Legal aid reform: consultation analysis

2. Methodology

2.1. The respondents

43 responses to the consultation were received. A further 18 emails were received from individuals from the legal profession simply endorsing either the response of the Edinburgh Bar Association (EBA) or Glasgow Bar Association (GBA), or on occasion both despite those responses taking differing views in some areas. All key stakeholders from the legal profession and third sector responded, however only one local authority submitted a response. The respondents can be categorised based on organisation type, with the numbers of respondents in each category detailed below.

2.2. Responses

All questions were answered by at least one respondent. Responses were read and logged into a database, and all were screened to ensure that they were appropriate/valid. None were removed for analysis purposes. Although some responses to individual questions did not directly address what was being asked, all feedback was analysed and is presented under the appropriate sections below.

Closed question responses were quantified and the number of respondents who agreed/disagreed with each proposal is reported below. To provide an element of weighting to this exercise, where appropriate, responses are reported with reference to numbers that include and do not include those respondents who were simply endorsing the response of a representative body.

For most of the questions, respondents were also asked to state the reasons for their views, or to explain their answers. The main reasons presented by respondents both for and against the proposals set out across the consultation were reviewed, alongside specific examples or explanations, alternative suggestions, caveats to support, and other related comments

Respondents to consultation document completed a Respondent Information Form (RIF) which allowed them to specify their publishing preferences. Respondents who choose to email their views and did not complete the RIF were contacted to ascertain their publishing preferences. Only extracts where the respondent indicated that they were content for their response to be published were referenced.