Electoral Administration Bill

I can help my noble friend: there is a clear distinction to be drawn between the qualification age for election and the voting age. They should not go in tandem. If one age is to be lower than the other, it should be the qualification age for election, not the voting age, for the reason that I gave. If you lower the qualifying age to 18, you empower the electors. If you lower the voting age to 16, you empower 16 year-olds. There is a very clear difference. Furthermore, I would have no worry if we elected anyone at the age of 18. In the context of the history of this country, it would not be exceptional. Some MPs were elected underage prior to the passage of the Parliamentary Elections Act 1695. It is only since 1832 that the provision was enforced. Some MPs, such as Charles James Fox, were noted debaters at the age of 19. I meant to mention that earlier, but I missed it out. I hear what the Minister says. I appreciate her point about making a choice between one or the other. For the reasons that I gave, on principle I would lower it. But, as she said, there is only 11 days difference. I stick by the argument. I favour mine, but I understand what she said. We do not need to pursue this today. I just want to put it on record on principle. I also want to take the opportunity to welcome very much indeed the lowering of the qualification age for election. I am all for pushing it further. The electors should be able to choose whomever they wish. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 21 agreed to. Clause 22 agreed to.