Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)

I fully understand from where Senator Paddy Burke is coming in tabling this amendment but I would like to clarify the position and to refer to the word "emergency". The word "emergency" has deliberately not been defined in the section, as it would be impossible to draw up an exhaustive list of circumstances that would merit emergency status. The genuine emergency defence provision was included in the Bill to cater for instances where the seriousness of the situation would warrant the making or taking of a call on a hand-held mobile phone where by not making or taking that call, the consequences would probably be loss of life, serious injury or putting the health or safety of a person at risk.

Using the word "genuine" alongside the word "emergency" is intended to stress that there must be an objective seriousness to the emergency. The use of the word "genuine" is intended to make it clear that convenience, regardless of the urgency of the matter, would not constitute an emergency. The amendment, if accepted, would lessen the test of objectiveness in terms of an emergency and therefore undermine the restrictive nature of the defence.

As I indicated to the House yesterday, ultimately it would be a matter for the courts to determine the merits of a genuine emergency defence in each particular case. Subsection (7), as drafted, strikes a balance between the need to have a hand-held mobile phone in a real emergency situation as against its urgent use for convenience purposes. I hope this explanation satisfies Senator Burke and that in practical circumstances good sense will prevail.