Paschal Donohoe (Fine Gael)

I second the amendment. I welcome the Minister back to the House and thank Senator Quinn for his proposal regarding the point we raised on Committee Stage. The House had time to examine the Road Traffic Bill 2009 during the adjournment, in particular, the definition applied to the number of events in which a garda should become involved and the format of section 8. At one stage it read:

is of opinion that a person in charge of a vehicle in a public place--

(i) has consumed intoxicating liquor,

(ii) is or has been, with the vehicle, involved in a collision, or

(iii) is committing or has committed an offence under the Road Traffic Acts 1961 to 2009,

the member may require,

or

In the definition of "incident" used in previous road traffic legislation the word "or" was not included after "intoxicating liquor". In subsequent sections, however, it was used. We asked a question during the Minister's absence. If the word "or" is required in paragraph (c) of this amending Bill, why is it not required also in paragraph (b)? As Senator Quinn stated, we are conscious that the Bill will be challenged. I do not see how accepting the amendment would hurt it, rather it could strengthen it.