Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)

I am opposing the amendment because, aside from the drafting difficulty, there is no such thing as a commercial mechanically propelled vehicle within the meaning of the Road Traffic Act, 1961. Given that that Act does not define the phrase which this amendment would create, the argument underlying this amendment is opposed in principle. I will elaborate on that point, if I may. To confine the scope of the carrier liability provisions of the Bill to commercial vehicles would seriously undermine the potential effectiveness of those provisions and leave in existence continuing scope for widespread abuse of our immigration controls. I see no justification in principle or practice for excluding non-commercial vehicles involved in bringing passengers to this State from the scope of the carrier's liability scheme.

Immigration controls must apply to all non-nationals seeking to enter the State from outside the common travel area. They could not operate in any other way. Carrier liability controls, which form part of the State's immigration control techniques, must likewise apply to all inward vehicular movements for the same reason. If it is unacceptable for the driver of a commercial vehicle to bring a person to the State without proper documents, which is the logic of this amendment, why should it be acceptable for the person in charge of a non-commercial vehicle? Why should it be unacceptable for the person in charge of a boat to bring in an undocumented person, even if the boat is a pleasure craft, and not a commercial vessel, for that is also the logic of the amendment? Why should it be in order for the driver of an eight-seater family car not to have to bother about presenting the passengers in the car for immigration, while the driver of an eight-seater bus must do so?