Ivana Bacik (Independent)

I am very grateful to the Minister who has put the case better than I did in saying there is a small number of offences that are not captured by the current formula in paragraph (b) but which cause emotional distress to victims. I think he accepts in principle that these could or should be covered by the victim impact procedure. I see him nodding in agreement, for which I am grateful. Therefore, I do not propose to press the amendment at this stage. I take the Minister's point that there has not been a representation to this effect.

Happily, these are relatively rare offences but the offence of harassment, often referred to colloquially as stalking, causes immense distress to victims, even where there is not any actual threat of physical violence. The abduction of a child by parents or other persons under sections 16 and 17 equally could cause great distress without it being captured by the definition in paragraph (b). I would be delighted if the Minister could bring forward an amendment on Report Stage to try to do what I have tried to do, perhaps using a different formula or phrase he has used. Most offences under the 1997 Act are covered by the formula in place. I would not touch that formula but I am simply trying to add to it to include the very small number of extra offences which cause distress but which are not captured in the general definition of offences involving violence or a threat of violence.

I refer to amendment No. 15 in my name which specifically makes it clear there would be a more general power for the court to receive evidence of an offence other than an offence to which this section applies. This would be an alternative if we have not adequately captured the full range of offences in subsection (1)(b). I am grateful to the Minister and delighted he will bring forward an amendment on Report Stage that may extend the definition in the way I have requested.