§ Mr. Harry EwingI beg to move amendment No. 37, in page 24, line 8, leave out 'three' and insert 'four'.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill)With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 38, in page 24, line 11, leave out 'three' and insert 'four'.
§ Mr. EwingThe amendment deals with the number of peremptory challenges that 628 may be made. I do not criticise the selection, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when I observe that we tabled an amendment to delete clause 23. We would much prefer the number of peremptory challenges to remain at five. However, we have the choice of three or four. We do not believe that the savings will amount to anything. We do not believe that fewer jurors will be cited to attend jury trials. I hope that the Government will have second thoughts and will agree that instead of reducing the number of peremptory challenges from five to three it will be sufficient, if the Government want to reduce the number, to take it from five to four.
§ Mr. Douglas Hogg (Grantham)The hon. Gentleman has founded his case on economy. Does he agree that the principal objection to having five peremptory challenges is that it gives a number of defendants who are appearing together an opportunity to pack a jury? That has happened in the English courts. Does he accept that it is also happening in the courts of Scotland?
§ Mr. EwingI do not accept that it has happened in the courts of Scotland. I respect the hon. Gentleman's knowledge of the English legal system, but, with great respect, the knowledge that he has of the Scottish legal system is fairly limited. Provision for five peremptory challenges has stood the test of over a century of Scots law. In our view, there is no reason why it should be changed. The choice for the House is between five and three challenges and not between four and three. That is because the Government have already decided to reduce the number of peremptory challenges, which are an important facet of Scots law.
For the reasons that I have stated we want to retain peremptory challenges and to retain them at the highest possible level—in this instance, four, if the Minister agrees to accept the amendment.
§ Mr. RifkindThe hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing) has asked the Government to have a rethink. The Government have done so. The Government's original proposal was that there should be only one peremptory challenge. An amendment was tabled by two of my hon. Friends, as well as by the hon. Gentleman, which 629 proposed three challenges as an alternative. I accept that the hon. Gentleman's preference was that there should be no change. It seemed that the figure that was reached was acceptable to the Committee, which did not divide when the Question was put that there should be three peremptory challenges. The arguments that were advanced then are relevant now. The feeling has been expressed in a number of quarters that five challenges was excessive. Three challenges is a balanced compromise between those who hold different points of view. It would be unwise to disturb that compromise now.
§ Amendment negatived.