Originally published 18 February 2013. This article is retained from the tCI archive. Law, policy or practice may have changed since publication.
Happy New Year!
Those who woke up on Christmas Day expecting our Churches to be promoting peace and harmony might have been surprised to hear Archbishop Vincent Nichols make a very outspoken attack on the Government - fiercely critical of its consultation on Equal Marriage.
Now clearly this is a controversial subject, and he and his organisation have every right to express their views. Neither is it proper for the Consultation Institute to take sides on any matter of substance. What is legitimately of interest, however, is the row that has erupted over the interpretation of the consultation output.
In a nutshell, the Archbishop said that during what he called the ‘period of listening’, ”those who responded ... were seven to one against [our emphasis] same-sex marriage. Yet we were told that there was a small majority in favour. Now frankly, when Governments do that, they begin to lose their credit ratings ... George Orwell would be proud of that manoeuvre.... So the process is shambolic.”
Now read what the Consultation Report actually says:- Of the 228,000 responses to the consultation, 53% agreed that same-sex couples should be able to have a civil marriage ceremony and 46% disagreed (1% said don’t know or not sure). This includes all responses that indicated their view on the principle of allowing same-sex couples to get married, rather than just those who responded specifically to question 1. However, these figures do not take account of those petitions we received, which were universally opposed.
The key point is that there were about 513,000 signatures on 19 different petitions – all hostile to equal marriage and including one massive petition of 509,800 organised by the Coalition for Marriage. Even including these as ‘respondents’ it is difficult to arrive at the seven-to-one arithmetic1. But of course, all they did was sign a petition, so it begs the question of whether they should be counted alongside those who answered the consultation questions – and whether their views should be given a similar ‘weight’.
In fact, it is even more complicated, for the Government’s figure of 228,00 itself was made up of 137,000 who have answered two or more of the questions, and a further 97,000 letters and emails, which, whilst not responding to the consultation questions, expressed a view on the proposals. 75,000 of these were identical emails forming part of a campaign opposing gay marriage.
It may be the largest response the Government has received from a consultation, but this kind of complex and confusing data is nothing new for those who organise public engagement on a regular basis.
Petitions are a particular problem. Obviously those who have gone to the trouble of adding their signature to a proposition with which they agree should be counted. But is that action equivalent to ploughing through a set of typical consultation questions? That might mean reading through an explanation of the issues, and if well designed, oblige respondents to think through their position – in other words move towards a more deliberative process. In contrast, we can all add our email address to online petitions with little or no understanding of the subject; many of us are constantly approached by campaigning platforms such as 38 Degrees and Avaaz seeking signatures on all manner of issues, regardless of their relevance to us or our status as stakeholders!
The answer is to publish the data in full and without bias. That is partly the case for consultations to be independently verified and to meet the Institute’s Fair Interpretation principle. What the Archbishop has done is used the data in a misleading way, by equating petition signatures with questionnaire responses. For him then to criticise the Government for an “Orwellian manoeuvre” may seem to many people to be unworthy.
In any case, we always argue against an over-emphasis on the numbers. Consultation is not a vote. Indeed if it was, the Church would probably be on the losing side. For contentious policy decisions, it is the quality of the arguments that should influence decision-makers more than the weight of numbers. This was by no means a perfect consultation – but it was not ‘shambolic’ and its output should be considered with respect, even from those who oppose the Government’s policy
1 To arrive at seven-to-one one has either to include petition responses received after the end of the consultation or maybe assume that only 53% of the 137,000 are in favour....
Trigger Points
The Home Office consultation on Equal Marriage closed in June 2012, with the Government response published in December. Click here. For those who want to see the detailed data – check out Annex B of the Report
For details of Archbishop Nichols’ Christmas Day interview, click here
Fair Interpretation is one of the seven Principles provided for in the Institute's Consultation Charter.
The Consultation Institute assists organisations observe best practice through its Compliance Assessment process. For further information, call Martin Roach on 01767 318350
This is the 227th Tuesday Topic; a full list of subjects covered is available for Institute members and is a valuable resource covering so many aspects of consultation and engagement