My Lords, the Government announced on 2 October last year that they intend to reform weddings law when parliamentary time allows. Our reforms will reflect a commitment to making marriage law fairer, simpler and more modern, while protecting the solemnity and dignity of marriage. We want to create a level playing field for all groups, and this will include allowing humanist weddings to be legally recognised for the first time. We will consult on the details early this year.
I thank my noble friend for that Answer. I apologise to the House for my repeated appearances on this matter. Can my noble friend the Minister provide further clarity on the timeframe and next steps? It is already early 2026 and the consultation does not appear to be here yet. It is 13 years and counting since the Government acquired the right to legally recognise humanist marriages by order, and it is nearly six years since the High Court found the lack of legal recognition of humanist marriages to be discriminatory. Given the years of delay faced by humanist couples, can my noble friend the Minister assure the House that it will be our Labour Government who finally legally recognise humanist marriages, as has been done in Scotland and Northern Ireland in the interim while they have been looking at this matter? Perhaps she could meet with me to discuss in more detail the path to legal recognition.
My noble friend should not apologise for raising this matter again; I think the entire House will want to thank her for her continued commitment to driving this forward. I had a feeling that, if my noble friend did not ask what “early” meant, somebody else would. I thought about replying “at pace” but then thought that that would make me deeply unpopular, so I am going for “as soon as possible”.
On a more serious point, my noble friend asked a number of questions which it is possible several other noble Lords may also wish to raise. The Government are not planning on using the order-making power. We do not want to create other inequalities with other groups; we want to make sure that there is a level playing field for all groups.
My Lords, in Scotland in 2024, there were more humanist weddings than there were weddings of all religious faiths combined—evidence not only of the substantial demand for humanist marriage but of the accelerating decline of traditional religions. Nine months ago, the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, assured the House that the Government were “working at pace”; later, he said that they were “making haste” on the issue. The Minister is obviously aware of this, and I do not apologise for requoting what she has just said. I wonder whether she can help us understand exactly what and when “working at pace” will deliver.
This was one of the reasons why I thought I should probably not use the expression “at pace” a second time. The Government are going to run two consultations on three closely related issues, all to do with how families are formed and what happens when they break down. There will be a consultation on weddings reform and a consultation on cohabitation reform, which is a manifesto commitment. There is also going to be a consultation on financial remedies on divorce or dissolution of civil partnerships, including nuptial agreements. The Government are committed to doing this as early as possible.
My Lords, my noble friend is against making an order. Is she aware that the lead civil servant on the Equality Act and the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act thinks that the evidence for removing the discrimination against humanists by making an order, even if there is an interim measure pending a final order, is overwhelming? She further adds that it would not introduce any new inconsistency in the rules—that is to say, laying the order would not discriminate against any other group. So is it not such a bad idea after all?
My Lords, I am not sure that I can do better than to quote from the Law Commission report, which looked specifically at this issue. It said that it would be anomalous and unfair to privilege these non-religious belief organisations over religious groups, which are subject to greater legal regulation. In particular, it would be very difficult to justify why the fewest restrictions should be applied to the newest categories. It is for that reason that the Government are not going to use the order-making power to single out humanists.
My Lords, a few years ago, despite major constitutional issues, a Labour MP in the other place, and I in this place, were able to steer same-sex marriage legislation through in relation to Northern Ireland in a very short time. When there is agreement on all sides, as there is here, why cannot we get the legislation through as quickly as we did a few years ago?
The answer to that is that there is not agreement on all sides as to what this should look like. I mentioned earlier the Law Commission’s report; its conclusions were greeted with some reservation by the humanists and the Church of England, while being widely welcomed by other groups. We absolutely need to make sure that we get this right and that we do not, in solving one set of inequalities, create some more.
My Lords, the deficiencies and complexities of our marriage law were addressed by the Law Commission as long ago as 2022, followed by a government response three years later. The common objective is simple enough: to provide legally binding and reasonably dignified marriage ceremonies. Can the Minister agree that when these long-awaited and necessary reforms arrive, they should benefit not just humanists but other groups that are equally disadvantaged by the current law? If that does not happen soon, there will be increasing and possibly justified pressure for less satisfactory, piecemeal measures. At the same time, can the Minister indicate whether there will be a role for properly regulated independent celebrants?
The noble Lord makes a number of good points. One of the issues here is the question of the independent celebrant, because not everybody thinks it is a good idea to license independent celebrants—for example, humanists think it is not a good idea to license independent celebrants. That is why this has to be looked at and why we have to consult widely. However, we have given the commitment that we will legalise humanist marriages—it is just a question of making sure that we do it in a way that does not create further inequalities.
My Lords, what advice do the Government have for humanist couples who are waiting to be wed and have heard that there is going to be a fourth consultation, as well as the introduction of complex and potentially controversial marriage law ahead of this much-needed change? What assurance can they offer to couples that humanists will soon have the choice of getting married in line with their beliefs, the same as their religious counterparts?
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s intention to make it easier for couples to marry in legally binding ceremonies that reflect their religious, or non-religious, beliefs. However, I am concerned by the potential direction of travel of some aspects of these reforms, particularly the possible authorisation of this new category of commercial celebrants, which the Minister has referred to. I understand that, as has already been acknowledged, Humanists UK shares this concern. Can the Minister set out how the Government will ensure that safeguards are in place to protect against the commercialisation of weddings?