minor assault. Police and medical professionals failed to recognise strangulation as a high-risk indicator of homicide. However, we know from the report, the study that has been referenced and the powerful motion for today’s debate that non-fatal strangulation is incredibly serious. It can directly cause internal injuries, including brain injury and hypoxia. It carries a high risk of delayed death and is one of the strongest predictors of future lethal violence.
Because of that, the EmilyTest campaign was set up to demand that strangulation should always trigger an urgent medical response and enhanced police safeguarding, even where the victim appears outwardly unharmed. The campaign is also one of many calling for non-fatal strangulation to be a stand-alone offence, as it has been in England and Wales since 2022, and in Northern Ireland since 2023.
It is certainly arguable that the absence of such an offence means that police and prosecutors lack a clear legal category, that data collection on incidents is poor, that the seriousness of strangulation might not be sufficiently recognised or deterred, and that public awareness of the life-threatening nature of strangulation remains low. Police Scotland and the Crown Office now recognise strangulation as a red flag for homicide risk, but absent such an offence, there is no statutory requirement that every report of strangulation should trigger an immediate medical assessment, specialist medical imaging or a specific risk or safeguarding review.
From the start, the EmilyTest campaign—it can be found on emilytest.org if anyone who is watching is impacted or concerned by what they are hearing—demanded action, setting out clear and articulate deliverables through means, including a petition, for a stand-alone criminal offence.
Here is my biggest concern: the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee considered that petition last April; the Criminal Justice Committee examined it last summer; the Scottish Government’s programme for government stated that it would carry out a comprehensive assessment of the law to determine whether further action is needed; and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs updated the justice committee in November, saying that that comprehensive assessment would take place. In December, the Lord Advocate wrote to Fiona Drouet—who joins us in the public gallery today—acknowledging the concern and explaining the current position, but giving no firm direction forward.
Now here we are, 11 weeks from the dissolution of this Parliament and all that that entails, and the overwhelming impression is that the issue is not being prioritised sufficiently. Nearly a decade on from Emily’s tragic death, the campaign tells me that it has yet to see tangible progress.
Thanks to Claire Baker’s motion, the report that prompted it and all who contributed their time and expertise to it, the cabinet secretary has the chance, in her closing speech, to set out exactly what will be done to address the issue before May’s election. She must not countenance any delays. We have a duty to Emily and all those impacted by the vicious practice of non-fatal strangulation—we owe it to them. Close the gaps, act now and make sure that no woman becomes another victim of this appalling violence.
13:14
I thank Claire Baker for securing the debate and bringing the matter to the Parliament. I endorse her view that the work that Tess White and Michelle Thomson have done in this Parliament on violence against women is notable and should be recognised.
I was shocked to read that, every year, more than 20,000 victims in the UK experience strangulation. I attended the briefing that Claire Baker hosted with the Women’s Support Project and Beira’s Place, which opened my eyes to something that, at the time, I knew very little about. It alarmed me to learn that, according to the UK Crown Prosecution Service, children were present for more than a third of non-fatal strangulation offences—I found that staggering.
At the briefing hosted by Claire Baker and others, I learned that the timeline of being strangled goes like this: in 6.8 seconds, the person is rendered unconscious; in 14 seconds, there is anoxic seizure; in 15 seconds, there is loss of bladder control; and, in only 30 seconds, there is loss of bowel control. Many members have talked about strangulation leading to a fatality—it takes only 62 seconds before that could happen. It is clear from that timeline why non-fatal strangulation often occurs at the most dangerous stage of the escalation of violence associated with later homicide.
I was particularly concerned to read about the normalisation that other members have talked about in relation to non-fatal strangulation, often known as choking, in young people’s sexual habits. Strangulation has seeped into popular culture and social media, and there are reports that it has even been mentioned as a sexual preference on dating apps. We must act to prevent that normalisation by educating both men and women about the consequences of non-fatal strangulation.
There have been reports from sex education providers and teachers that they have been asked by children in school about how to safely choke a partner—needless to say, there is no way to safely do something like that. As has already been mentioned, a study found that 43 per cent of sexually active 16 and 17-year-olds in the UK had experienced it.
Pornography is cited as the most common way for young people to learn about strangulation. Addressing the harms of extreme pornography must be central to our work on violence against women and girls. If we are to address violence against women and girls in the future, we need to confront the issue at the earliest opportunity, especially with children, to counter those damaging portrayals. We need to be clear that violent pornography normalises harm to women and girls. I was pleased to see the amendments to the UK’s Crime and Policing Bill that criminalised the possession and publication of pornographic pictures of strangulation or suffocation, with duties on platforms to study the proliferation of those images.
I turn to the question whether we should legislate. The current framework is such that non-fatal strangulation is mainly treated as assault, which is defined in the common law as an attack on another person with evil intent. Penalties can range up to life imprisonment. Prosecutors are not required to prove visible injury or harm in order to secure a conviction for assault, provided that the act was intentional. However, as others have said, there are challenges in tracking how prevalent the issue is because there is no specific stand-alone crime and no individual marking system to accurately count and monitor such cases across Scotland. I think that, as Carol Mochan mentioned, it is worth exploring whether data could be collated at the Crown Office to give us at least an accurate picture of the scale of the problem. Although the issue has not been mentioned in the debate, members of this Parliament have raised the act of stealthing, which is the intentional act of secretly removing a condom or another barrier method without consent. That has also been prosecuted in our courts and is not a stand-alone crime.
We cannot rule out having a crime of NFS. We have a different legal system in Scotland from that in England, so we have flexibility in law making, and doing that should not be ruled out. It should be part of the work of the Parliament in the new session to consider it, and it should form part of the strategy of the Government of the day—whoever that may be—for its work on violence against women and girls.
13:19
I thank Claire Baker for securing this important debate and I thank all colleagues for their contributions—in particular, Tess White and Michelle Thomson, who have worked on a cross-party basis to combat violence against women and girls, a subject that is close to my own heart and which I know is important to all of us.
In today’s debate, I add my voice in support of the calls for the creation of a stand-alone offence of non-fatal strangulation. We cannot ignore the growing trend of sexual strangulation that is being normalised to a large extent by pornography and harmful so-called influencers, who are taking us backwards in society in so many respects. We cannot ignore that, because there is a link between intimate partner homicides and non-fatal strangulation. We need action to reduce such violence, to prevent harm and, as we have heard powerfully today from so many colleagues, to save lives.
We stand here today with more research and knowledge than ever before. I am grateful that the research that other members have touched on covers multiple international jurisdictions, so we are not looking at just a Scottish or UK context.
Like my colleagues, I pay tribute to Fiona Drouet—who is courageously with us today in the gallery—and to EmilyTest for the organisation’s fantastic work across the spectrum of gender-based violence, which we must tackle. I say that not just as a politician but as a mother who can now sleep a little better at night knowing that my daughter is studying in an institution that is fully signed up to the EmilyTest charter. Fiona and I met to discuss the work of EmilyTest at South Lanarkshire College, which is another institution in my parliamentary region. Knowing that that discussion is happening in our colleges and universities gives us extra peace of mind.
However, we need to do much more. I think that we would all recognise that this issue is not down to one minister, one department or one agency. Just as we are showing cross-party working in the Parliament today, there needs to be a partnership approach.
I will not talk about the worrying statistics, because those have already been covered. However, I was alarmed to read in the report from the Institute for Addressing Strangulation that the most common age at which respondents report first starting to strangle others or being strangled is 18 to 20.
In preparing for the debate, I noticed that, just in December 2025, there was a big conference in Lancashire that brought together key stakeholders to shine a spotlight on non-fatal strangulation. Ministers may know about that conference, but if the cabinet secretary does not, it may be something to look into. It would be good to see something like that happen in Scotland, if nothing is already planned.
What public health messages can we get out there? EmilyTest’s mission is to ensure that no other student ends up in Emily’s shoes. That mission sits in my heart today as we bring our debate to a close and before we hear from the cabinet secretary. We can look at the data and the legal arguments, but we know that it is the human stories that have an impact and change behaviours.
I put on the record my support for the petition that went to the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee and the motion that we are debating today. I hope that we can all work together to work with the Scottish Government to get the change that we all want to see.
13:23
I thank Claire Baker for bringing the important issue of non-fatal strangulation to the Parliament today. Over the past few years, I have had the opportunity to engage with Ms Baker on the matter, which has led to further Scottish Government activity with regard to exploring solutions. I will come to that point later in my remarks. I also acknowledge the speeches made in the debate by Michelle Thomson, Tess White, Carol Mochan, Liam Kerr, Pauline McNeill and Monica Lennon.
Principally, I pay tribute to survivors and researchers, as well as to Fiona Drouet, who I have also had the pleasure of meeting. We should also acknowledge the work that has been done and the evidence that has been taken by two parliamentary committees, the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee and the Criminal Justice Committee, in relation to this debate.
I think that we are all horrified by the scale of the issue. As many members have acknowledged, non-fatal strangulation is extremely harmful. Choking reduces the flow of oxygen and can therefore cause damage to the brain and to the windpipe. Alongside the physical risks, anxiety, depression and loneliness are often associated with experiencing non-fatal strangulation.
Non-fatal strangulation is also used—mainly by men—to exert coercive control in relationships; Claire Baker spoke about the total control that some men seek. There is evidence—again, as other members acknowledged—that those men are more likely to carry out severe violence. A few members spoke about how non-fatal strangulation is a red flag.
Last month, Parliament debated 16 days of activism highlighting men’s violence against women and girls. As many of us have acknowledged, Scotland has world-renowned domestic abuse legislation that addresses the dynamics of coercive and controlling behaviour.
I hear what the cabinet secretary says, and I am glad that she referred to the work of the Criminal Justice Committee. However, has she reviewed the committee’s latest evidence from December? The professors on the panel had looked at the US, which introduced non-fatal strangulation as a stand-alone crime, state by state, and the evidence demonstrated that there was a clear correlation in that creating a stand-alone crime of non-fatal strangulation actually reduced deaths. That compelling evidence is the reason for holding this debate. If the cabinet secretary has not reviewed the data from those professors, will she now do so?
I am aware of that evidence. Claire Baker, in her opening remarks, spoke about the importance of us all engaging with the evidence.
Later in my remarks, I will reflect on the current position in Scots law and address some of the concerns that members have obliquely referenced, and outline the action that the Scottish Government is taking forward. We do not have closed minds on the issue and I think that, given some of the evidence that the Criminal Justice Committee took, there are aspects that need to be considered further.
First, with regard to what needs done, I acknowledge that it is clearly very important that we have the means by which to identify cases of non-fatal strangulation in order to address that aspect of abuse of women and girls. I know that every member in the chamber is committed to taking whatever action is needed to address such abuse. That includes enabling societal and cultural change to address the factors that risk normalising such behaviour. For example, we have agreed that the new offences in the UK Crime and Policing Bill that criminalise pornography featuring “strangulation or suffocation” will extend to Scotland if the bill is passed.
I also welcome the updated NHS Inform web pages that provide information on fatal and non-fatal strangulation, and highlight that
“there is no safe way to be strangled”
and that
“It’s a criminal offence to cause harm through strangulation.”
I now turn to the proposal for a stand-alone offence—
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
Of course—briefly, thank you.
I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for taking my intervention before she moves on to the next point. I appreciate the efforts that are being made, and the NHS Inform website is always worth a visit, but I am not sure that a huge number of 16, 17 and 18-year-olds are going on to that site.
Given the growing trend of non-fatal strangulation, which is worrying us all, what more can Government do to get out the message that there is no safe way to strangle or be strangled? How do we get that message into our classrooms and on to social media in a more positive way? What other levers can Government pull, so that we can support that message?
Ms Lennon raises an important point. The work that goes on in schools around the equally safe strategy and the curriculum input on healthy relationships—which, of course, focuses a lot on the importance of consent—is important in that regard. I will pick up further on the consultation that we will take forward and the survey information that Ms Baker and I have discussed. The point about online harms, particularly in relation to intimate images, will be a factor in the forthcoming consultation.
On the issue of a stand-alone offence, I know that members are aware that the UK Parliament has legislated for a specific offence of non-fatal strangulation in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is important to recognise that that was done mainly to address a specific issue in those jurisdictions where non-fatal strangulation that did not result in visible injury could only be prosecuted using the statutory offence of common assault, which carries a maximum penalty of six months’ imprisonment. Understandably, that was something that those jurisdictions wished to address.
Non-fatal strangulation is already criminal under Scots law and can be dealt with using a range of offences. That is an important message to reiterate. It does not mean that minds are closed on the issue or that there is no further action to take forward. However, with regard to Ms Lennon’s point about education and giving out correct societal messages, it is important to be clear that non-fatal strangulation is already a criminal offence. The relevant offences include: common-law assault with penalties up to life imprisonment; sexual assault with penalties up to life imprisonment; and part of a course of conduct prosecuted as a domestic abuse offence with penalties up to 14 years’ imprisonment. The Crown Office, as the independent prosecutor, is clear that it approaches non-fatal strangulation seriously and that it uses those laws where the evidence supports their use.
Another important factor to note is that, in contrast with the law in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, in Scotland there is no defence of consent to strangulation. That is a significant feature of the better protection that is offered in Scots law. Again, it is important to send out to our society and communities the message that there is no defence of consent to strangulation.
I understand and respect deeply the view that creating a specific offence could send a message about the unacceptability of non-fatal strangulation and could help measure its prevalence. I recognise that those are important factors and that, by their very nature, those arguments are powerful. However, I want to guard against any risk of unintended consequences. I say that in light of the evidence that was highlighted by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service in its evidence to the Criminal Justice Committee last year in relation to a specific offence as distinct from assault. The issue is that there would need to be corroboration specifically of the strangulation and not simply of the assault or domestic abuse. We have already heard from members today that one of the salient issues with non-fatal strangulation is that it often leaves no visible signs. The fact that corroboration would be required might mean that creating a specific offence would result in the underestimation of the true prevalence of the issue, as cases involving non-fatal strangulation might continue to be prosecuted as assault, sexual assault or domestic abuse.
I stress that this is an issue that the Government and I take seriously. Although existing laws operate well in protecting victims and dealing with perpetrators, we will shortly publish a public consultation to seek views on this area of the law, as set out in our programme for government. We will continue to engage with views and with the evidence. As I mentioned, that consultation will also include a look at online harms—particularly in relation to intimate images—as well as spiking, a statutory aggravation for offences against pregnant women, and prosecutorial powers to impose non-harassment—
Cabinet secretary, I appreciate that there is a lot of information to impart on what is a very important matter, but you have gone considerably over your time.
Forgive me.
Is there time for the cabinet secretary to take an intervention?
I am afraid that there is no time for interventions because we are running fairly late.
I agree with the motion’s sentiment that non-fatal strangulation should not go unrecorded, and I have spoken in detail about the consultation. My final piece of information for the Parliament is that, as a result of engagement with Claire Baker, alongside the consultation on data collection in the justice system, the 2025-26 Scottish crime and justice survey includes, for the first time, questions in relation to non-fatal strangulation. That field work is due to finish in March this year, and initial results are expected to be included in the 2026-27 main findings report.
I thank members for their contributions. This is a serious issue on which we, as a Government, will continue to engage.
That concludes the debate.
13:36 Meeting suspended.Air ais
First Minister’s Question TimeAir adhart
Portfolio Question Time