My Lords, I will speak also to Amendment 69 in my name, and I have the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, whom I thank very much. The Government also have an amendment in this group, which I will comment on when we reach the end of the debate and I have heard what the noble Earl has to say about it.

We are in that part of the Bill that is concerned with the issue of stalking—indeed, in the group that we have just discussed I had my name to Amendments 54 and 81, alongside the noble Lord, Lord Russell. It is important to say that we are indebted to Laura Richards, the founder of Paladin, and the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, for their relentless work to have the vicious and pernicious crime of stalking recognised, acted on and integrated into the legal framework tackling violence against women and girls—and for us that includes this victims’ Bill.

I am aware that we have to ensure that stalking is dealt with across all the criminal justice legislation that we are dealing with, so that there is a read-across with MAPPA and the issues that we will be discussing later in the Bill, not just for this Bill but for the Criminal Justice Bill, which we know is coming down the track. Can the Minister assure the House of that legislative coherence? For too long we have been waiting for there to be legislative coherence that can be enforced for the crime of stalking—its recognition and dealing with it.

The context is that women, children and men are being failed and not protected. There is no compulsion on the police to automatically identify serial domestic abusers and stalkers, so they do not—of course they do not. So, for example, although the application of Clare’s law is not in the scope of the Bill, it is the lack of that application across all police forces which means that there are victims in the criminal justice system who need not have been there. This amendment seeks to address that issue of recognising the particular needs of victims of stalking.

We should recognise that a lot of work has been done on this over the years. These two amendments are quite simple. Independent stalking advocates should exist, and an independent stalking advocate means

“a person who provides a relevant service to individuals who are victims of criminal conduct which constitutes stalking”.

That means creating what are called ISACs in the Bill—independent stalking advocacy caseworkers.

I was interested in one of the briefs I read, from Laura Richards, which said that she designed and undertook some of the early training of Paladin ISACs and other specialists—and, since then, hundreds of ISACs have been trained. They are vital to the system because they

“put the voice of the victim first and they ensure they are not alone and that their voice is heard”.

This is a life-saving service that is absolutely important, because the statistics show that

“2 in 5 victims who were supported by an ISAC said they helped them report to the police … 1 in 3 saw their stalkers charged compared to 1 in 435 nationally … 1 in 4 saw their stalkers prosecuted compared to 1 in 556 … 1 in 4 saw their stalker convicted compared with 1 in 1,000”.

The case really makes itself.

I realise that in his amendment the Minister will be changing the Clause that we would amend here. However, that does not undermine the case for what these two amendments seek to do. I beg to move.