Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II

Baroness Bull Excerpts

Saturday 10th September 2022 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Shrewsbury (Con)]

My Lords, I cannot describe adequately the sadness which I and my family feel at the passing of Her late Majesty the Queen. It is a great privilege and honour to have been given the task of opening the batting, so to speak, for my party in your Lordships’ tributes today, and to be able to give my personal tribute and that of all of us who are involved in the world of horses, in recognition and celebration of this most special and remarkable lady. I ask that your Lordships indulge me while I recount briefly Her Majesty’s passion for the horse and all matters equine. As the Racing Post recently wrote:

“The realm of the horse has lost its best friend.”


I have conducted a lifelong love affair with the horse. Being involved with horses, especially racehorses, was my principal goal, indeed my constant dream, all through my childhood days and beyond. At the age of 17, I went to work as a student for a great teacher of riders, Bertie Hill, a former three times Olympic three-day event rider who had ridden for Her Majesty. Bertie was based at Great Rapscott in Devon, a stone’s throw from the Castle Hill Estate and my noble friend Lord Arran. The Queen had two very special horses with Bertie—Chicago and Great Ovation—and I helped to look after them. That was my first job with horses.

At the forefront, though, was her love of horseracing. She was incredibly knowledgeable as an owner, a breeder and an expert on form and bloodlines. Indeed, her racing adviser, John Warren, is quoted thus:

“If the Queen wasn’t the Queen, she would have made a wonderful trainer. She has such an affinity with her horses and is so perceptive.”


The Queen’s first winner on the flat was Astrakhan at Hurst Park in 1950. The horse was a wedding present from the Aga Khan. Her best colt was undoubtably Aureole, who very nearly won the Derby for her in 1953.

Over the years, she bred and owned so many top-class racehorses. To name a few: Dunfermline, Highclere, Height of Fashion and, more recently, Estimate, Carlton House, Dartmouth and Tactical. A raft of the very best jockeys had the honour of riding for her: Sir Gordon Richards, Lester Piggott, Willie Carson, Ryan Moore, John Reid and many more. Once asked what it was like to ride for Her Majesty, Willie Carson said, “To put on the royal colours makes one feel six inches taller.” That was a rare feat in Willie’s case. Her trainers were the greats of their profession: Sir Cecil Boyd-Rochfort, Major Dick Hern, Peter Cazalet and, these days, John and Thady Gosden, Sir Michael Stoute, Andrew Balding, Michael Bell, William Haggas and more.

National Hunt racing, which is my particular love, is a beneficiary of her horseracing enthusiasm as well, as the Queen has horses with Nicky Henderson and Charlie Longsdon. In the showing world, her favourite show was the Royal Windsor Horse Show, which, like her beloved Royal Ascot, she never missed. The inaugural Royal Windsor Show was held in 1943 to support the war effort financially. Her late Majesty enjoyed many successes there, among her most recent being Wyevale Harry, Balmoral Leia, Walton Highwayman and the Cleveland bay, Hampton Court Ivory.

The Queen was a highly accomplished horsewoman who learned to ride at the age of four on a Shetland pony called Peggy, a birthday present from her grandfather. She continued to ride to the age of 96. She encouraged and helped so many young riders, and indeed produced a daughter and a granddaughter of world-class ability and achievement. Her late Majesty was patron of many of the best agricultural shows and breed societies throughout the Kingdom, including the Welsh Pony and Cob Society and the Royal Welsh Show. She supported many rare equine breeds and bred top-class highland and fell ponies. One of the last photographs I saw of her was choreographed by her stud groom, Terry Pendry. It had Her Majesty standing between a fell and a highland, holding their halter ropes with the most wonderful of magical, radiant smiles spread across her face. She was with her equine friends, to whom she had given so much throughout her life and who had repaid her with total loyalty.

Her late Majesty was the pinnacle of the horse world, and she has her place in equine history as one of the very greatest stalwarts. Thank you, Ma’am, for all you have done. May you rest in peace. God save the King.

[Baroness Bull (CB)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to speak today and to add to the tributes we have heard so far the gratitude and respect of the many arts and cultural organisations across the country that benefited from the support and patronage of Her late Majesty the Queen over the 70 years of her reign. As the noble Earl just reminded us, it is easier to picture the Queen and Prince Philip at the races than at the theatre. It is hard to deny that they would likely have felt much more at home in a hippodrome intended for horses than one designed for performance. To my great surprise, I once found myself discussing choreography with the Duke of Edinburgh, but it was in the context of his having agreed to create a dressage display for a charity event. In characteristically colourful language, he shared his frustration at the complexities of combining movement with music, and I secretly enjoyed his grudging realisation that there might be more to this whole dancing business than he had previously imagined.

And yet, her Majesty’s interest in the arts was real and it stretched back across her life. An Arts Council report from 1946 includes a photograph of the Queen attending a concert in Kings Lynn with her mother and paternal grandmother, suggesting, perhaps, that it was they who helped instil her interest in the arts. As Sovereign, she opened and reopened countless galleries, museums and theatres, cutting ribbons and unveiling plaques. She attended no fewer than 35 Royal Variety Performances. The first, in 1953, included the Tiller Girls and Vera Lynn at the Palladium; the last, in 2012, was at the Royal Albert Hall. She was a patron, over many decades, of arts organisations around the country, including orchestras, brass bands and choirs as well as major institutions such as the National, the Royal Shakespeare Company and the Royal Opera House, where I had the great privilege to meet her.

Many of those visits were, of course, formal occasions—occasions on which she was obliged to perform her own role and to dress in costumes and jewellery that rivalled those we wore on the stage. She would come backstage to meet the performers after curtain down and, before the days of mobile phones, we would fervently hope that the official photographers would catch the moment of regal handshake and preserve it for posterity. Perhaps she enjoyed those ceremonial visits—she was far too discreet to let on if not—but they were also part of the life of duty about which we have heard so much over recent days. Yet we also know that, away from the formal schedules, she would occasionally attend performances for sheer pleasure, making unofficial visits to “Billy Elliot” to celebrate her 80th birthday in 2006, and to “War Horse” in 2009. I recall one such private visit to the Royal Ballet, when Her Royal Highness Princess Margaret, the company’s long-standing president, decided she liked one ballet so much that she would come back to see it again, and this time, she would bring her sister too.

So, while her love of the arts may have been lower profile than her passion for horses, her support was steadfast and enduring, and the fact that it was passed on through the generations of her family is another of her many legacies. His Majesty the King is an extraordinary supporter of the arts, across music, dance, visual arts and theatre, and has been patron of some 400 organisations. He is particularly committed to opening up opportunities for young people, encouraging them to fulfil their individual creative potential through participating in art.

Over history, monarchs have always inspired artistic creations, and our late Queen was no exception. Her Coronation included a new composition from William Walton, “Orb and Sceptre”, played alongside a march he had composed for her father’s Coronation. It inspired Benjamin Britten’s opera, “Gloriana”, and a new ballet from Sir Frederick Ashton, “Homage to the Queen”, a ballet I had the opportunity to dance some 40 years later. Surely, no sovereign before her inspired such a diverse range of fictional representations in theatre, on stage, on screen and in literature. Perhaps this is as good a measure as any of the changing times over which she reigned. When she ascended the Throne, the Lord Chamberlain still had the power to refuse a licence to a play that might offend, a power that would remain in place until 1968. While one sometimes has occasion to wonder what the 1950s censor might have made of all this, the creative and sometimes whimsical imaginations of writers from Sue Townsend to Peter Morgan and Alan Bennett have given us a different kind of legacy for an exceptional life exceptionally lived. And as other noble Lords have recalled, Her Majesty had her own sense of performance, deployed to memorable effect at the London 2012 Olympics and, more recently, in that unforgettable and heart-warming two-hander with a virtual bear.

Over the coming days, some theatres and arts venues may close their doors, observe moments of silence or dim their lights. They will do so as a mark of gratitude and respect not just for someone whose patronage was so valued, but whose dedication to duty was the living embodiment of that well-known theatrical adage, “the show must go on”. To some, that may sound too trite for such a solemn occasion, but it is a phrase that came to my mind this week as we witnessed Her Majesty summon the strength, even in the fading moments of her life, to carry out her last constitutional duty: a defining moment of both continuity and change that was echoed today as the Council of Accession met and the proclamation of the new King rang out. The curtain falls; the curtain rises. Thank you, Ma’am, and to King Charles III, we wish every success.

Assisted Dying Bill [HL]

Baroness Bull Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 22nd October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bull (CB)]

My Lords, in the three short years in which I have had the privilege to sit in your Lordships’ House, this Chamber has debated many once-in-a-lifetime issues, and yet, in that time, no topic has provoked this level of public engagement. All noble Lords will have the same mail bag and, while others may have heard more of one view than the other, mine came equally from those for and against. They all shared passionate and well-argued articulations of their different positions, from either side of an ethical, medical, religious or ideological divide. They all began with the same request: please attend and speak in this debate. And so I rise briefly today to make my own plea for the space in the middle; the space in which radically different views can be safely expressed and respectfully heard. This week, preserving that space feels more important than ever.

The rise of political polarisation in large democracies is well documented. But here in the UK, we are becoming riven by polarisation based on issues, with groups coalescing not around political ideologies but around social, environmental or cultural concerns: climate, vaccinations and, perhaps, the one we debate today. When those positions become a core part of our identity, dialogue across the divide becomes ever harder. Research suggests that bringing the public closer to political and cultural debates will help guard against further polarisation, but it comes with a warning that much depends on how those debates are conducted and that leaders have a duty to cool things down rather than raise temperatures higher.

Today we debate a question to which there is no right or wrong answer. It is a question the House has debated before and one it may well debate again, as future generations attempt, like us, to take a balanced view. We will all have concerns about this Bill: some will be concerned to dismiss it, some to get its provisions absolutely right, and some to identify where they stand on this most challenging issue. But to stifle debate would be to engage in the kind of cancel culture that we will, I am sure, decry when we come to discuss free speech in universities or online.

I share the hope of the most reverend Primate that there will be no votes today to close down this Bill before it runs its legitimate course or, to quote the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mance, to “kill it by misdescription”. To do so would go against the strongly expressed desire of all those people, for and against, who put pen to paper to ask that their voices be heard.

Queen’s Speech

Baroness Bull Excerpts

Tuesday 18th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bull (CB)]

My Lords, I join others in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Fullbrook, on her maiden speech.

It is a privilege to contribute to this debate, yet once again we are obliged to come at the subject of culture somewhat obliquely, focusing on those areas where it ought to be but is not. Much is made in this gracious Speech, as in the last, about the UK becoming a global science superpower, a world-leading R&D environment with innovation central to tackling major challenges. We are told that the Advanced Research & Invention Agency will support the creation of ground-breaking technology with the potential to produce transformational benefits to our economy and society.

However, the central role of the arts, humanities and creative industries in delivering that vision is ignored. We know that research in these disciplines is not currently eligible for R&D tax relief, and I urge the Government to remedy that in their planned diversification of R&D funding. A unified definition of R&D that valued arts, humanities and social science alongside the scientific and technical would not only support legitimate research in the creative industries but ensure that technological solutions were informed by cultural and behavioural insights, making adoption more likely, and it would encourage knowledge exchange across disciplines, where innovation is most likely to occur.

In this context, the proposed cuts to funding for arts courses make no sense. Not only would they impact talent pipelines and deepen inequalities in the creative sector, they would impact on the wider innovation ecosystem, because other industrial sectors rely on a flow of creative workers to imagine, design and communicate new concepts. Cutting arts subjects at a time when we are nailing our colours to the mast of innovation is, sadly, further evidence that this Government consider arts education as “nice to have” and fail to understand the role of arts graduates in the innovation ecosystem. The Secretary of State for Education made that clear last week when he wrote:

“The record number of people taking up science and engineering demonstrates that many are already starting to pivot away from dead-end courses that leave young people with nothing but debt.”


What is in the Speech is the long-awaited online safety Bill. A key concern will be to ensure that the Bill effectively balances freedom of expression with protection for users’ rights online. In that regard, I will be interested to understand what is meant by a new protection for

“content of democratic importance”.

The Explanatory Notes say this refers to government policies and political parties, but it raises questions about how that would impact the freedom of individuals to initiate online debate or campaign on topics that are not “live political issues”—a quote from the Government’s press release—but, rather, issues that voters believe current policies overlook.

I am equally curious about the definition of “harmful content” as that which will have, or indirectly have,

“a significant adverse physical or psychological impact on an adult of ordinary sensibilities.”

The Bill adds that this ordinary adult should be assumed to have any combination of characteristics, but does not say if they are the protected characteristics of the Equality Act 2010. If they are, how will the Bill protect from harms related to body image, weight or appearance, given that those characteristics are not covered by that Act? This threshold is central to the Bill’s powers over legal but harmful content, but is not elucidated. I foresee endless court time devoted to determining whether my sensibilities are more ordinary than the next person’s.

The online safety Bill has been a long time coming and, as our lives have moved increasingly online, the need for a regime that balances freedom of expression with the protection of rights has become more acute. I look forward to working together across the House to ensure that the Bill effectively meets those twin aims.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Baroness Bull Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 8th February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, my normal reaction to an invitation from the noble Lord, Lord Russell, to sign an amendment on social reform is to reach for my pen, but on this occasion I confess I hesitated—not of course having heard the compelling and moving speech he has just made. This is because, while a member of the other place, I spent 30 days with the Hampshire Constabulary, and a constant complaint was about the number of forms they had to fill in, regarding it as an unwelcome diversion from the prevention and detection of crime.

Amendment 146 would require the chief officer to provide information, presumably on a form, about domestic abuse crimes where the offender demonstrated hostility or prejudice based on sex. A strong case needs to be made for this, to which I will come in a moment. In addition to the requirement to fill in a form, the amendment raises the question as to how a chief officer might judge whether a crime involving domestic abuse might have been motivated by hostility or prejudice based on sex—given that there are varying motives for domestic abuse, as we have heard during earlier debates on the Bill, and often no witnesses.

To get a better understanding of the complex issues behind domestic abuse and hate crime, I went to the Law Commission document referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Russell, called Hate Crime Laws: A Consultation Paper. This is not light reading, weighing in at 544 pages, with a glossary and a foreword but no executive summary. But it did look, as the noble Lord has just said, at broadening the range of hate crimes to other categories, of which sex was one.

The relevant chapter for this debate is chapter 12, which looks at extending existing protected characteristics to gender or sex. It is 48 pages of closely argued and sympathetic analysis, which ends with a provisional recommendation, followed by a question:

“We provisionally propose that gender and sex should be a protected characteristic for the purposes of hate crime law. Do consultees agree? We invite consultees’ views on whether gender-specific carve-outs for sexual offences, forced marriage, FGM and crimes committed in the domestic abuse context are needed, if gender or sex is protected for the purposes of hate crime law.”


I appreciate that, as the noble Lord has just said, the amendment does not propose extending hate crime to gender or sex. However, the issues raised by the amendment are similar to those in the Law Commission’s document and, as I shall argue, the amendment offers the opportunity to shed light on the provisional conclusions of the Law Commission, and indeed helps to answer their questions.

To summarise the document, the commission identified three relevant criteria before extending hate crime. The first is demonstrable need—evidence that targeting based on prejudice or hostility towards a group is prevalent. The second is additional harm—evidence that that targeting causes additional harm to the victim, members of the targeted group and society more widely. The third is suitability—whether protection of this group fits within the framework of criminal law, is workable in practice, and is an efficient use of resources.

Again, to summarise, the first two boxes were ticked. On demonstrable need, the commission concluded that there is

“overwhelming evidence that women and girls are targeted for certain crimes”

because of hostility to their gender. On additional harm, it concluded that hostility causes

“harm to the social value of equality and can prevent women’s equal participation in society”

and so causes wider harm to that society.

On suitability, the commission is frankly more cautious. It points to the risk of dividing offences into misogynistic and non-misogynistic, and creating a hierarchy of offences. It also mentions the difficulty of proof. Proof is often difficult enough in domestic abuse cases, but having to prove that the offence was aggravated by prejudice against women could provide an additional hurdle.

The commission also touched on issues relating to resources. Hate crime resources are limited, prosecutions and convictions are down and, as we have heard in earlier debates, support services are under strain. I quote from the Law Commission report:

“In this light, one argument might be that resources for tackling violence against women and girls would be more efficiently spent on increasing access to all survivors, particularly survivors who encounter additional barriers to access such as BAME survivors or migrant survivors.”


This then led the commission to discuss the possibility, if hate crimes were to be extended to gender or sex, of carving out domestic abuse and sexual crimes from gender-based aggravation, as already happens in certain states in America. It conceded that this would lead to a certain incoherence in the law and stated:

“This raises much wider questions as to whether hate crime is the right framework for the criminal justice system to deal with gender-based crimes.”


On balance, the commission proposes that gender should be a protected characteristic, but qualifies this by making it provisional and subject to consultees’ agreement.

Why is this relevant to the amendment, which I support? Because I believe that not going outright to make gender-based crime a hate crime, but suggesting this interim step, helps to answer the questions posed by the commission and provides key information on practicality and suitability. As the noble Lord has just said, the amendment would secure the evidence about the extent, nature and prevalence of hostility towards women and girls, how these interplay with the experience of domestic abuse and the practicality of this proposed extension.

A better understanding of these issues is crucial. As we have heard, 11 out of the 43 police constabularies in England and Wales have made misogyny a hate crime, trialled the policy or are actively considering implementing it and voluntarily filling in the necessary forms—dealing with my initial reservation. The amendment would broaden the base by requiring all police forces to do this and so it would add to our understanding of the nature of violence against women and so how work to end it might be accelerated. If we go down this path, I hope the Minister will do this sensitively and cautiously, taking on board the points in the Law Commission reports. If carried, the amendment would be an important addition to this progressive piece of legislation.

[Baroness Bull (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to speak in support of this amendment, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, for his comprehensive introduction. It may be hard for some people to fully comprehend the role that misogyny and sexism play in the lives of women and the extent to which it permeates our every day: from offhand pejorative language that belittles feminine characteristics and female achievements, through lazy gender-based assumptions about preferences, capability and behaviours, to uniquely gendered insults and slurs.

At one end of the spectrum are behaviours and attitudes that might be considered by their perpetrators to be gallant or even protective of the “fairer sex”—what some researchers characterise as “benevolent sexism”. At the other end is the hostile sexism of overtly negative stereotypes and antagonism towards women; the kind of sexism that sees gender equality as attack on masculinity and the kind of sexism that is known to represent a significant danger to women.

We worry, with good reason, about social media platforms creating environments for this kind of misogyny. Indeed, research from the University of Pennsylvania on just one social media platform located more than 2.9 million tweets in one week containing instances of gendered insults. That averages 419,000 sexist slurs per day. That data is from 2019; we can only imagine that today’s figures might dwarf that number.

But perhaps we should worry more about the fact that this online aggression simply mirrors traditional stereotypes and attitudes towards women—a hostility based on sex that women experience everywhere: at school, at work, on public transport, in taxis, on the street and of course at home.

Research from Brazil and Turkey into the connection between sexism and domestic abuse shows a positive correlation between sexism and attitudes that legitimise abuse in intimate relationships. Put simply, men who hold sexist beliefs are more likely to translate them into actions through the use of coercion and force. The researchers make the point that, although benevolent sexism might be thought to promise some kind of protection for women as the perceived weaker sex, in fact this promise rings hollow. It found that benevolent and hostile sexism acted in a carrot-and-stick combination, with protective affection a reward for compliance, and abuse and violence the stick employed should the woman fail to fall into line.

Of course, the impact of sexism and misogyny within the home is doubly worrying. Not only does it have a grave impact on the abused partner; it is also likely to be witnessed and internalised by children, influencing their behaviours and expectations in their adult lives.

The noble Lord, Lord Russell, talked about the lack of knowledge about the experience of victims—the wisdom from their perspectives. This lack of focus is evident in the literature. There is a significant gap in our knowledge about how women experience misogynistic hate crimes. A Swedish study from September 2020 aimed to fill that gap, drawing from a sample of 1,767 female students. It showed that women with experiences of misogynistic hate crimes are more likely to be subjected to sexual harassment and repeat victimisation. They consistently report higher levels of a fear of crime and higher rates of anxiety, depression and stress.

The research supports the thesis that misogynistic hate crime is what is often called a “message crime”. Its negative effect extends far beyond the direct victim, because the offences spread fear and insecurity within entire minority communities and contribute to the marginalisation of particularly vulnerable groups.

As we have heard, this amendment would lead to the gathering of more data about the extent, nature and prevalence of sex-based hostility towards women and girls, and this would improve our understanding of how this intersects with domestic abuse. The very act of collecting this data would likely have benefits in itself.

As the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, said and as we have heard, 11 out of 43 police constabularies in England and Wales already identify misogyny as a hate crime or are considering doing so. The increased rate of reporting in those areas suggests overall improvements in the ability of officers to identify these crimes but also increased confidence levels among women to come forward and report them. Requiring all police forces to follow their example would allow the capture of data on a national scale, supporting the gathering and analysis of evidence, revealing the patterns and extent of women’s experiences, and, ultimately, enabling the development of strategies that would protect women and girls from being targets of crime on the basis of their sex.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Russell, for his very clear introduction and explanation, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, for her description of misogyny.

As we have heard, the amendment would require guidance to take account of the role that hostility against a particular sex plays in domestic abuse cases. It would also require the police to collect data on the number of relevant hate crimes based on sex and on how many of them are misogyny or misandry related. As the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, said, the picture is patchy to say the least.

The problem is that currently all but four police forces do not record crimes based on misogyny or misandry, although I totally accept the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, about how the picture needs to be built up. As the noble Lord, Lord Young, said, another seven forces are thinking about recording such crimes, but there are 43 police forces in total, so we can hardly get a picture of what is happening and of the contribution that these crimes make to domestic abuse in particular. In order to be able to measure and interpret trends in hate crimes, we must have the information; otherwise, how can we know what we are dealing with and how can we build that picture?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, Amendment 146A, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, is one I fully support. I would have signed it if there had been a space, but people got there before me. The amendment ensures that someone made homeless as a result of domestic abuse will have priority need for housing support. It cannot be right that a victim is left with the choice of staying with an abusive partner or becoming homeless. That is no choice at all. The amendment would allow the applicant for homelessness assistance to be either a survivor or someone who resides with the survivor—but, of course, not the abuser. Again, enabling somebody else in the household to make an application could be an important protection.

I was delighted to sign Amendment 147, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, which would ensure that local connection cannot be used as a restriction when someone applies for housing, either in a refuge, in other temporary accommodation or in longer-term accommodation. This is very important to enable someone to get the help and support they want, to get them near to friends, to get them away to a place where they are not known or to get them wherever they want. It enables those in difficult, dangerous situations to get somewhere where they can rebuild their lives.

I want to thank Women’s Aid and other organisations for the help they have given all noble Lords on this Bill and for their general work. I have always been grateful to Women’s Aid for its advice on a number of issues. The example that the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, gave from Women’s Aid highlights the reason his amendment needs to be agreed—or, if the noble Baroness cannot agree the amendment, I hope she recognises the problem and will try to resolve it by bringing something back on Report.

In our discussion last week, we looked at the risks to victims, at home or at work, of being murdered. We have to ensure that, if somebody leaves a relationship, they can get somewhere they are safe and can rebuild their lives. It might be that they want to move to a completely different part of the country where no one knows them at all. Some victims have to completely cut off contact with abusers, because some abusers would do their damnedest to find somebody. We know people can choose not to be on the electoral register and that there is anonymous registration, but what shops they go to and where their families and friends are will still be known, so we have to ensure that people who want to can get away completely and start life afresh. That is why the noble Lord’s amendment is so important—so that no local authority can suggest, “Oh, you can’t come here because you’ve got no connection”. “That’s exactly why I want to come here—I’ve got no connection.” That is a really important issue. I look forward to the response from the noble Baroness at the end of the debate.

[Baroness Bull (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to speak briefly in support of Amendment 146A, so ably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham. Like him, I welcome the extension of automatic priority-need status for housing to survivors of domestic abuse, but I share his regret that there is no current right for anyone who lives with the survivor, or might reasonably be expected to live with them, to apply for this assistance on their behalf. This amendment aims to address this and to ensure that survivors have access to what one has been described as the first and most important priority for anyone escaping domestic abuse—a safe roof over their head.

Domestic abuse is often about control. There is a horrible, perhaps inevitable, consequence when that control is challenged, which is that abusers are likely to become even more violent as they seek to reinstate or retain their dominance over their victim. My noble friend Lady Finlay has already said the risk of domestic homicide is at its highest during separation. Research studies show that the worst incidents of abuse are triggered by the victim having left the abuser, and the abuse is even more extreme if the victim has left for another partner. In such cases, the risk of femicide increases fivefold. Interviews with men who killed their wives in the United States pointed to separation or a threat of separation as the most common trigger for the murder. This means that the difficult decision by a victim of domestic abuse to leave their abuser and seek out support may well result not in the provision of a safe haven but in further victimisation, physical risk and even risk to life.

Front-line services in both the domestic abuse and the homelessness sectors are clear about the potential risks to survivors of abuse in making an application for homelessness assistance themselves. They know that abusers will employ the most varied and creative tactics to track their partner, from using GPS locators in their partner’s phone to calling around women’s shelters or even filing a missing persons report. Front-line workers know that in some cases a call for help may become a death sentence.

This amendment addresses this risk and provides an important safeguarding mechanism by allowing an ally to fill in the application, thus allowing victims of abuse to make plans without running the risk of those plans, or the location of their future home, being discovered by their abuser. It has the backing of Women’s Aid and of the APPG for Ending Homelessness. I urge the Government to listen carefully to their arguments and to the arguments in your Lordships’ House and to adopt this amendment so that survivors of domestic abuse have a clear legal route to that most basic of needs—a safe roof over their heads.

[Lord Cormack (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bull. I agree with all she said and give my unreserved support to both these amendments.

In a long Committee stage, some amendments are, very properly, probing amendments. Others stand out as improving amendments. I really hope that this amendment, so eloquently moved by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, and the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, will be incorporated into the Bill. Perhaps there will have to be the odd change of word, but I have referred to the Bill on a number of occasions as a landmark Bill, and a landmark Bill, in this area, has to be able to deliver as near perfect, total security as it can.

In common with many constituency Members of Parliament, I saw young women—they were mostly young women—who had been harassed, bullied, tormented and beaten, who needed somewhere to go. They needed a safe and secure refuge. In the immediate future that was often a home of refuge, where others were similarly placed. But what they needed most of all, as they came out of the trauma they had suffered, was a secure permanent home. Very often, for the reasons given by my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge, that had to be some distance from where they had suffered.

--- Later in debate ---

This is a most unsatisfactory situation and no Member of this House should be satisfied with it. Therefore, if we cannot get this resolved in the next few weeks, we are going to have a vote on Report—I can promise the House that. We are finally going to deal with this issue in this House. I hope that the Minister can give us some hope today about resolving this; otherwise, I will add him to my list of Ministers who have expressed support but have not actually done anything about it. I look forward to his response.

[Baroness Bull (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, both for introducing this amendment, to which I have signed my name, and for his persistence, as we have heard, in raising this issue in this House and beyond.

The decision to leave an abusive relationship may be among the hardest choices a person will ever make. However cruel the relationship and however damaging its impact, breaking away cuts a bond. It may be the only type of connection that that person has ever known. Sometimes, the relationship is just one in a lifelong pattern. The person brave enough to make that break needs all the support they can get, but too often they encounter barriers, including those related to access to legal aid. Without it, many abuse survivors are unable to challenge the perpetrator through the courts, yet eligibility for such aid is based on the requirement to provide evidence of abuse. It is hard to imagine the pain of reliving the situations of abuse, the shame it can entail and the difficulty of disclosing details of that abuse to different professionals and services over and over again. It is not hard to see why this is something that many victims will never do.

As we have already heard, research from the Ministry of Justice identifies a number of barriers faced by individuals in providing the evidence of their abuse that they need to unlock support. These include difficulties in gathering evidence if the victims do not disclose the violence at the time to those organisations that are recognised as able to supply evidence. Language barriers can be an issue; data protection issues can be a problem; and, of course, as we are discussing with this amendment, the financial costs of acquiring certain pieces of evidence —and the unwillingness on occasion of organisations and health professionals in particular to provide a letter confirming that abuse has taken place—can be a barrier. Taken together, these issues can be the determining factors in a victim’s ability to access legal aid.

This Bill now includes economic abuse in the definition of domestic abuse, recognising that the ways in which one partner seeks to control and abuse the other often include the control of household and personal finances. Therefore, if there is a financial cost to securing a GP’s letter attesting to the fact that abuse has taken place—as we have heard, it is a letter that can cost up to £150—this could push this vital piece of evidence beyond the reach of survivors. Accessing the money from bank accounts that are scrutinised by the partner might alert the abuser to the fact that the victim is in the process of seeking support, which puts them at further risk.

This amendment would remove what might be a crucial block to victims accessing justice. It is supported by the domestic abuse commissioner for England and Wales. The British Medical Association, as we have heard, has tried to address this issue through guidance, but this has not achieved the aim. This Bill provides the opportunity to put a definitive stop to these charges and ensure that a lack of financial resources is not a hindrance to survivors who are brave enough to try to escape from the perpetrators of domestic abuse.

[The Lord Bishop of London [V]]

My Lords, I add my voice to this amendment simply because it should go without saying that some things need to be penned into law for there to be consistent access to justice. Amendment 161 has been tabled because it prevents GPs charging survivors of domestic abuse for letters which confirm injuries they have suffered—evidence which survivors need for their legal aid applications. The case for this amendment has been extremely well made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bull. I agree with the statements they have made, so there is no need to add much to what has been said.

There should be no gatekeepers when we consider the path to justice, not least from those who are on the path to help facilitate it. As we have heard, the British Medical Association has recommended that patients should not be charged for medical evidence when seeking it for legal aid. I too stand by this, by virtue of calling for this amendment to be included in this Bill.