Strangulation: Prevention and Awareness

Aphra Brandreth Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2026 Westminster Hall

[Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the prevention and public awareness of strangulation.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. Twenty-seven per cent of women killed by men in the UK were strangled to death. That is a shocking statistic that should concern us all, but behind the statistics are the stories of victims and survivors, many of whom have bravely shared their experiences. I want to recognise their courage today, and thank everyone who has helped to bring this issue to Parliament, particularly the Institute for Addressing Strangulation.

One of the reasons why I am grateful to have secured this debate is that far too few people understand how prevalent non-fatal strangulation is or the devastating harm that it can cause. But let me start where I believe we must begin: by listening to survivors. Last month, I attended the IFAS conference, where I met an inspirational woman whom I will call Rose to protect her identity. I want to share her story because it brings home, far more powerfully than any statistic could, the devastating impact that strangulation can have on someone’s life—not just in the moment, but for many years afterwards.

In 2021, Rose was raped in an ordeal that lasted several hours. During this already horrific attack, she was also subjected to strangulation. It was the moment she thought that she was going to die. As Rose explained:

“The strangulation was not a minor detail within the attack; it was central to the violence I experienced.”

In the aftermath, Rose sought medical help at several hospitals, but struggled to obtain an appropriate assessment, have her injuries documented or receive the compassionate, trauma-informed care that she so desperately needed. At one hospital, she waited alone for hours before eventually leaving. At another, her request for photographs of her injuries was not acted on and she was questioned about why she had not reported the rape.

Rose had already endured an horrific attack, yet when she turned to the very services that should have helped her, she was left feeling dismissed and unsupported. The consequences of that failure were significant. Rose waited almost a month before reporting the attack to the police. Even today, she continues to live with the physical and psychological consequences of what happened to her.

Rose’s attacker was eventually sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment, with a further five-year extension period. Despite that outcome, Rose describes having to fight for the strangulation to be properly recognised as central to the violence that she experienced.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this incredibly sensitive and difficult subject to the House. Back in 2022, we in Northern Ireland introduced legislation for a stand-alone criminal offence, carrying a sentence of up to 14 years. Strangulation is a terrifyingly accurate indicator of escalating abuse and potential lethality. Does the hon. Lady, who is a friend, agree that if we are truly to protect victims, the Government must work hand in hand with the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland and local support charities to launch a robust and targeted public awareness campaign, to ensure that healthcare workers, police officers and victims themselves can recognise the signs of non-fatal strangulation before it turns fatal?

[Aphra Brandreth]

The hon. Member makes an important point. Later in my speech I will address the work that has already happened in Northern Ireland to raise awareness, but certainly much more needs to be done.

To return to Rose’s story, the message that she gives us today is really clear:

“Do not wait for a perfect disclosure, a police report or visible injury to take strangulation seriously.”

I want to recognise the positive steps that have been taken to recognise the seriousness of this offence. The introduction of a stand-alone offence of non-fatal strangulation or suffocation in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 was an important step taken by the previous Conservative Government, recognising that strangulation should be treated as a serious crime in its own right. But legislation is only part of the answer. My question to the Minister is about whether it is working effectively in practice. Are we doing enough to close the gaps between healthcare, safeguarding and criminal justice that have failed victims such as Rose?

Rose’s experience is sadly far from an isolated case. Strangulation is reported in around one in five rapes and sexual assaults, but it is also a particularly serious and dangerous form of domestic abuse, with a quarter of women who access domestic abuse community and refuge services reporting having experienced strangulation or suffocation. It is particularly frightening that strangulation is also a major warning sign of potentially fatal violence. Research has found that women who have experienced strangulation by an intimate partner face around seven times the odds of being killed by that partner. That is why strangulation must be treated as a red line. It is not simply another act of violence; it is a warning sign that must be recognised and acted on before it is too late.

I pay tribute to the Institute for Addressing Strangulation, led by Bernie Ryan, which has worked tirelessly to give victims a voice and improve our understanding of the crime. IFAS has made an invaluable contribution to improving recognition of strangulation and the response to those who experience it. The evidence it has uncovered is staggering: between June 2024 and June 2025, police recorded 44,426 strangulation and suffocation offences in England and Wales, up 13% on the previous year and 87% since the stand-alone offence was introduced in 2022. Some of that increase may reflect better recognition and reporting, which is welcome, but we must not lose sight of what the figures represent. Behind every recorded offence is a victim of an extremely dangerous act of violence. For too many women, strangulation forms part of a wider pattern of domestic abuse and coercive control, with potentially devastating consequences.

The Government have set themselves the ambition of halving violence against women and girls, and I am sure Members across the House will want to see that achieved, but if we are serious about preventing violence against women and girls, we must be serious about recognising strangulation as one of the clearest warning signs of potentially fatal abuse. That means recognising it early, supporting victims and ensuring that police, healthcare and safeguarding professionals understand the risks and act. This is not just about securing justice after a crime has been committed; it is about preventing further violence and potentially saving lives.

IFAS has done remarkable work since the stand-alone offence came into force in June 2022. I hope the Minister has read its recent impact report, which sets out clearly what still needs to change. Let me start with the medical response. To understand why this is so important, we need to understand what strangulation does to the body. Strangulation can restrict the flow of blood to and from the brain. It can cause hypoxia, brain injury and stroke, with symptoms that may not become apparent until after the attack. For pregnant women, it can have serious consequences for their pregnancy and their unborn baby. It can leave lasting psychological scars that survivors carry for years. Yet in many cases, there are no visible signs of injury at all. That means that a woman who walks into A&E looking on the surface as though she is fine may be anything but. If our response depends on what can be seen, we will continue to fail women who need help.

I recently met my constituent, Dr Helen Bichard, a clinical neuropsychologist whose research includes the effects of non-fatal strangulation. She made it clear that healthcare professionals need the right guidance and training to recognise the danger and respond with the compassion that someone such as Rose was denied. I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on how we can ensure that happens consistently across healthcare services.

There is an inequality at the heart of the current system that must be addressed. If a woman is strangled during a rape or sexual assault, she may be able to access a sexual assault referral centre with specialist medical, psychological and forensic support. But if a woman is strangled by her partner, in her own kitchen, without sexual assault, she does not necessarily have access to the same care or forensic medical examination. The medical risk does not disappear because of the circumstances in which the attack took place, and nor should a woman’s access to proper assessment, documentation of her injuries and ongoing support. That is why I support IFAS’s call for a national pathway, so that wherever a victim first seeks help, they can access the care and support they need. I would welcome the Minister’s response to that proposal.

The same applies to the criminal justice system. Now that non-fatal strangulation is a stand-alone offence, we must ensure that the police have the training and resources to investigate it effectively. Will the Minister update us on how the Government are assessing the implementation of the offence? What more is being done to improve consistency in police investigations and evidence collection?

Improving our response to offences that have already happened is vital, but we must also stop them happening in the first place. That means confronting an uncomfortable truth: strangulation is increasingly being normalised. Young people encounter depictions of strangulation through pornography and social media, often without the information they need to understand the very real dangers involved. We need to get the message across: there is no safe way to strangle.

Sadly, it is not only in pornography that strangulation is being portrayed in ways that risk normalising it. This year, the BBC broadcast Romania’s Eurovision entry, a song called “Choke Me” in which that phrase is repeated around 30 times. I find it deeply troubling that a song that appears to glamorise such a dangerous act was broadcast into family living rooms across the country. I am particularly disappointed that the BBC, funded by licence fee payers, did not heed the concerns raised about the dangerous message the song could send. This is not about censorship; it is about the messages that we are sending to young people, and whether we are doing enough to educate them about the very real dangers of strangulation.

IFAS research found that, among sexually experienced 16 to 34-year-olds, almost two thirds reported having been strangled during sex. That is a deeply concerning finding. We need to talk to young people about healthy relationships and make sure that they understand the very real risks of strangulation. Our public institutions have a responsibility to take these issues seriously. Will the Government raise with broadcasters concerns about the portrayal and normalisation of strangulation?

This debate is particularly timely, because this Friday new criminal offences will come into force in England and Wales that make it illegal to possess or publish pornographic material that depicts strangulation or suffocation. I very much welcome this change, which follows the important work of Baroness Bertin and her review of pornography regulation, but legislation must be effective in practice, so will the Minister say how the Government intend to ensure that the new offences are enforced?

Alongside legislation and education, we need to raise public awareness more widely. When Northern Ireland changed its law, it ran a broadcast and poster campaign so that the public understood what had changed and why, yet there has been no equivalent national campaign in England and Wales. A well-targeted public awareness campaign could help to challenge dangerous misconceptions, encourage victims to seek help and make sure that people understand the risks. Will the Minister commit to that today?

Regarding the future of IFAS, I acknowledge the Minister’s letter, which arrived—almost as if by magic—yesterday. I welcome the commitment to meet IFAS to discuss its future sustainability and funding opportunities. Unfortunately, there is no commitment to continued funding, let alone the long-term certainty that IFAS needs. Since October 2022, IFAS has brought together clinical, forensic research and policy expertise that simply did not exist in that form before. The Government have invested more than £2.1 million in that work, and I believe that was money very well spent, but IFAS has been kept going on short-term funding arrangements, sometimes for as little as six months at a time and with very little notice. No small specialist organisation can retain staff, plan its work or protect its hard-won expertise in that kind of uncertainty.

We have invested in building up expertise; surely, we cannot now allow it to be lost. That would be a loss not just for IFAS itself, but for victims, who depend on better awareness, better training and better support, and for the police officers, healthcare professionals and others who rely on the expertise of IFAS to help them to do their jobs effectively. Although the Minister’s letter did not give me the reassurance that I had hoped for, I am giving her an opportunity today to reassure me. Having heard the evidence, will she commit to working with IFAS to secure the long-term funding it needs to continue its vital work?

I will finish by returning to where I began. Rose survived. She found the strength to tell her story and the courage to share it, so that others might be spared what she went through. She should never have had to fight to be believed. The next woman should not have to, either. I also say to anyone listening to this debate who has experienced strangulation: please, seek help. There are organisations that can support you. You do not have to wait until you have visible injuries or have reported a crime to seek medical advice and support.

The previous Conservative Government took an important step by making non-fatal strangulation a stand-alone offence. We must not lose the momentum that that legislation created. We have recognised the seriousness of strangulation in law; now we must make sure that that recognition makes a difference in people’s lives.

MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

Aphra Brandreth Excerpts

Wednesday 14th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Anna Turley]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman raising the point about deterrence. It is extremely important but, as I said, the Rwanda deterrent was not effective. [Interruption.] Millions of pounds and a handful of volunteers. It has been disproven and clearly did not have any impact. I will come on to the deterrent that is actually working.

We have also given our agencies counter-terror style powers via the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025. In the last financial year, organised immigration crime was disrupted on over 3,700 occasions, up by 46% over the same period. This includes organised immigration crime arrests, which were up 74%, as we took down the criminals behind this vile trade. For example, just in June, two men became the first to be jailed under the new “endangerment at sea” offence for piloting dangerously overcrowded small boats across the channel—that is a deterrent, that is working. We are also denying gangs the equipment and infrastructure they rely on. In May, an operation involving the National Crime Agency and German, French and other international partners seized more than 30 boats, over 20 engines, 360 pumps and more than 9,000 life jackets. Since entering office, we have seized over a total of 1,100 boats and engines.

[Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for giving way and for setting out her arguments. I am just wondering whether she will actually come on to Piddington and the impact on the residents there—we have people in the Gallery today. This issue is about the impact on women and girls there. I would be interested to know how many Ministers have actually been to Piddington and spoken to the residents themselves directly.

[Anna Turley]

I appreciate the hon. Lady. Of course, I will come on to Piddington—that is the content, the subject and the title of this debate—but it is really important to understand the people we are talking about having to house, how we are having to house them and the issues we are dealing with. I am proud of the steps we have taken to reduce that number so that we can hopefully reduce the number of people dependent on asylum accommodation as we go forward.

In partnership with French law enforcement, we have now stopped more than 50,000 attempted channel crossings. As a result, small boat arrivals are down around 40% on last year and asylum claims are down by 20%—real action, real results.

The task of responding to large-scale movements of people is one that we share with many Governments across the globe. It is, without question, one of the defining challenges of our age and to meet it we must work with source, transit and destination countries alike. That is why the Government have made it a priority to strengthen our co-operation with a range of international partners, striking new agreements and strengthening existing partnerships.

Just last month, the Home Secretary signed an agreement with her Belgian counterpart to intensify UK-Belgium co-operation and tighten the net around criminal gangs behind small boat crossings. We are taking our partnership with France further, following the new deal signed in April. French boots on the ground have already increased by 24% and a further 50 specialist officers will now be deployed on high-risk red days when conditions indicate crossings are likely, doubling the size of the current unit. First, by disrupting the movements of goods and infrastructure, tackling the gangs across borders and working with our international partners, we are reducing the flow of people heading towards our borders. Secondly, as the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) flagged, we are addressing the pull factors that fuel illegal migration, and we are enforcing the laws of this land.

To live in this country is a privilege, but it comes with responsibilities. When people abuse our hospitality, staying for longer than they are entitled to or committing criminal offences in our communities, the public rightly expect every effort to be made to remove them from British soil. That is why the total failure to remove illegal migrants and foreign offenders in the years before the general election was so damaging, and why the Government are putting right the wrongs of the past.

--- Later in debate ---

[Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)]

The first duty of any Government is to keep their citizens safe, and nowhere is that duty more important than across our communities and in the protection of women and girls, who have a right to feel safe, and a right to expect the Government to do everything in their power to protect them. Today’s debate is an opportunity to send a clear message that we will not accept policies that put our communities at risk, and that we are prepared to take the difficult decisions necessary to restore control of our borders.

The grooming gang scandal is a national disgrace. Girls, some as young as 11, were raped, abused and trafficked by organised gangs, and when they cried out for help, too often they were ignored, disbelieved or dismissed. Those in positions of authority, whose first responsibility was to protect them, failed them appallingly. We must never allow that to happen again. That means putting victims first, listening to their experiences, and having the courage to confront uncomfortable truths, however difficult they may be.

In July, I raised the case of Shabir Ahmed, the Rochdale grooming gang ringleader, directly with the then Foreign Secretary. She agreed that every possible lever should be explored to secure his deportation, yet three months later, he remains in the UK. When the law protects the man who raped a child rather than the child he raped, something is profoundly wrong, and this House must have the power, and the determination, to put that right. Our rights in this country long predate the ECHR. Under our Conservative borders plan, we will leave it, with illegal arrivals removed within a week, every foreign criminal deported, and an end to the cycle of last-minute claims that let dangerous men run down the clock.

What is this Government’s answer? It is to house over 1,200 single men at MOD Bicester, next to Piddington, which is a village of just 350 people, with limited local infrastructure and services. The way these plans have been imposed on a small rural community has left many others fearing that they could be next. In villages such as Audlem in my constituency of Chester South and Eddisbury, residents have raised serious concerns about the future of the old grammar school site. When I asked Ministers whether any site in Audlem had been approved for asylum accommodation, the Government failed to give me a straight answer, and when I asked about the suitability of rural locations, I was told that the Home Office does not even record asylum accommodation according to whether it is in a rural area.

Many of the concerns raised in Piddington are equally relevant to Audlem. Small rural villages simply do not have the infrastructure to accommodate what would realistically be an influx of young men. My constituents deserve clarity. They deserve straight answers about the future of that site, and above all they deserve an immigration system that tackles illegal arrivals in the first place. That means a credible deterrent, and that is delivered by leaving the ECHR. That is why I wholeheartedly support the motion, because whether it is Piddington, Audlem, or communities across the country, people deserve to feel safe in their homes and communities. Above all, we owe it to every woman and girl in this country to do everything in our power to protect them.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Father of the House.

Immigration

Aphra Brandreth Excerpts

Wednesday 21st May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Connor Naismith]

No, I will not give way. I want to make some progress.

The Rwanda plan was, quite simply, a joke, and I think the Tories take my constituents for fools. It cost them £700 million, and they sent only four volunteers. Shockingly, they still think it just needed more time. The right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), the former Prime Minister, staked his entire reputation and electoral fortunes on stopping the boats. If the Rwanda plan was going to work, why did he call a premature election in the rain outside 10 Downing Street rather than in an airport hangar? It was because he knew the plan was not going to work. Why else would he do it?

[Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member, who is my neighbour in Cheshire, for giving way. I note his views on the last Government’s record, but can he explain how Labour’s decision, just 20 days after the election, to suspend the Illegal Migration Act 2023, which would rightly have prevented illegal migrants from claiming asylum or gaining British citizenship, sends anything other than completely the wrong message and undermines public confidence in the immigration system?

[Connor Naismith]

Quite simply, my experience from talking to voters—we are talking about public confidence —is that the public had no confidence in the Rwanda plan. Everybody could see that it was not going to work, so the Government were absolutely right to cancel it. The answer is that, just like my Labour colleagues and millions of voters, the previous Government knew that it was going to fail. These issues are of crucial importance to my constituents and I will continue to push the Government to do more to control our borders, but that will not happen by slogans or press releases. It will happen through the hard yards of good policymaking, and I am pleased to see that that work is well under way.

International Women�s Day

Aphra Brandreth Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)]

There is a saying that has always resonated with me: �When you get to the top, send the lift back down�, and those of us privileged to sit on these Green Benches bear a responsibility to speak up for and support women. I am proud to be an honorary vice-president of the Conservative Women�s Organisation�the oldest women�s political organisation in the world, which does so much to inspire, encourage and mentor women as they progress in roles in politics and public life.

Time is short, but I want to take a few moments to share with the House some examples of inspiring women in Chester South and Eddisbury. They are women such as Dianne Worby, an entrepreneur who owns and runs her company, Global Air Training, near Tattenhall, and an industry leader who is putting Chester South and Eddisbury on the aviation map; and women such as Helen Bebington, a dairy farmer near Tarvin, who gets up every morning at 4 am to attend to her stock, and who works from dawn till dusk to keep her farm going. According to a recent survey by the Royal Agricultural Benevolent Institution, women in farming, particularly young women, have the worst mental health scores. I have spoken on numerous occasions in this House about the importance of our family farms and mental health, and women are the backbone of the rural community and they deserve to be celebrated today. There are women such as Councillor Rachel Williams from Malpas, who every month cooks a community lunch, bringing people together, combating loneliness and isolation, and supporting others.

International Women�s Day is a chance not just to celebrate women, but to highlight where there is still vital work to be done. Too many women face domestic violence, and it is important that women know that we in this House are here for them. I very much welcome the Government�s commitment to halve violence against women and girls. I was pleased to support the Institute for Addressing Strangulation at the end of last year by writing to the Minister to emphasise the vital work that it is doing. Two thirds of cases of domestic violence will at some point include a woman being strangled, and it is a red line in the escalation of violence. If a woman has been subject to strangling, the probability that she will go to be murdered in the future increases sevenfold. I am grateful to the Minister who has committed to funding the Institute for Addressing Strangulation for another year, to ensure that the vital work it does can continue. Together, we must speak up and deliver change on behalf of all women on matters such as these.

It is the honour and privilege of my life to be the 575th female Member of Parliament to be elected to this House. I am committed to using the time I have here to do what I can to inspire, support, champion and speak up for women and girls. Together, we can accelerate action.

Employer National Insurance Contributions: Police Forces

Aphra Brandreth Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Esther McVey]

I will not just yet. Please allow me to make the case, and then I will come back to the hon. Gentleman. We know about the removal of the winter fuel payment from nearly 10 million pensioners, we know about the family farm tax and we know about the VAT on private schools. All have received much attention in this House, but we must not overlook the breadth of the ramifications of the autumn Budget, particularly the changes to employer national insurance contributions. They will have a devastating impact on individual employers and businesses, but their impact on our treasured public services has been widely overlooked. I want to focus my comments on the impact on our police forces.

You will be wondering, Dr Allin-Khan, how the Member for Tatton knows what is going to happen here. Did the Treasury conduct an impact assessment? Did the Chancellor generously share the assessment with Members from across the House? Were police forces consulted on such changes? The answer to all those questions is no, as is often the case with the Government’s policy announcements.

Late last year, I submitted freedom of information requests to every police force in the UK, asking for the expected additional costs that each will incur as a result of the Chancellor’s hike in employer national insurance contributions. I was shocked, yet unsurprised, to learn of the devastating impact that the policy will have on our police forces. In my county of Cheshire, the local constabulary will face an additional £3.7 million per year in employer national insurance costs.

[Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way and for securing this debate. She is making an excellent speech, as always. She and I are both Cheshire MPs, and we are fortunate to work with the Cheshire constabulary, one of the best forces in the country. Like me, however, she will know the challenges that Cheshire police face with rural crime. It is estimated that the changes to employer national insurance contributions will cost the force £3.7 million. Does she share my concern that that could have a significant impact on rural crime, in particular, especially if cuts are made or funding is diverted away from rural into urban areas?

[Esther McVey]

My hon. Friend and neighbouring MP makes a valid point; £3.7 million is the equivalent of about 67 police officers. That is a recurring expense, not a one-off. In places such as Devon and Cornwall, the police will face a £6.3 million tax bill each year. Greater Manchester will be hit with a whopping extra tax bill of £11.9 million each year. Those are just a few examples, and the list goes on.