Electoral Reform Consultation Analysis

2. Candidates

This chapter presents the analysis of responses to the first 11 consultation questions, which focus on issues directly affecting candidates. These include the expansion of candidacy rights to 16- and 17-year-olds and foreign nationals with a limited right to remain, disqualification, candidate communication and candidate addresses.

Expansion of candidacy rights

Following previous reforms, there are two main groups of people who can vote but who are not able to stand as candidates in devolved Scottish elections. These are people aged 16 or 17 and foreign nationals with limited leave to remain. The consultation paper explored whether candidacy rights should be expanded to these two groups and outlined potential issues which would need to be considered.

Q1: Do you think that 16- and 17-year-olds should be able to stand for election in:

	n=	% Both Scottish Parliament and Local Government elections	% Scottish Parliament elections only	% Local Government elections only	Neither
All answering	491	18	0	5	77
- Individuals	485	18	0	5	77
- Organisations	6	67	0	0	33

Q2: Do you think that foreign nationals resident in Scotland with limited rights to remain in the UK should be able to stand for election in:

	n=	% Both Scottish Parliament and Local Government elections	% Scottish Parliament elections only	% Local Government elections only	Neither
All answering	491	18	0	5	77
- Individuals	483	16	0	5	78
- Organisations	8	88	0	0	13

While over three quarters (77%) of all respondents disagreed with each of the proposals to extend candidacy rights, this percentage was driven by the higher levels of disagreement among individuals who make up the majority of respondents. Organisations were more supportive, with two thirds (67%) of those answering in favour of permitting 16- and 17-year-olds to stand in both Scottish Parliament and local government elections, and 88% in favour of candidacy rights for foreign nationals with limited rights to remain.

Two anonymous organisations did not support extending candidacy rights to 16- and 17-year olds. Organisations which did however endorse this idea were the Association of Electoral Administrators (AEA), Engender, Settled and West Dunbartonshire Community Party. In addition, these organisations all supported extending rights to foreign nationals, as did the Maryhill Integration Network, JustRight Scotland and a joint response of five agencies working to support refugees and asylum seekers.

Q3: Do you have any additional comments on candidacy rights for 16- and 17-year-olds, or foreign nationals with limited rights to remain in the UK?

Half of the consultation respondents gave a further open comment in response to Q3. While many respondents commented on both groups, there were around twice as many comments about 16- and 17-year-olds compared to foreign nationals with limited rights to remain. Given the overall negative views expressed in Q1 and Q2, most comments focused on reasons why these groups should not have candidacy rights.

16- and 17-year-olds

Reasons for not extending candidacy rights

Most prevalent in comments about 16- and 17-year-olds were reasons why this group should not be allowed to stand. By far the most common theme, mostly raised by individuals, was that 16- and 17-year-olds are too young to stand because they do not have sufficient life experience or maturity to take on the role and would be ill-prepared for some of the issues they would have to consider. A few specifically said this age group should be focussed on their education.

"I do not believe that 16 and 17 years old would have the competency, skills, knowledge or experience to take on the demands of a full time political role. It would place too heavy a burden on them at an age that they are still developing." – Individual

"16 and 17 seems too low. Whilst a very select few may have studied what it means to be a candidate, almost every 16/17 year old will have had no exposure to life outside of very controlled environments, i.e. school. I feel that a candidate should have spent some time with the 'shackles off' where they begin to make their own life choices." - Individual

Many considered the welfare of 16- and 17-year-olds, arguing that it would be too much pressure and that young people should be protected from abuse, manipulation or exploitation from their constituents or political parties.

Some respondents stated that 16- and 17-year-olds should not be allowed to stand but did not explain why. Small numbers each suggested that young people should not be politicised or highlighted that having 16- and 17-year-old representatives would mean they were not taken seriously and could make a mockery of Scottish politics.

Some suggested another age at which people should be allowed to stand, with 18 and 21 being the most common suggestions.

Contradicts other policy definitions

The second most prevalent theme in responses to Q3 was that allowing 16- and 17-year-olds to stand would be contrary to other age-related policies. Most commonly, many respondents suggested that the Scottish Government position was, in relation to justice matters, that a person's brain does not reach maturity until aged 25. Those comments related to the Scottish Sentencing Council guidelines for judges in sentencing young people in criminal cases. They questioned how, if this is the case, young people were mature enough to stand for election. A smaller number highlighted other apparent inconsistencies e.g. a young representative making decisions on things they still could not do themselves, such as smoking and alcohol related legislation.

"This is madness, on one hand they are not fully responsible for their actions; however, you want to make them responsible for our society?" – Individual

"If a 16 or 17 year old is not considered mature enough to be incarcerated, how can they be deemed capable of making the rational decisions required to run a country." - Individual

Working practices

Some respondents, including the EMB, the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body and attendees at the young person's event, reflected on the practical challenges outlined in the consultation paper. These included considering: managing responsibilities alongside education; existing working hours protections for young workers and how this might impact meeting attendance; getting support with performing their duties and employing staff, which could be addressed by mentorship schemes; conflicts of interest between being a representative with responsibilities for education while still being at school; and safeguarding issues. Conversely, Engender noted that United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) Article 12 protects the right of all children to be heard and taken seriously, and argue that "a key part of realising Article 12 is to ensure that environments and working methods are adapted to children's capacities".

Positive comments

The most common theme among those who felt 16- and 17-year-olds should have candidacy rights was that if they were able to vote, then they should be able to stand for election. All raising this were individual respondents with the exception of the Association of Electoral Administrators (AEA). A few stated that if 16- and 17-year-olds are considered mature enough to get married or serve in the armed forces, then they should have the right to make decisions about any laws that would apply to them. A small number reflected that young people could find serving a positive experience. Attendees at the young person's event noted that young people could have different life experiences and bring those and an open mind to some of the complex issues debated by politicians.

"The rights of 16-17 years, and younger have been routinely trampled, with little to no input from their views, and absolutely detachment from the reality from which they live, and I urge both this extension, and every conceivable extension should be extended to teenagers." - Individual

Foreign nationals with limited rights to remain in the UK

Reasons for not expanding candidacy rights

Two main reasons were given for why those with limited rights to remain should not have candidacy rights. The most common, raised by many, was that only full citizens should have a say in Scotland's laws, and that this right does not apply to 'temporary' citizens. Several considered this group to be foreigners with no right to determine Scotland's future.

"Foreign nationals who only have limited rights should not be allowed to stand. Only those who have completed the citizenship exams, have indefinite leave to remain should be allowed to stand as these individuals have gone to the trouble to contribute to society and the country as a whole." - Individual

While not always disagreeing with the proposal, several reiterated the issue outlined in the consultation paper that foreign nationals with limited rights to remain in the UK might need to leave Scotland during their term. They argued the implications of this should be noted.

"The most-common duration of limited leave to remain granted in the UK is 2.5 years, whereas Scottish Parliament and Local Government elections tend to be every 4/5 years. Accordingly, if an elected official was refused further leave to remain whilst holding office, could this lead to an increase in by-elections etc. We are concerned that the expense, administration requirements and uncertainty created for constituents could be overwhelming." – The Law Society of Scotland

Some argued that foreign nationals with limited rights to remain would lack a sufficient connection to or knowledge of Scotland to be able to contribute, while others stated that this group should not be able to stand but did not elaborate why. A few noted a concern that their status could leave these candidates open to undue influence or manipulation.

Other themes

A recurring theme raised by several respondents, including a joint response from JustRight Scotland, Scottish Refugee Council, Maryhill Integration Network, The VOICES Network, and Refugees for Justice, was that foreign nationals with limited right to remain should be able to stand. These responses argued that this group live and work in Scotland, and are affected by political decisions in Scotland, so should have a right to stand in devolved elections. A few individuals suggested specific circumstances which should apply, such as living in the UK for at least five or ten years.

JustRight Scotland argued that using the indefinite leave to remain status as the criteria for eligibility for foreign nationals to stand as a candidate was too high, given that many individuals will have to renew their limited leave to remain for up to ten yearshe new proposed legislation is an opportunity to redress this by creating an approach to candidacy rights that is consistent with the eligibility to vote. We reaffirm the principle that both candidacy and franchise rights should be based on an individual's relationship to a community and not dependent on the arbitrary and ever-changing requirements imposed by an increasingly hostile immigration system." (JustRight Scotland)

"Fundamentally there should not be a situation where someone is eligible to vote but not to stand solely based on citizenship or age; people are either able to participate in democracy or not." – Individual

Several misunderstood the question and stated these two audiences should not be allowed to vote. Some commented that candidacy rights should not be extended but did not specify which of the two groups their comment applied to. The Electoral Management Board for Scotland, The Electoral Commission and Dumfries and Galloway Council noted extending candidacy rights was a policy decision for the government.

Disqualification for intimidatory or abusive behaviour

The UK Elections Act 2022 introduced an additional new penalty for anyone found guilty of intimidating candidates, campaigners or elected representatives. A court will be able to disqualify persons convicted of intimidatory or abusive behaviour towards an elected representative or candidate from seeking elected office in reserved elections. The consultation proposes to introduce a similar order to prevent such individuals standing in Scottish Parliament and Local Government elections for a period of 5 years.

Q4: Do you think that anyone found guilty of an offence involving the harassment or intimidation of politicians, candidates or campaigners should be subject to an additional sanction of losing the right to stand for election for 5 years?

	n=	% Yes	% No
All answering	488	77	23
- Individuals	479	77	23
- Organisations	9	89	11

There was widespread support for the proposal among both individuals and organisations who answered the questions, with 77% and 89% respectively in favour.

Q5: If not, would you suggest another electoral sanction or approach?

A few of the 128 respondents who answered Q5 expressed their support for the proposal. However most of the responses to Q5 focused on reasons for disagreement or alternative approaches.

Potential for abuse

The most common theme was concern that this power could be abused to either prevent freedom of speech or suppress opposition. Respondents questioned how intimidation and harassment can be defined, and expressed a concern that legitimate questioning of candidates could be labelled as harassment to silence criticism. Some explicitly called for a very clear definition to be in place before any additional sanction is implemented.

"To minimise the likelihood of this from the outset, robust definitions of "harassment and intimidation" and "politicians, candidates and campaigners" would need to be developed which are sensitive to the experiences of politically marginalised groups, including women, Black and minoritised people, disabled people and LGBTI people. These definitions should be developed through engagement with individuals with lived experience of these issues as well as with organisations with relevant expertise. This is crucial in ensuring the legislative change works as it is intended to – enabling rather than impeding high-quality democratic processes and diverse representation." – Engender

Should not be subject to additional sanction

The second most common theme, mentioned by several, was comments reiterating that those found guilty should not be subject to an additional sanction and that existing criminal sanctions should apply and be sufficient. Several others felt that courts, judges or juries should be responsible for determining what constitutes harassment and for deciding which sanctions should apply, rather than these being prescribed by politicians.

Other electoral sanctions or approaches

A range of other sanctions were suggested. Several called for those found guilty to be sanctioned for longer than five years or to permanently lose the right to stand. Conversely, a few felt five years was too long or harsh; two suggested one year would be sufficient.

A few respondents each suggested those found guilty should be sanctioned by: a fine; serving a prison sentence or community service; that they should have any offences listed on their election material; and one suggested they should lose the right to vote. A small number suggested that the sanction applied should depend on the circumstances or severity of an individual case.

Less commonly mentioned themes

Other points each raised by a very small number of respondents included that the sanction should apply more widely to those found guilty of harassment and intimidation of election officials or of people with a protected characteristic, and that the proposal is undemocratic.

"We firmly believe this proposal should be extended to include Returning Officers, Electoral Registration Officers and their staff." - Association of Electoral Administrators

"If such a measure were to be introduced in Scotland, it should also include protection for those involved in the administration and delivery of elections: Returning Officers, Electoral Registration Officers and their staff. They are also at risk of intimidation and threat and engage closely with candidates at various stages of the electoral process." - EMB

Freepost communications

The consultation discusses the right of candidates in Scottish Parliament elections to send every voter an electoral communication by freepost, and whether a similar provision should be established for candidates in Local Government elections, funded by councils. One possible option to reduce costs is posed in the consultation paper - restricting the provision to one free mailing to each household rather than to every individual voter.

Q6: Do you think that the option of sending a freepost letter or leaflet should be extended to candidates at Scottish Local Government elections?

	n=	% Yes	% No
All answering	485	38	62
- Individuals	475	37	63
- Organisations	10	100	0

Q7: Do you think that the right for candidates to send a free mailing should be limited to one free mailing to each household, rather than to each voter?

	n=	% Yes	% No
All answering	482	78	22
- Individuals	472	78	22
- Organisations	10	70	30

All organisations who answered Q6 supported the option of extending freepost communications to local election candidates. However, only one third (37%) of individuals were in favour. There was more consensus on the proposal to limit mailings to one per household, with 78% of individuals and 70% of organisations in favour.

Q8: Do you have any other comments on the issue of candidate mailings to voters?

Q8 was answered by 176 respondents. Two broad themes were the focus of most comments; opposition to freepost mailings as a waste of time and money, and debate around who should bear the cost of freepost mailings.

Opposition to mailings

By far the most prevalent theme in response to Q8 was opposition to freepost mailings. Within this, three strands of comments were evident. Many respondents argued that: there should be no mailings at all; that mailings are a waste of money; and that mailings are a waste of time and paper as nobody reads them and they all go in the waste or recycling bin. Some also suggested that the information in them is false or misleading.

"I don't think postal mailing should be available at all. It's a waste of paper and junk mail nobody wants." – Individual

"Why are the hard-pressed taxpayers footing the bill for this rubbish anyway. 95% or more of it goes straight in the bin. Just stop it completely." – Individual

A related theme, mentioned by several, was opposition due to environmental reasons. Respondents highlighted the amount of paper being used, or wasted, and stressed the sustainability and the environment should be prioritised.

"Stop mailings. They're totally needless and not environmentally friendly." - Individual

Covering the cost

Mixed views were expressed on who should pay for candidate mailings. Most commonly, several argued that councils should not have to pay. Respondents noted councils already face significant financial pressure and should not be liable for this additional cost. A similar proportion argued that the taxpayer should not have to pay, and several argued that parties and candidates should pay. Some, including the Scottish Assessors Association and EMB, argued that the cost should be met by the Scottish Government.

"If the Scottish Parliament recognises the value of this proposal to the democratic process then the cost should be borne by central government, not by local authorities as part of their already onerous funding of local government elections." – West Lothian Council

Other themes

Several respondents each raised the following themes:

• Paper mailings are an outdated form of communication and alternative methods should be used, primarily online.
• Suggestions for alternative approaches, such as one mailing covering all candidates, restricting mailings to independent candidates, mailings for constituency candidates only and not those on regional lists, or that there should only be face-to-face canvassing.
• Support for the proposal to limit mailings to one per household.
• Implied support for continued mailing as it is important to reach and engage as many voters as possible in a democracy.

Less commonly mentioned themes included:

• Calls to be able to opt in or out of candidate mailings e.g. via the electoral register.
• Support for continuing to mail individual voters, as a household mailing may be problematic in houses with multiple occupancy or in homes where one person has strong political views and may screen mailing to others in the household.
• Calls for parity between Scottish Parliament and local council elections.

Administrative considerations

A few, including the Association of Electoral Administrators, EMB, and the Electoral Commission raised specific issues such as:

• Because a deposit is not required for local government elections, care is needed to ensure a person does not stand just to get commercial gain from a free mailing.
• Increased workload for Returning Officers (ROs) and their staff to administer a complex mailing process and potential increased demand for copies of the electoral register.
• If councils opt-in to providing a free mailing, it could lead to inconsistent experiences for voters and candidates across Scotland.
• Dumfries and Galloway Council highlighted a potential conflict of interest if a council pays for the free mailing for candidates for that council.

"Extreme care would be needed to ensure that the correct mailing was sent to the appropriate address in each of the 355 electoral wards across Scotland. In May 2022 there were 1,226 seats for election with 2,548 candidates standing. The administration involved in organising the mailing of material to each of the 355 wards would be a significant exercise in each authority adding to the work programme of each Returning Officer and to the staff resources required." - EMB

Publication of home addresses

In 2020, due to security concerns around candidates and their families, the requirement for candidates in Local Government elections to have their home address on the ballot paper was removed. However, candidates' agents are still required to provide a contact address. The Scottish Government is proposing that candidates who act as their own agent and would therefore have to provide their home address, will be given the option to provide the Returning Officer with another address for correspondence. This correspondence address will then be made public in the published notice of election agents' names and addresses.

Q9: Should candidates who are acting as their own agents be able to use a correspondence address for communications?

	n=	% Yes	% No
All answering	480	75	25
- Individuals	470	75	25
- Organisations	10	90	10

Respondents expressed broad support for candidates who are acting as their own agents to be able to use a correspondence address. Three quarters (75%) of respondents agreed this should be an option, including 90% of the organisations who answered Q9.

How a candidate's location is shown on the ballot paper

Currently, if a candidate does not want their home address to be printed on the ballot paper, they have the option of replacing it with the name of the council area in which they live. It has been suggested that there should be a third option: that a candidate should be allowed to ask for both the name of the ward and the council area in which they live to appear on the ballot paper. Candidates will continue to have the option of either their home address or only the council area being printed on the ballot paper.

Q10: Currently ballot papers show either the candidate's home address or council area. Do you think that the ballot paper should also show the ward in which the candidate lives, if they request it?

	n=	% Yes	% No
All answering (%)	487	90	10
- Individuals	475	90	10
- Organisations	12	100	0

There was widespread support for this proposal, with 90% of individuals and all organisations who answered the question in favour.

Q11: Do you have any further comments on the topic of candidate addresses?

Candidates should live in the area they represent

By far the most prevalent theme in the 108 responses to Q11 was that candidates should live in the area they represent, with the implication that the electorate has the right to know which council area or ward the candidate lives in. Where respondents gave more detail, they felt candidates should know the area that they wish to represent and the issues affecting it, and that political parties should not be allowed to 'parachute' in candidates.

Option of showing ward improves security

The next two most common themes were interrelated. Many argued that having the option to show ward and not home address helps reduce any security risk to candidates. Several went further, stating that a candidate's home address should never be shown in the ballot paper and that noting the ward they live in should be sufficient.

"If the candidate requests it then the personal information of the candidate should be available. But it should always be balanced with the need to protect candidates from unacceptable behaviour by the electorate." – Individual

"We agree to the additional option supplying 'the ward and council area in which they live' – this will provide the candidate choice. We can see the benefits to the electorate but also wish to provide protection to the candidate. Having the three options as outlined provides for both." - Association of Electoral Administrators

Other views on providing address information

A range of other views were expressed. Some respondents reiterated their agreement with the proposal that it is for the candidate to choose which information is shown on the ballot paper. Some others felt ward should always be shown on the ballot paper i.e. this should be a mandatory requirement rather than the candidate's choice.

A few argued that a full address must always be available, primarily to ensure full transparency. However, a small number felt that showing an office or correspondence address should be sufficient. The EMB and a few individuals noted that election agents must have a publicly available address where they can be contacted for legal purposes.

"I would remove the address from ballot papers and list only the ward in which they live. I would also list this in all instances, not just if requested by the candidate." – Individual

"Candidates should NOT be allowed to 'hide' behind a party address. If they truly want to represent voters then their full address should be used. There are safeguards against harassment!" - Individual

Administrative considerations

Specific points were raised by a small number of respondents. These included the need for strict verification of addresses where these are shown, and that the changes would need to consider that election agent addresses are also featured on imprints.

Other points

While not directly answering the questions above, two non-standard responses requested the Scottish Government consider two further points related to candidates.

• A political party requested a review of the use of joint descriptions on ballot papers for local government candidates to better reflect their political position.
• An individual called for reforms to include changes to prevent Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs) having second jobs.