I move amendment No. 5 :—

In page 1, before Section 2, to insert the following new section :—

" Nothing in this Act shall affect any legal proceedings commenced before the date of the passing of this Act."

This amendment proposes that nothing in the proposed Act shall affect any legal proceedings commenced before the Bill is passed. This is a usual provision in Bills of this type. A similar provision will be found in Section 17 of the Married Women's Status Act, 1957.

Amendment No. 5 goes further than amendment No. 6 in that it will prevent common employment being pleaded even though the injuries occurred before the passing of the Act. Under my amendment, all that will be necessary to oust the defence will be that proceedings shall not have been commenced before the passing of the Act.

Our amendment, in this case, is deliberately put in to cover a case where a person has sustained injury and the proceedings in connection with the matter take a long period before being completed. We suggest, in our amendment, that the Act shall not apply to any personal injury caused before the passing of the Act.

We are saying the reverse : we are making it wider in order to cover cases where the injuries were caused before the passing of the proposed Act.

I would be inclined to agree with the Minister.

This amendment would give a very clear date, the date of the commencement of legal proceedings, and there would be no question of difficulty in regard to the date of operation of the Act.

Would the Minister indicate clearly that nothing in the Act shall affect any legal proceedings commenced before the date of the passing of the Act ?

That is what amendment No. 5 proposes.

Where injuries have occurred and legal proceedings have been commenced, this Act will not affect the proceedings ?

No.

Does that mean that in a case where legal proceedings have commenced——

The old law applies. Common employment may be pleaded.

Even on appeal ? Suppose, when the Act is in force, an appeal is held in six months' time, the common employment defence having been abolished ? I know there is a likelihood of such a case. I suppose I should not say this, but I know there is an appeal pending and, presumably, it will not be heard until after the date of the coming into operation of the Act. Of course that will not make the Act any worse on that account, but it will be rather unusual to hear a defence being pleaded that has been abolished. In the lower Court the plea of common employment was not made, but I understand that there is an appeal by the employer on the basis of common employment.

We accept the Minister's statement that the amendment is wider, but while it is still there, is there any possibility of looking at it from the point of view of cases where proceedings may have commenced ?

That would be taking rights away from people that they already have.

If the proceedings have commenced, this Act will not apply.

I move amendment No. 7 :—

In page 1, before Section 2, to insert the following new section :—

" The enactments mentioned in column (2) of the Schedule to this Act are hereby repealed to the extent mentioned in column (3) of that Schedule."

With the consent of the Chairman, I propose to take amendments Nos. 7 and 8 together.

It is proposed to replace Section 2 of the Bill by a new section providing for repeals and to insert the repeals in a Schedule to the Bill. Not alone is it necessary to repeal the Employers' Liability Act, 1880, but it is also necessary to repeal the references to it in the First Schedule to the Expiring Laws Act, 1923. The 1880 Act was originally enacted for seven years and was after 1887 continued in force by Expiring Laws Continuance Acts. It was made permanent by the Expiring Laws Act, 1923.

The first part of the Schedule deals with the Employers' Liability Act of 1880 and the next applies to the Expiring Laws Act, 1923.

I move amendment No. 8 :—

To insert at the end of the Bill the following :—

" SCHEDULE

I move amendment No. 9 :—

" In page 1, line 13, to delete ‘ doctrine ' and substitute ‘ defence '."

This is really a drafting amendment. Strictly speaking, one abolishes a defence not a doctrine, and it is intended to replace the words " doctrine of common employment " with " defence of common employment ".

I think we have a similar amendment.

The suggested report of the Committee is as follows :—

" The Special Committee has gone through the Bill and has made amendments thereto, and has amended the Title to read as follows : ‘ An Act to Abolish the Defence of Common Employment '.

The Bill, as amended, is reported to the Dáil."

Report agreed to.

I should like to thank the Minister on behalf of Deputy Larkin and myself for the way he has met us. He has been very helpful and without his help I might say, we would not have succeeded in getting so far. We appreciate very much the manner in which he met us.

Thank you very much.

The Committee concluded its business at 4.40 p.m.