CLAUSE 32.—(SHORT TITLE, CITATION AND REPEAL.) (Hansard, 14 February 1949)

§ Mr. Paget
I take it that it will be in Order to discuss the Schedules with Clause 32, as the Schedules are considered here with Clause 32?

§ The Chairman
In so far as the Schedules are referred to in Clause 32 it may be proper to refer to them.

§ Mr. Paget
As I understand it, the object of this Bill and this Clause is to implement what has been referred to as the Runnymede principle, that is to say, that people shall be tried by their peers, that a jury shall be representative, that it shall be drawn from people who have the same customs and habits, and the same ways of thinking as the people who appear before that jury. I do not feel that the repeal of various previous Juries Acts provided for in this Clause are adequate to provide for that purpose. I have a new Clause down in my name, which I understand will be ruled out of Order. That was also devoted to broadly similar objects. But the repeal Clause here seems to me to be altogether inadequate because, even subject to the repeals set out in this Clause, the operation of what is left of this Act results in the fact that of the electorate only 2 or 3 per cent. appear on the jury books. One is not being tried by one's peers on a broad average but by a specially selected 2 or 3 per cent.—

§ The Chairman
I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman can argue his new Clause on this Clause. Quite clearly a matter which is not within the scope of the Bill when put down as a new Clause, is not within the scope of one of the Clauses of the Bill.

§ Mr. Paget
I certainly would not dream of arguing that. I am simply arguing the same matter which would have been dealt with in a far wider and more general manner by my proposed new Clause. There are certain Sections of the 1825 Act which, doubtless by an oversight, have been left in, and I propose to deal with that. I am explaining why I feel that it must be in Order—

§ The Chairman
The hon. and learned Gentleman would not be in Order in adopting the course he has suggested. This Clause appears to deal with matters of repeal whereas the hon. and learned Gentleman, if I understand him correctly, is dealing with matters which are not repealed and which, therefore, are not mentioned in the Schedule.

§ Mr. Paget
This deals with the repeal of certain parts of the Act of 1825. I am arguing that it should deal with the repeal of certain other parts of that Act. The repeals in this Clause are inadequate to 905 achieve the object of the Bill and to give effect to the principles which it is sought to make law. With very great respect, surely that must be in Order. As you observed, Major Milner, this is a repealing Clause. It is designed to repeal the old law which must be repealed in order to bring into effect the new principles of this Bill. I submit that the repeals so far effected by Clause 32 are inadequate to bring into operation the principles of this Bill and, therefore, they must be extended.

§ The Chairman
I am afraid I cannot accept that argument as being either correct or giving the hon. and learned Gentleman the right to discuss a matter which clearly is not within the scope of the Bill.

§ Mr. Bing
On a point of Order. For example, the first Section of the Juries Act, 1825, provides that one shall be a juror who occupies a house containing not less than 15 windows. With great respect, would we not be in Order in arguing that the Second Schedule should be used for altering and removing provisions of that sort which in the view of some of us are obsolete?

§ The Chairman
The hon. Member is arguing a matter of merit with which I may have sympathy, but that is not my function. I cannot allow merit to influence my decision. I have to decide what is appropriate to discussion within the scope of the Bill and what is not. The question raised by the hon. Gentleman and that raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) are not within the scope of the Bill and must not be discussed further.