The Seanad will recollect that an amendment was inserted, the purpose of which was to provide that where a workman, employed by an employer in Saorstát Eireann, in connection with the employer's business in the Saorstát, was injured in an accident occurring outside the Saorstát, he would be entitled to proceed against the employer in the Saorstát courts for compensation. It was considered at the time that the Bill as framed did not give the worker that right. The relevant section of the Bill—Section 15 —is identical with the same section of the 1906 Act, and a similar section in the British Act. A number of decisions in the British courts had placed upon that section the interpretation which it was assumed was operative here also. Since this Bill was before the Seanad, and before the Bill came before the Dáil, a decision was given in the Supreme Court of the Saorstát which places an interpretation on the Act different from that of the British courts. The effect of that was to place upon the section an interpretation which secured for workers injured under the circumstances provided in the amendment the right to proceed for compensation against their employer in the Saorstát court. The case was one which had been argued in the various courts, and the effect of the decision of the Supreme Court was to confer upon the worker the right to get compensation against his employer. In these circumstances it is clear that the amendment inserted here is not necessary. It might have been thought desirable nevertheless to leave the amendment stand in order to reinforce the decision of the Supreme Court by the insertion of this section in the Bill. On consideration, however, it was considered better to rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court, which covers all cases that are likely to arise under the section, although it leaves undecided certain possible cases that might arise, and might at some future date be the subject of further discussion. There are, of course, in this section inserted in the Seanad provisions designed to prevent the worker getting double compensation in any circumstances. It might have been decided to have at least allowed that portion of the amendment to stand, so that the safeguard against double compensation being paid would be maintained. But having examined the matter with great care, and discussed every contingency that might arise, it was felt that circumstances in which double compensation would be awardable, having regard to the Supreme Court's decision, were so limited and unlikely that there was no necessity to make such provision, particularly having regard to the fact that the provision would have to be a very complicated one. The decision which was taken in the matter was approved of in the Dáil by all authorities, and I think it was the wiser course to take. The Seanad can be assured that the position that it wished to provide has been provided by the Supreme Court, and that the amendment is not now required.
