Representation of the People Act 1983 Remedial (Scotland) Order 2025: equality impact assessment

Key Findings

Age

Evidence on the impact of the changes made in this Order is limited due to the very small number of people who will be affected. The Government estimates that in total, up to 20 people will be enfranchised by this Order, and we do not currently have data on whether any of these people will be aged 16 or 17. If any children are affected by this change at this time, it is anticipated that they will be in single figures. The number of affected people changes over time, however it is expected that at any time it is unlikely to vary substantially from around 20 people in total. The number of children affected will almost certainly be less than 10 at any given time.

Specific research into the impact this policy change will have on young people has not been commissioned due to the difficulties in consulting young people subject to detention relating to their mental health, and the very small numbers of people subject to these orders at any one time. Given the positive impact of extension of rights to affected people no detrimental impact is expected. As a result, bespoke research in this area is not considered to be proportionate.

Due to the very small numbers, it is very difficult to measure the specific impact on children compared to adults (all of voting age), however enfranchisement is considered to have only positive impacts on affected people, as a right is being extended that a 16 or 17 year old can choose to exercise or not.

Evidence suggests that voting rights being available to people from a younger age has a positive impact on voter turnout. The Votes at 16 in Scotland 2014-2021 study, co-authored by Jan Eichhorn (University of Edinburgh) and Christine Hübner (University of Sheffield), finds that voter turnout is higher among those who first voter from the age of 16 or 17 compared to those voting for the first time as adults^[1]. Extending voting rights to the affected young people therefore may have a long term positive effect on their ongoing engagement with elections and help form voting habits at a younger age.

In 2020, the Scottish Elections (Franchise and Representation) Act 2020 extended voting rights to prisoners who were serving prison sentences of 12 months or less. This included people detained in a young offenders institution. Given that some comparison can be drawn between those subject to mental health orders in connection with criminal justice, and prisoners who have been sentenced, evidence from the extension of voting rights to prisoners was considered. Extending the franchise to some prisoners is considered to contribute to the wider objectives of rehabilitation and reintegration of prisoners to prevent reoffending. While the people affected by the change in the 2025 Order are subject to mental health orders and are not prisoners, they are detained while subject to an order, and the principle of rehabilitation and reintegration after their treatment is comparable. This principle is as relevant to young people subject to these orders as it is to adults.

Noting the limited evidence available relating to this change, analysis suggests that this Order will have a positive impact on the rights of 16- and 17-year old children subject to detention under the relevant mental health orders. The extension of voting rights has a particularly positive impact for young people as noted in the Votes at 16 in Scotland study. Enfranchisement can help contribute to rehabilitation for those in detention settings.

Extension of the franchise is likely to positively impact upon young people in Scotland as empowered and valued members of the community.

A Children’s Rights and Wellbeing Impact Assessment has been conducted.

Disability

No differential impact on people with disabilities is anticipated. The order is focused on persons with mental health conditions and the extension of the franchise is intended as a positive step, promoting inclusion and participation in civic society.

Other

This EQIA has not found any notable differential impacts on the protected characteristics of gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation. There was no impact, positive or negative, on the public sector equality duties relating to these characteristics.