« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
The consultation on Civil Partnership Registration: analysis of the responses
CHAPTER 2: THE CONSULTATION
2.1 The consultation in England and Wales focused on the mechanics of registration, rights and responsibilities, based on nine questions about principles and practice. 1 The consultation in Scotland, by contrast, has focused on three main areas: the area of family law, the relationship of Scottish law to UK law, and the maintenance of balance between devolved and reserved powers. The consultation paper on Civil Partnership Registration asks questions about each of these areas, with particular emphasis on the resolution of cross-border issues. 2
2.2 A total of 323 responses were received. The bulk of responses (222) came from individuals. Of the other 101:
- 18 came from LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) organisations
- 20 came from religious organisations
- 15 came from local authorities
- 7 came from registrars (including one from the Association of Registrars)
- 9 came from the legal sector
- 7 came from health service organisations (including one from the Royal College of Nursing)
- The remaining 25 came from other organisations, including political parties, trades unions, advice bodies, charities and public sector agencies.
2.3 There is some indeterminacy in this classification: for example, some individual responses clearly came from people working in the legal sector or in religious bodies. Two local authority responses were composed of eight statements from councillors, rather than a corporate response : they have been classified as eight submissions. Four responses, from two individuals at the same address, an LGBT organization and another organisation, were identical. Twenty four individual responses included a standard submission made by those sympathising with Stonewall, an LGBT organization:
I support the principles in the Scottish Executive's consultation paper on Civil partnership registration and wish to see a timely and effective implementation of the proposals outlined. I support Stonewall Scotland's campaign for same-sex partnership rights.
2.4 In addition, a submission was received from the Equal Opportunities Committee of the Scottish Parliament. This submission is not equivalent to other responses to the consultation, and cannot be treated as a single consultation response. The EOC took evidence from 12 witnesses and written submissions from 37 others. 22 of those giving evidence to the EOC in writing also made submissions to the consultation. Responses in the EOC's report, and the recommendations of the EOC, have been collated with the thematic issues identified in this report.
THE ANALYSIS OF THE CONSULTATION
2.5 It has been possible largely to classify responses in terms of the thirteen questions asked in the consultation. Respondents were offered a pro-forma which invited them to say whether they agreed, disagreed or agreed in part. Many respondents did not answer in terms of the specific questions, but about two-thirds of responses (the numbers responding to individual questions vary between 182 and 205) are still identifiable in these terms. The numbers and percentages are given in response to particular questions. The main exception to this method is for the first question, which can be taken as a general query as to whether or not respondents agreed with the reforms in principle. 315 respondents gave clear indications of their position, and 279 of those (89% of identifiable responses) approved of the proposals.
2.6 The consultation was not in any sense numerically representative, and caution should be exercised in interpreting the pattern of responses on the basis of majorities or minorities. The validity of a consultation depends, not on numerical representation, but on the extent to which it succeeds in representing and giving voice to diverse groups and shades of opinion. Despite the preponderance of favourable comments, the consultation seems to have been effective in reflecting such a range.
2.7 A quantitative analysis does not really do justice to the range and diversity of responses. Many responses did not follow the pro-forma. Some responses respond to one question with the answer to another; others try to shoehorn issues under ill-fitting headings. The standard form of qualitative analysis is the use of "grounded theory", where categorisations are drawn from the data. 3 Where issues are raised by several respondents, this has the effect of cross-validation and reinforcement.
2.8 This is the primary basis of analysis. However, it is also true that isolated responses may raise issues of importance: in those circumstances, the weight that is given to them depends on an appraisal of their significance in context, with the possibility of cross-validation through other means. In this consultation, where there are complex legal issues to unravel, particular responses also pose specific problems, cite examples and identify conflicts. In these circumstances we have recorded these concerns and sought to report on issues which require resolution.
Ethical issues
2.9 In the analysis and presentation of both qualitative and quantitative data, certain ethical issues arise. As a general proposition, consultation is an exercise in voice, and there is a strong argument for relaying views in the exact terms in which they are conveyed. Our duty is to relay comments coherently and appropriately, and the selection of material has to reflect the character of the original. This may include statements which go beyond the immediate scope of the consultation, where respondents have been concerned to extend the agenda or place issues in a broader context. The main exception to this principle is where statements act to disempower people. Although we received some intemperate comments on both sides of the argument, we have not relayed material which is insulting or degrading.
2.10 In its nature, a consultation is a public exercise, and most respondents have given permission for their identity to be made public. At the same time, several people in the course of the consultation expressed concern about exposure to prejudice and vilification. Consequently, although it may be possible to trace those responsible for responses within the electronic material made public by the Scottish Executive, we have opted not to do so in this report. The exception relates to organizations with a public function, such as the Law Society of Scotland or the Scottish Trades Union Council.
« Previous | Contents | Next »