The consultation on Civil Partnership Registration: analysis of the responses
CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF RESPONSES TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED IN THE CONSULTATION
1.1 The consultation on Civil Partnership Registration put thirteen questions to the public. A total of 323 responses were received. Answers to the specific questions are outlined in this chapter.
1.2 The quantitative data are based only on those who responded to the specific questions. Responses were not numerically representative, and some biasing factors are evident; about a third of respondents did not address the specific questions; and, because the questions are multi-faceted, the responses are sometimes ambiguous. They need in consequence to be treated with caution.
Question 1. We propose that Scottish same-sex couples should be able to register their partnership in order to trigger access to a comprehensive package of rights and responsibilities in both reserved and devolved areas.
86% of all respondents received agreed with the fundamental principle that same-sex couples should be able to register their partnership in order to trigger access to a comprehensive package of rights and responsibilities. Support for same-sex registration was mainly justified in terms of equality.
Question 2. If we are to introduce civil partnership registration for same-sex couples, we propose asking the Scottish Parliament to agree to a Sewel motion so that Scottish provisions can be included in any Westminster Bill.
74% of those who indicated a response agreed that the proposed mechanism for legislative reform, asking the Scottish Parliament to agree to a Sewel motion, provided a pragmatic solution to progress legislative reform in this area.
Question 3. We believe that Scottish same-sex couples should be able to register their partnership in Scotland rather than having to travel to England or Wales.
89% of identifiable responses agreed.
Question 4. We believe that the UK Government should recognise partnerships registered by same-sex couples in Scotland for reserved purposes.
88% supported the proposal for the recognition by the UK Government of civil partnerships registered in Scotland. The private international law impact of civil registration was also commented upon.
Question 5. We believe that partnerships registered by same-sex couples in Scotland should trigger access to a comprehensive package of rights and responsibilities in devolved areas that largely mirrors those available to civil registered partners in England and Wales.
82% of responses agreed. However, many were concerned to ensure that the proposed reforms were firmly based on Scots law, with the rights and responsibilities of civil partnerships being compared or equated with those of married couples in Scotland.
Question 6. We believe that devolved aspects of civil partnership registration should be based on Scots law.
87% agreed. Some comment was made regarding inappropriate imports from English law.
Question 7. We believe that in order to achieve a comprehensive package of rights and responsibilities in reserved and devolved areas, and to avoid difficult cross border issues, that Westminster is best placed to legislate for civil partnership registration in Scotland through a UK Civil Partnership Registration Bill.
64% agreed, a lower proportion than question 2, which it overlaps. Several respondents expressed concern that if Westminster failed to enact civil partnership legislation, Scotland should proceed regardless.
Question 8. We recognise the role that marriage has in Scottish society and do not seek to undermine marriage by extending civil partnership registration to cohabiting couples.
40% of responses agreed, 40% disagreed, and 16% agreed only in part. There was a mixed response as to whether the registration of civil partnerships would undermine marriage. A number of responses supported the widening of civil registration to other couples.
Question 9. We do not seek to open up marriage to same-sex couples. Instead we are creating a new legal status of civil registered partner for same-sex couples.
As with question 8, only a minority clearly agreed, with 45% agreeing, 36% disagreeing, and 17% accepting the question in part. There was some concern that the proposals did not go far enough. Others challenged the rationale for separating the concepts of marriage and of civil registration.
Question 10. We propose that there are set formal requirements to be met by those wishing to register a partnership.
78% of those that indicated a response supported the proposed formal requirements that would need to be met by those wishing to register a partnership.
Question 11. We propose that there be a set process for the registration of a civil partnership, the dissolution of a civil partnership and that a civil registered partner be able to inform the registrar of the death of a partner.
Many respondents considered that civil registration and marriage should be very similar and therefore the comments received focused on difference between the process of registration and the related rights and duties, to that of marriage. Similarly the proposals for dissolution were also compared with those on divorce in Scotland.
Whether registrars would be required to perform a ceremony as part of the formal process generated an amount of comment. Opinion was divided on the desirability of requiring any form of ceremony.
Question 12. We propose that civil registered partners are recognised in Scots family law. This covers, parental responsibility, children (residence and contact on dissolution), aliment, property division of dissolution, intestacy, inheritance and damages.
82% of those that indicated a response supported the recognition of civil partnerships in Scots family law. Comments received highlighted the lack of detail provided in the consultation on exactly how family law would treat registered civil partners. The area that generated most comment was the issue of parental rights and responsibilities.
Question 13. We propose that civil registered partners are recognised consequentially in other aspects of Scots Law. This includes council tax, local government elections, making financial decisions on behalf of adults with incapacity, hospital visiting and medical treatment, prison visiting, survivor pensions and injury benefits from public service pension schemes, fatal accident inquiry, burial, post mortems and organ retention.
87% of those that indicated a response supported the need to recognise registered partnerships in other aspects of Scots law. A number of respondents commented on issues covered in the consultation proposals such as medical treatment and the practical importance of the position of next of kin.