Feargal Quinn (Independent)

I have great difficulty with what the Minister has said. He is correct in one respect, as I do not think there is a need for the word "or" after the word "liquor" in subsection (1)(a) which includes the words "has consumed intoxicating liquor". However, I do think there is a need for the word "or" after subsection (1)(b) which includes the words "is committing or has committed an offence". If I were a lawyer, I would make the defence that my client had not done the other three things listed. The client may have consumed liquor but only did one of the other things listed in paragraphs (b), (c) and (d). I do not understand how it can be regarded that the subsection is strengthened by the removal of the word "or". While I accept the Minister's point about removing it after paragraph (a), there is a definite need to include it after paragraph (b). The subsection reads as follows:

(b) is committing or has committed an offence under the Road Traffic Acts 1961 to 2011,

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

(d) is or has been, with the vehicle...

I do not see how the Bill is strengthened in not having the word "or"; the opposite is the case. The Bill will be challenged the first time someone is charged and a clever lawyer will find a loophole. I do not understand how the Bill would be weakened by inserting the word "or" after paragraph (b). I know the Minister wants to ensure the legislation will not fail to do what is intended, but it is essential that the word "or" is used after paragraph (b), whatever about after subsection (a).