Ivana Bacik (Independent)

I am grateful to the Minister for indicating his acceptance of the principle of the amendment and also for his indication that he will introduce an amendment in similar terms in the other House. However, I am disappointed that he could not have had the amendment ready for Report Stage in this House, given that it has been fully debated in this House.

I also believe that my amendment has the benefit both of certainty in terms of the offences it would cover and also of encompassing the issue of psychological or emotional harm. Of course "harm" as defined in the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997, includes non-physical harm. The Minister will be aware of the need to ensure co-ordination across criminal legislation. Inserting a definition based on the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act - in other words encompassing those offences under it - might be the best approach, rather than using this new definition that does not have a straightforward relationship with the 1997 Act. The definition currently provided for that is an offence involving violence or the threat of violence. There is a problem with different definitions of different types of offence and a lack of co-ordination between statutes. I was really trying to co-ordinate with existing legislation and create some certainty. I ask the Minister to consider using my wording in his amendment in the other House. However, I will not press the amendment given what the Minister has said.