Derek McDowell (Labour)

Perhaps I did not make myself sufficiently clear. I was looking to explore the difference in approach between subsection (1) and subsection (4). Subsection (1) provides for a specific offence of holding a mobile phone and a later subsection outlines the penalty, but subsection (4) is simply enabling. Why is it being done in an enabling way? Why does he not create a general offence of using an in-car communications device in such a manner as to be dangerous, rather than saying regulations may be made at some stage in the future to deal with these other issues?

The reason I am pursuing this now is that we were told by the Minister of State's predecessor, Deputy Callely, that it was impossible to enforce an offence of holding a mobile telephone simpliciter — in other words, if it was not otherwise dangerous — for the last 18 months to two years because we needed to create the specific offence, as we are now doing. That is fine. It seems to me the same argument applies to the offences that are obviously contemplated in subsection (4). Surely we need to explicitly create that offence or those offences if we believe they are to be enforceable. In making the regulations, is the Minister of State contemplating the possibility of prohibiting the use of car kits where the phone does not have to be held manually?