Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)

I apologise for interrupting, but I think there is a profound misunderstanding. Let us look at Clause 8, because the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, is making a very important point. Jess Asato was incredibly keen to specify that training in respect of “domestic abuse, including coercive control and financial abuse, is mandatory”. Clause 8(8) says: “The regulations must provide that the practitioner must have had training about the following”, and paragraph (d) says “domestic abuse”. Subsection (10) says that training on domestic abuse must include “training in respect of … coercive control and financial abuse”. That was the point that Jess Asato was keen to establish. Noble Lords will see at the top of page 41 of the Bill that the definition of domestic abuse “includes behaviour that is controlling or coercive or … economic abuse”. What is happening here is not a watering down of any of that. It is simply avoiding duplication between Clause 8(10) and the wide definition of domestic abuse in Clause 56. I understand why the noble Baroness might be confused about it, because it is slightly complicated, but that is the intention. It is not for one second to water down any of the protections.