I beg to move Amendment 125, in Clause 39, page 44, line 13, leave out ‘but under 76’.

With this it will be convenient to discuss Amendment 126, in Clause 39, page 44, line 17, leave out ‘subparagraph (b).

Both amendments would have the same effect, which is not to limit the age of jurors to 75, as the Government seek to do, but to put it at large, just  as the voting age is at large. Some Members of this House are over the age of 75 and are still in robust health and spirits. They are often able to carry themselves with considerably more vigour and aplomb than many younger Members. I am moving this probing Amendment to ask the Minister what the logic is for choosing 75 and whether that is the limit of the Government’s extension.

I have one other point, which will avoid the need for a Clause stand part debate. A consequence of raising the age limit for jury service is that the Government will save money.

I appreciate the spirit of the hon. Gentleman’s Amendment, but he is not seriously arguing that we should allow centenarians to be jurors, remarkable and wonderful though they are.

The logic of the Government’s position is that the age should rise with increasing longevity and improved health, and so on. I will not press the Amendment to a vote and I am not saying that anybody of any age should be eligible, because that would create certain problems of its own, in terms of mental and physical health. I am asking why 75 is the cut-off and positing the view that this has more to do with saving money than with enfranchising, in the sense of jury service, those aged between 70 and 75.

I put it to the Minister—it is not in my amendment because of financial privilege—that if he is raising money, there will of course be a benefit to the economy generally, as acknowledged in the impact assessment, because there will be fewer people of working age, proportionately, on juries and they will be in productive work. I accept that. But there will also be a saving to the Government, because, on the whole, they will not be paying for loss of earnings to people over 70 who are sitting on juries. I think that that saving would be a significant sum of about £1 million a year. As the Government are looking around for money—they are particularly looking for money for Her Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service, because that is why we have the courts charge—so why not say that the money saved will benefit that service?

This is a probing amendment and I ask the Minister to explain his logic in choosing this age.

I note that this is a probing Amendment and hope that the hon. Gentleman is not being unfair to those who may be beyond the present jury age but are active and fit and well able to serve as jurors.

The Government are increasing the age limit to make juries more representative of the adult population and to ensure that juries benefit from the experience and knowledge of those aged 70 to 75. Amendments 125 and 126 would abolish the upper age limit of jurors entirely. I disagree with the amendment, as the Government’s view is that, over the age of 75, an increasing proportion of people would find it difficult to sit as jurors and would therefore be more likely to seek to be excused jury service. Rather than put them through the process of applying for excusal, and spend taxpayers’ money dealing with that additional administrative burden, it is right to set the age limit at 75.

According to the latest figures published by the Office for National Statistics, the healthy life expectancy of both men and women at age 65 in England and Wales is now at least 10 years. The selection of jurors should reflect that fact. That is why it is fair to expect people aged up to and including 75 to sit as jurors if summoned.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned estimated savings. It is currently estimated that the economic net benefit of raising the jury service age limit to 75 is £19 million to £39 million, at 2013-14 prices, over 10 years. That estimate depends on a number of assumptions about the number of people over 70 who will serve as jurors.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman asks leave to withdraw his amendment.

I am happy to do so. The Minister did not say whether he wanted to snaffle the money for himself, but I take it from his silence on the matter that he is content to let the Treasury take it, as it does with all things.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill.