I thank noble Lords and all who spoke in support of this amendment. I was puzzled by the intervention of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, because most of it did not seem to be relevant to this amendment at all. I am even more puzzled and disappointed by the Minister’s response—I think she knew very well how I would respond. As far as I can see, the arguments have not moved on since Committee, whereas our argument has.
6.15 pm
I deliberately did not emphasise too strongly the point about gender, although I believe in that. However, I cite the point made by the right reverend Prelate about the need for a holistic response, as called for by the Istanbul convention. The Minister said that, if any strategy were to be referenced, it should be the domestic abuse strategy, but of course that is not referenced in the Bill—the Bill is about domestic abuse. However, she herself has acknowledged the symbiotic link between domestic abuse and VAWG, so I ask her whether—I will not test the opinion of the House, tempting as it is—while she refuses to put this in the Bill, she can give us an assurance that, when the final version of the domestic abuse strategy goes out for consultation, it will include a clear recognition of a link with the VAWG strategy?
She said that they will share a “framework” and “complement” each other. Could she assure us, on the record, that this will be made explicit in the statutory guidance that goes out under this Bill?