« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
The consultation on Civil Partnership Registration: analysis of the responses
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. The consultation. The consultation on civil partnerships put thirteen questions to the public. The responses are presented in this report. 323 responses were received, including 222 from individuals and 101 from organizations, including LGBT organisations, religious organisations, local authorities, registrars, legal sector, NHS bodies and others.
2. Agreement in principle. 279 respondents (86% of all responses) agreed in principle with the proposed reform. Several felt it did not go far enough. It was seen as promoting equality through parity of esteem for same-sex couples and the reduction of disadvantage. It was also thought to promote long-term, stable relationships. Opponents, beyond the scope of civil partnership registration, expressed general concern about the expression of gay and lesbian sexuality.
3. The proposed legislative mechanism. 74% of identifiable responses agreed to the proposal to introduce a Sewel motion. Respondents' support for this approach is based on pragmatism and speed of legislation, while those opposing it emphasise the need for detailed scrutiny and debate of the proposed legislation in the Scottish Parliament. Some disappointment at the shifting of responsibility to Westminster was expressed by supporters and opponents of the proposals.
4. Devolved and reserved issues. Over 80% agreed that couples should be able to register their partnership in Scotland, and that there should be mutual recognition of partnerships throughout the UK. Devolved aspects should be based on Scots law. Many felt that the appropriate comparison was with married couples in Scotland, not same-sex couples in England.
5. Marriage and partnership. Only 40% of respondents agreed that civil partnerships might undermine marriage. The exclusion of mixed sex couples was often seen as implying inequality, both for mixed sex and for opposite sex couples. It also implied future problems for trans-gender relationships. Some respondents saw the proposal as equivalent to marriage; many of those who did not felt it implied a second-class relationship. Others suggested that equivalent rights should also be available to people in other types of relationship, such as carers and other household members. Opponents of the reform indicated that a broader recognition of caring relationships would more acceptable to them than the current proposal.
6. Registering and dissolving a partnership. Though more than 75% of the respondents approved of the detailed proposals in general terms, comments on the provisions yield a range of concerns about the operation and legalities of the scheme. There was uncertainty as to whether registrars were to be asked to perform a ceremony, and if so where such ceremonies might take place. The proposed provisions for dissolution, including minimum waiting periods, judicial separation and provisional orders, were felt to include inappropriate imports from English law.
7. Legal and policy consequences. The consultation touches on complex issues of family law. Over 80% of responses approved the related questions in general terms. Responses were guided by principles of equality in such areas as child care. There was some concern that the proposals would lead to serial multiple parental rights. The lack of detail on aliment, property division and succession was noted.
8. Implications for Scots law. Recognition of the status of partners in Scots law implies changes relating to many public services. Respondents highlighted issues in medical care, employment rights and the rights of survivors. Other comments identified detailed areas of law requiring consideration for amendment, including criminal law (e.g. bigamy, incest and sexual offences), delict (damages), domestic violence, discrimination and employment law, housing, and rules of evidence. Some general residual provisions would be required.
« Previous | Contents | Next »