Electoral Administration Bill

moved Amendment No. 98:"Page 22, line 16, leave out ““he is nominated as a candidate”” and insert ““the election is held””" The noble Lord said: I shall be extremely brief and speak very quickly. I am grateful for this opportunity, because on Thursday morning I shall be speaking to a group of 16 to 18 year-olds and I cannot be sure that I shall be back on this spot in time. So it is perhaps quite appropriate to talk about 16 to 18 year-olds. I shall not ask the Minister to confirm whether the Government are considering raising the age at which one can buy cigarettes from 16 to 18. I move the amendment for two purposes. The first will, I think, commend itself to the Minister, because I want to welcome the basic provision in the clause. I have been arguing for more than 30 years that the qualifying age for election to public office should be lowered to 18 years. That is an argument that I have advanced in print, including in Public Law in 1980, so I am glad that this modest provision is being brought in. It is modest but very important. The principle, to which I referred earlier, is that of freedom of choice on the part of electors. By lowering the qualifying age, one is empowering electors through widening their freedom of choice. That leads me to the argument for the amendment. It is a narrow one which, I appreciate, was discussed in the other place, but it is one to which I want to return. As I say, in practice, the consequences are limited, but there is a principle involved. The subsection provides that the candidate must have attained the age of 18 on the day on which the candidate is nominated. My amendment provides that the candidate must have attained the age of 18 on the day on which the election is held. I appreciate that the difference is a matter of days. It is unlikely to affect many people; it may affect none. However, there is always the possibility of a party wanting to nominate someone whose 18th birthday falls between the close of nominations and polling day—most likely, in respect of local elections. I realise that the argument employed against the amendment in the other place was that it would introduce a discrepancy between the law as it applies to Westminster and the law as it applies to the Greater London Authority and local elections, where the date of nomination is employed. The Government may want some standardisation. I appreciate that, but standardisation should be in favour of the day of election. Let us take election day for parliamentary elections and change the law for other elections. The principle is that the deciding day should be the day of the election. The principle is that of the freedom of choice of the electors. I am all for widening freedom of choice. It will not have much practical effect, but there is a principled basis for the amendment. I beg to move.