HL Deb 22 March 1949 vol 161 cc587-92

5.0 p.m.

Amendments reported (according to Order).

Clause 1:

Payments in respect of jury service

1.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, persons who serve as jurors shall be entitled to be paid, in accordance with prescribed scales and subject to any prescribed conditions,—

  1. (a) travelling and subsistence allowances; and
  2. (b) compensation for loss of earnings which they would otherwise have made or additional expense (other than expense on account of travelling or subsistence) to which 588 they would not otherwise have been subject, being loss or expense necessarily suffered or incurred for the purpose of enabling them to serve as jurors:

VISCOUNT SIMON moved, in subsection (1)(b), after "additional" to insert "loss or." The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this is one of the two Amendments which I put down during the Committee stage. It was then received sympathetically as a suggestion by the noble Lord opposite, although he naturally asked for time in which to consider it more particularly. My concern was, and is, to make sure that those citizens who are called upon to serve on a jury should be fairly dealt with out of public funds in respect of the losses they suffer, whether those individuals are employed by somebody else or whether they are persons who are earning their income in what is called self-employment.

I gave the example of the small farmer or the small shopkeeper who is not carrying on business through others, but is looking after his own enterprise day by day. If such an individual is summoned to serve on a jury, we should all agree that it is important that he should be fairly dealt with under the excellent arrangements proposed for compensating jurors when they undertake work for the whole community and incur special losses thereby. Therefore, I have put down my Amendment again, although I have had a communication from the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, who is in charge of the Bill, explaining his attitude to this matter after further inquiry. I am not going to challenge what I understand he is about to say, but I think it is important to mention it, because it is necessary that citizens should be reassured that the scheme of this Bill is one which does not merely compensate those who suffer loss of earnings in the sense of loss of payment made by an employer, but covers also the citizen who is made to suffer in pocket because the enterprise upon which he is engaged cannot be carried on equally to his advantage while he is engaged on this important duty. I beg to move this Amendment in order that the House may have a statement from the noble Lord opposite.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 14, after ("additional") insert ("loss or").—(Viscount Simon.)

LORD CHORLEY

My Lords, when this matter was discussed here during the Committee stage, I indicated that the phrase "loss of earnings" seemed to be perfectly general in its character and not limited, as the noble and learned Viscount suggested was a possible interpretation, to earnings by an employee. I am glad to say that after further discussions I am assured that that is so, and that this phrase applies to a farmer or to a shopkeeper, or to any other person who, carrying on business on his own account, by reason of his absence on jury service has been injured and has less money available from the proceeds of his business than he would have had if he had not been so occupied with his jury service. Therefore, he is entitled to compensation just as much as if he were a wage earner. That can and will be made quite clear to clerks of assize and clerks of the peace by an administrative circular in due course.

It may be said: "Well, if it is clear, let us put it into the Bill." But there is a reason which I think your Lordships will agree is a good one why, in my submission, it would be a mistake to write it into the Bill; that is, that these words as they here appear were inserted in Section 112 of the Local Government Act of 1948. If words such as the noble and learned Viscount suggests were now inserted in this Bill, it would convey the impression that the words in the Local Government Act did not go so far as these do. Therefore, a situation of doubt would be immediately caused. I think the noble and learned Viscount will agree that that would be unfortunate. I hope that, as the noble and learned Viscount has already indicated, he will be prepared to accept this assurance.

VISCOUNT SIMON

My Lords, I am greatly obliged to the noble Lord opposite. If I may say so, I think he has made a most useful statement. Any anxiety which was entertained—and I confess that I shared it—is largely removed. It is important that in practice the view which I think we share on both sides of the Table is insisted upon. Although I was not aware of the fact, I think it is material to observe that since this exact phrase occurs in the Local Government Act of last year it would be manifestly unfortunate if we were to introduce a variant in the present Bill which might lead, according to the method of argument which some of us employ, to too narrow a construction being placed upon the phrase as it already exists in the Statute Book. On those grounds, and thanking the noble Lord for his reply, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 18:

Abolition of special juries.

18.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this and the next following section no issue or question shall be tried or determined after the end of the month of September, nineteen hundred and forty-nine, by a special jury and no person shall be summoned to serve as a special juror for the trial or determination after the end of that month of an Issue or question, but where, but for the passing of this Act, an issue or question would fall to be tried or determined after the end of that month by a special jury it shall be tried or determined by a common jury:

Provided that—

VISCOUNT SIMON moved, in subsection (1) to leave out "common jury" and insert "jury other than a special jury." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is one of two or three Amendments, which are all consequential, which carry out in what I am advised is a better form the same proposal that I made on the Committee stage. I have hopes that the words now proposed will be acceptable to the Government. Here again, the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, on behalf of the Government, expressed his sympathy with the idea that I had in my head. It is all very well to talk about two classes of jury—a common jury and a special jury—when you really have two classes, but one of the main objects of this Bill, broadly speaking, is to abolish special juries. When they are abolished, it seems a little odd to go on calling the surviving category by a special phrase like "common jury"—not that there is anything necessarily objectionable in being "common," but at least it is one word too many. As the Amendment I am now moving and the consequential Amendments are drawn, and as they now appear on the Order Paper, I believe that they carry out that purpose in the appropriate way. I hope that we may hear from the noble Lord on behalf of the Government that he accepts the suggestion that we need no longer label the standard jury by an epithet which, although not necessarily opprobrious, is at any rate unnecessary; and, in that event, the fewer words the better. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 32, leave out ("common jury") and insert ("jury other than a special jury").—(Viscount Simon.)

LORD CHORLEY

My Lords, as I indicated on the last occasion, the Government have every sympathy with the Amendment which the noble and learned Viscount tabled, and indeed they are obliged to him for his action in so doing. I said then that there might be some technical hitch which would not enable us to put it into this Bill. However, I am glad to say that we have been able to overcome that, and the discussions that I have had with the noble and learned Viscount have enabled us to reach a form of wording which is entirely satisfactory to the Government. Therefore, I have great pleasure in accepting this Amendment and those that follow.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT SIMON moved, after Clause 19, to insert the following new clause:

Discontinuance of terms "common jury" and "common juror".

". As from the expiration of the month of September, nineteen hundred and forty-nine, the expressions 'common jury' and 'common juror' shall cease to be used."

The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 40, at end insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Simon.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT SIMON moved, after Clause 29, to insert as a new clause:

Discontinuance of terms "common jury" and "common juror".

". As from the expiration of the month of September, nineteen hundred and forty-nine, the expressions 'common jury' and 'common juror' shall cease to be used."

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, on the face of it, this might appear to be saying the same thing over again, but it is not in fact so, because Part I of the Bill deals with England and Part II deals with Scotland. This is an occasion when Parliament is doing exactly the same for both England and Scotland. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 14, line 12, after Clause 29, insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Simon.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Second Schedule [English Enactments Repealed]:

LORD CHORLEY

My Lords, this and the following Amendment are drafting Amendments which are necessitated by an oversight in the Schedule as originally drafted. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 26, after ("and") insert (", in the first place where they occur,").—(Lord Chorley.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CHORLEY

My Lords, I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 18, line 8, leave out ("and thirty-three") and insert (" , thirty-three and thirty-five").—(Lord Chorley.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.