MPs have rejected giving 16 and 17-year-olds a vote in the EU referendum after being warned it would lead to claims the historic poll had been rigged.

In the latest salvo of a row between the Government and opposition peers in the House of Lords, MPs rejected a Lords amendment to the European Union Referendum Bill which would have lowered the voting age to 16 by 303 to 253, majority 50.

Cabinet Office Minister John Penrose told MPs it would be wrong to change the "tried and tested" general election franchise for a single poll.

He warned: "It is something which should be considered for all elections, collectively and in the round.

"Equally, given the understandable sensitivities surrounding the EU referendum making such a fundamental change to the franchise for this vote alone but not for others would inevitably and perhaps justifiably lead to accusations of trying to fix the franchise in favour of either the remain or the leave campaign."

The minister added: "We currently have a patchwork of restrictions which apply to young people from the age of 16 all the way up to 21 - there is no clear point at which a person becomes an adult but it is 18 that society usually draws the line.

"Even at 18, there are things young people cannot do - they must wait until they are 21 to adopt a child, supervise a learner driver or to drive a bus."

Shadow Europe minister Pat McFadden said major constitutional referenda were a "once in a generation choice, perhaps a once in a lifetime choice" about the country's future direction.

He said: "Our contention is very simple, it is that the young people of this country deserve a say in the decision which will chart our country's future."

A decision by Commons clerks to deem the issue one of "financial privilege" because of the £6 million cost of implementation is likely to end the specific row over votes at 16 but amid a wider constitutional row peers could seek to offer fresh amendments to the Bill.

The row over votes at 16 follows fierce rows between the Government and the unelected House over tax credits after a defeat forced Chancellor George Osborne to abandon cuts worth more than £4 billion.

Debating other amendments, arch Eurosceptic Sir Bill Cash told the Government it must be impartial in two reports requested by peers on the outcome of the Prime Minister's renegotiation of EU membership and on the rights and obligations of it.

The Tory chair of the European Scrutiny Committee suggested that this may not be the case as the Government always insists its renegotiations would satisfy calls for EU reform.

But the Electoral Commission has said the reports must be impartial, with appropriate balance to the two potential outcomes of the referendum, he added.

Sir Bill went on: "I couldn't agree with that more, it's absolutely clear that there has to be a balance.

"The problem is that everything that emanates from Government in the nation to this issue - all the speeches, all the arguments that we hear - are all towards the notion that to reform the EU would satisfy the requirements of what has been set out.

"And the European Scrutiny Committee has been looking very carefully, with expert evidence, and we should be publishing a report very soon about the outcome of the negotiations thus far.

"I don't think that I'm giving anything away if I say there are some very big question marks about what's been achieved under these renegotiations."

SNP Peter Grant (Glenrothes) said he believes there is a crying need for reliable, well-researched information to be put into the public domain.

He said: "If the Government doesn't produce information as opposed to campaigning opinion about how the EU works now, who do we think is going to produce it?"

Tory MP Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) said: "I do not regard the proposed duty to publish information on the outcome of negotiations to be at all unreasonable."

He added he believes it is "perfectly reasonable" that the Government should express its own opinion in such a document about the outcome of its own negotiations.

He said: "I think it is reasonable for the Government to explain the outcome of the negotiations, but not reasonable for the Government then to use public money to present its whole world view about EU membership as what will be part of a campaign to remain in the EU."

Mr Jenkin asked what did publish actually mean and what did the Government intend to do in the way of publication, and how would they ensure it was done in the "highest spirit of impartiality" and was genuinely objective, "not just a means of advancing one side of the argument against the other".

Foreign Office Minister David Lidington backed the amendments on the issue of providing the public with information relating to the outcome of the renegotiation and on membership of the EU.

"The Government at the end of the negotiating process is clearly going to express its view and its recommendation to the British people for when the electorate vote at the promised referendum," he said.

"But what we now have are obligations written onto the face of statute for the Government to publish particular items of information."

Mr Lidington said that while it will be up to the respective campaign groups to "lead the debate" the Government will play a "limited role" and will publish some information.

"In our view it is for the designated lead organisations to lead the debate on the two sides of the argument," he said.

"However, the Electoral Commission in their research into the question did identify that there is an appetite among the general public for information both on what remaining in the EU would mean and on what leaving could mean.

"Given the strongly held views that were expressed in the other place we accepted the principle that the Government should be obliged to play a role, a limited role, in ensuring that the public is able to make an informed decision."