Marriage Regulations

Thursday 12th March 2026 Westminster Hall

13:30

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of modernising marriage regulations.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. The gateway to my constituency, and indeed Scotland, is the historical village of Gretna Green. For centuries, Gretna Green has been shorthand for the potent idea that love cannot be constrained by needless bureaucracy. That really started in 1754, following the implementation of the Marriage Act 1753 in England and Wales. The Act was intended to prevent secret or impulsive marriages by requiring those under 21 to obtain parental consent, and forcing all weddings into the church with public announcements.

However, those strictures did not apply in Scotland, where a couple could legally marry simply by declaring their intention in front of witnesses. That legal difference created an immediate opportunity for young lovers seeking to marry quickly or without the permission of disapproving families. Gretna Green was the first village that these runaway couples reached after crossing the border on the main coaching route to Scotland.

In Scottish custom, a blacksmith was seen as someone who could symbolically forge relationships just as they forged metal. As the law in Scotland allowed almost anyone to conduct a ceremony, Gretna Green’s blacksmith became the wedding officiant, marrying couples over the anvil—an object that symbolised the forging of a new life together.

By the time the law changed in 1856, to require a 21-day residency period in Scotland, the village’s reputation as a romantic destination was already assured, and remains so today. Couples still come to marry in Gretna Green. Indeed, only recently, Bryn and Sandra flew in from Sydney, Australia to marry there, following in the footsteps of Bryn’s grandparents. Not everyone travels as far as from Sydney, but more than 4,000 couples from across the UK choose Gretna Green each year, with up to 60 weddings every Valentine’s day alone. In fact, one in five of all marriages in Scotland takes place in Dumfries and Galloway.

Two adults wishing to marry in the United Kingdom must now wait nearly a month—a full 28-day notice period—simply to formalise their commitment. When we can apply for passports online, secure mortgages and even complete divorces within a matter of days, that legal lag looks like an anachronism, wholly out of sync with technology, norms and modern public expectations.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman talks about anachronisms. Would he agree that the inequity between humanist marriages being legal in Scotland and not being permitted in England and Wales is an ongoing anachronism that should be addressed?

[David Mundell]

I agree. The hon. Lady will be aware that many humanists come to Scotland, and indeed to Gretna Green, to get married for that very reason. That issue needs to be addressed in the context of modernising marriage regulations.

Dumfries and Galloway council, one of the three councils in my Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale constituency, has indicated that it could complete all the necessary checks within five days, yet the law mandates a wait that effectively stretches to 29 days in real terms. In the United States, Minnesota and Massachusetts require a similar three to five days for checks, while New York and Las Vegas allow for marriages within minutes or 24 hours. The British overseas territory of Gibraltar requires only 24 hours, and Denmark, sometimes competing with Gretna Green to be the Las Vegas of Europe, requires just five days. In Denmark, a jurisdiction that the Home Secretary seems very keen to promote, the system protects against abuse and fraud while allowing couples to marry within days rather than weeks. Why can the UK not do the same?

This debate is not about weakening safeguards or making marriage easy in a way that invites fraud; it is about asking whether our system reflects the realities of modern life. Under the Immigration Act 2014, the UK Home Office already has the power to extend the standard marriage notice period to 70 days. If the UK Government already have the power to identify, investigate and disrupt sham marriages, why does every couple need to have their wedding delayed?

The public are clear. They want a system that is simpler, fairer and more flexible. A recent YouGov poll found that 88% of UK adults support the ability to fast-track the marriage process. With fewer than half of UK adults now married, we are witnessing an historic shift in the structure of our families. While shifting social ideas play a part, 61% of adults cite the rising cost and complexity of weddings as a key reason for the decision to decline the opportunity.

Inaction also has an economic cost. The UK wedding sector is estimated to be worth £10 billion to £15 billion annually, supporting countless jobs and venues across the UK, as in Gretna Green. Such venues are spread across the breadth of the country, and I am sure Members present have venues in their own constituencies that come to mind. By maintaining a needlessly slow process, more flexible jurisdictions will come to benefit more than Britain from spending on weddings. Many visitors from the United States now come to Scotland to get married, having seen “Highlander”, “Outlander” and other such programmes on international television channels and realised the beauty of the country.

I of course appreciate that the Government in Holyrood and the Scottish Parliament have responsibility for some of these issues in Scotland, and I would also be delighted to see the Scottish Government take forward proposals at the first opportunity, but in the absence of them doing so, the UK Government have the capacity to demonstrate a different way of doing things. I do not wish to pre-empt what the Minister may have to say, but she may reference the Law Commission’s 2022 report, “Celebrating Marriage: A New Weddings Law”, and the announcement in October last year that the UK Government would reform wedding law.

Although the Law Commission’s report was extensive and thoughtful, its focus was largely on where weddings can take place and who can conduct them. It suggested moving towards a system focused on authorised officiants, rather than on licensed buildings, which would allow for more outdoor and home ceremonies—reforms that I wholeheartedly support. The administrative notice period, however, received far less attention in that review. With the Government already having accepted that marriage law needs modernisation, why not tackle the waiting time, too?

To be clear, this is not about deregulating marriage law, but about making it fit for the modern day through digital notice systems and more flexible waiting periods, the recognition of independent celebrants to allow personalised, but legally binding ceremonies—the hon. Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins) has already referred to the opportunity for humanist weddings—and simplified documentation that reflects modern administrative capability. One suggestion has been the appointment of a marriage tsar to move forward the aforementioned modernisation. However, I am sure that if it is driven from within Government, it can take place.

Administrative delays are not merely bureaucratic inconveniences; they carry a profound human and financial toll. For many, particularly in our armed forces, these administrative hurdles are not merely inconvenient; they can be fundamentally incompatible with the realities of service life. In recent days, we have all seen service personnel deployed at short notice. That is part of being in the services, as are unpredictable posting cycles that do not align with a rigid, 28-day delay, and the marriage system’s opaque exceptions are difficult to navigate at a time of high stress.

Moreover, with the average UK wedding now costing more than £20,000, delays can lead to the loss of substantial venue deposits and the risk of escalating catering and other fees, which have also risen by about 24% due to inflation. This “cost of worry” creates uncertainty, where heartbreaking last-minute cancellations become a reality for those caught in an antiquated system. These hurdles, and the costs associated with them, effectively put marriage on the back burner for many who would otherwise want to marry.

The history of Gretna Green shows that love cannot wait, love should not wait, and neither should we. I look forward to the Minister’s response and hope that she will agree that the time has come to review the administrative hurdles that stand in the way of love today.

13:42

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher.

I want to make a very small point. I am very grateful to the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) for the points he has raised, to which I would like to add. Following the Council of Europe recognising the Cornish language with part III minority language status, giving it the same status as all other Celtic languages, I am hopeful that the Minister will agree with me that regulations now need to be updated and the Cornish language marriage regulations brought in line with the practices in Wales, for example, so that the entire service can be conducted in the Cornish language, which is not the case at the moment.

13:43

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) on securing this debate, which has made me reflect on the hurdles I had to overcome to get married.

I am a Roman Catholic; my husband is Church of England. We got married in the ecumenical chapel of my old university. That meant we had to apply for a special licence, which turned out to be an extraordinary document in calligraphy and with a seal. We had to get a letter from both our dads to confirm that neither of us was already married. We had to get permission from our local parish church and consent from the Catholic Church. It took a very long time to arrange all that paperwork—obviously because of the religious requirement, rather than Government administration.

I am happy to say it was worth the trouble, and my husband and I will be celebrating our silver wedding anniversary next year. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I take this opportunity to send my best wishes to anyone in my Richmond Park constituency or, indeed, across the country who is planning a wedding this year, whether in Gretna Green or not.

The Liberal Democrats firmly believe that couples should be able to celebrate their marriage in the way they want. Changes to marriage regulations would be small, but they would change the lives of so many people who want to demonstrate their love for one another in a manner that reflects their own religion or beliefs. That includes humanist celebrations. The Liberal Democrats made this case during our time in the coalition Government, but it was blocked by the Conservatives, despite 90% of the public supporting the legislation. We will continue to back full legal recognition of humanist marriages, in this Parliament and beyond.

In 2020, the High Court found that the failure to recognise humanist marriages was discriminatory, and in the summer of 2022 the Law Commission recommended modernising marriage law and breaking down unnecessary barriers to weddings for engaged couples. The Law Commission concluded that the law in its current state was out of date, complex and uncertain, yet still the Conservatives failed to act.

I welcome this Government’s intention to modernise our marriage law to recognise humanist weddings, as well as to permit legally binding religious ceremonies in the UK to take place, including Sikh, Muslim, Buddhist and Hindu weddings. Many of those weddings involve beautiful ceremonies, joyous moments and ultimately the declaration of love and commitment by couples. Ruling such marriages as unlawful does not represent modern-day Britain, our values or the acceptance and welcoming of other cultures.

The Liberal Democrats firmly support the liberalisation of marriage law through the Government’s proposals, and we have long supported the need for reform. Enabling couples to commit to spending their lives together is a fundamental principle of British culture. Although we term these proposals as modern, the reforms should have been introduced a long time ago. The Government have stated that they will consult on their proposals in early 2026, and I would like clarity on the date the consultation will be opened, considering that we are nearing the end of the first quarter.

The legal recognition of more marriages will provide a boost to our economy, as the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale recognised in his opening speech. Allowing more couples to take part in legally binding ceremonies is expected to add over £100 million to the public purse, while providing a significant boost to the events and weddings business sectors, which are important parts of the hospitality industry in all our constituencies.

The Liberal Democrats are proud to have been instrumental in securing the legalisation of same-sex marriage during the coalition Government, with the then Lib Dem Equalities Minister, Lynne Featherstone, fighting the Conservatives to introduce the legislation. We long campaigned for that change, and the announcement that same-sex marriage would be legally recognised is one of the biggest achievements of the coalition.

Marriage for same-sex couples was a crucial step towards equality, and one that has touched so many lives for the better. The joy of getting to marry the person you love, surrounded by family and friends, is something everyone deserves the chance to experience. Although at the time it was considered a contentious issue, I am delighted that public opinion is now overwhelmingly in favour of same-sex marriage. That is not to underestimate the extent to which homophobia remains an issue in our society. In the year ending March 2025, nearly 116,000 hate crimes were recorded—an increase on the previous year—but recognising same-sex and other marriages has established a footing for social acceptance, and it is a step towards a more tolerant society.

The proposed reform to wedding law will have positive implications for family law. It will ensure that more couples enter marriage with a secure legal foundation, and it will prevent issues from arising where couples assume their religious ceremony is legally binding, only to find that it is not. Issues such as a lack of financial protection causing significant hardship on separation can be a result of non-legally binding ceremonies. The Liberal Democrats believe that modern marriage should be recognised under the law, and therefore that these couples deserve exactly the same rights as any other married couple.

13:48

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell)—who I consider a friend—on securing the debate. I could characterise him as a romantic perhaps, given his decision to focus on this topic, and I know from his early-day motion that he has taken a close interest in these issues.

From the perspective of the justice system, marriage is not simply a social institution, but a legal status that carries significant consequences in areas ranging from inheritance and family law to taxation, immigration and parental responsibility. Because of that, the framework governing marriage rightly sits within the responsibilities of the Ministry of Justice. With that responsibility comes an obligation to ensure not only that the legal framework is workable in practice, but that it continues to uphold the seriousness and integrity of marriage as an institution.

The statutory 28-day notice period, the processes surrounding registration, and the complexity of guidance for couples all deserve periodic scrutiny to ensure they continue to serve their intended purpose. Safeguards are essential, and notice periods allow registrars to verify eligibility, while also helping to prevent sham marriages or coercion, but the experiences of couples and registrars suggest there may be circumstances where greater clarity and flexibility would improve how the law operates in practice. However, any move to modernise the framework must be undertaken with care. Reform should not create a system that treats marriage casually or allows the institution to be diluted. Rather, modernisation should reinforce the seriousness of marriage while ensuring the law functions effectively in practice.

My right hon. Friend drew attention to the perspective of Gretna Green—one of the most historic and recognisable wedding destinations in the United Kingdom—which is in his constituency. For centuries, Gretna Green has occupied a unique place in the story of marriage law in these islands. Following the Marriage Act 1753, couples famously travelled north of the border to marry under Scotland’s more flexible rules. That history has become embedded in the cultural identity of the place and has helped to shape a thriving wedding destination that continues to attract couples from across the UK and beyond. Today, that tradition supports not only the ceremonies themselves, but a wider network of hotels, restaurants and local businesses that rely on the wedding sector, and for which my right hon. Friend is a champion and advocate in all the right ways.

The “Love Shouldn’t Wait” campaign launched by Gretna Green Ltd raises a number of practical questions about whether aspects of the current system create avoidable delays for couples wishing to marry. Although the MOJ must rightly approach such proposals with care, it is appropriate that we listen to the experience of those who work daily with couples navigating the system.

From a justice policy perspective, my right hon. Friend’s EDM raised several points: first, whether the current framework provides sufficiently clear and transparent mechanisms for urgent marriages in exceptional circumstances; secondly, whether the system of guidance and administration should be simplified so that couples and registrars alike can navigate it more easily; and, thirdly, whether the continued development of secure digital processes could streamline elements of the marriage registration system, while preserving safeguards against fraud.

However, in pursuing such reforms, we must be careful that the pendulum does not swing too far in the other direction. It is worth remembering that the question of modernising marriage law is not new; over the past decade, successive Governments have recognised that aspects of the legal framework governing weddings in England and Wales warranted wider review.

Most recently, the Law Commission set out a comprehensive package of recommendations for reforming wedding law in its report published in 2022. Among its key proposals was a shift away from the current system in England and Wales, which largely regulates weddings through the buildings in which they take place, towards a model centred on the officiant conducting the ceremony.

Alongside that longer-term review, the previous Government introduced more limited reforms where there was a clear practical need, such as the changes made during the covid pandemic to allow weddings to carry on. However, Ministers at the time were clear that more fundamental questions about wedding law should be considered comprehensively, rather than through piecemeal change. My right hon. Friend has also suggested the appointment of a marriage tsar; I do not know whether he is suggesting that he might be a candidate for that role, but it is something we should look at.

As a member of the all-party parliamentary humanist group, I wanted to touch on the contribution from the hon. Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins), because I have a lot of sympathy for the point she made. The Conservative party has not reached a settled policy on it at this stage, but I am personally very sympathetic to her suggestion.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale has rightly drawn attention to the experience of communities such as Gretna Green, where the intersection between legal regulation and real-world practice is particularly visible. By listening to those experiences, and by considering the practical reforms highlighted in EDM 2200 and the substantial work already undertaken on wider wedding law reform, Ministers can help to ensure that our marriage laws remain legally sound and practically workable, while continuing to respect and uphold the institution of marriage itself.

I once again thank my right hon. Friend for securing the debate, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts on the concerns raised.

13:53

[The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. Let me start by reiterating the thanks that others have already extended to the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) and by congratulating him on securing this important debate. What a pleasure it is to discuss something like love and marriage, as opposed to some of the slightly darker subjects that often detain us in all matters justice.

I welcome the opportunity to discuss the modernisation of weddings and marriage law, as well as the important points the right hon. Gentleman raised about whether the current legal framework keeps pace with modern expectations and the practical realities of couples wishing to marry. Marriage will always be one of the most important institutions in our society, and I know that Members across the House care deeply about it, as do I and many of our constituents.

I start by paying tribute to the unique place that Gretna Green, in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency, has in the history of weddings in the United Kingdom. When this issue first crossed my desk, my first thought went to “Pride and Prejudice”, which is one of my favourite novels. Gretna Green is the location to which Lydia Bennet and the slightly roguish George Wickham fled to get married out of sight of their parents. There are, of course, plenty of other good reasons why Gretna Green remains a popular choice for wedding ceremonies to this day. It carries a long and rich history, which the right hon. Gentleman described so eloquently. Sitting just over the border between England and Scotland, it was indeed often the first Scottish settlement that couples fleeing England and its stricter wedding laws would reach. Although I am glad it is no longer necessary for couples to brave a trip north of the border to Gretna Green to seek freedom by eloping, its reputation for romance and tradition, as we have heard, persists to this day.

As the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged, the responsibility for weddings law in Scotland sits with the Scottish Government. As such, I cannot comment on specific aspects, but I recognise that the issues he raised about how the different systems operate across the United Kingdom, and the opportunity that this Government have to modernise weddings law, are part of a conversation that we in this House will want to have.

Let us turn to what the Government are doing to reform weddings law in England and Wales. As the right hon. Gentleman referenced, last year the Government announced the biggest overhaul of weddings law in England and Wales since the 19th century. Our planned reforms build on the comprehensive and important work of the Law Commission and its 2022 report on weddings law. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that that report is both extensive and thoughtful.

The Government made that announcement because marriage is one of our most important institutions. At its best, it is a celebration of love, a symbol of enduring partnership and a deep personal commitment between two people. For those choosing to marry, it is a significant and meaningful decision. It is therefore important that the legal framework governing weddings is clear and modern and works well for those who rely on it.

Our reforms focus on two key areas ripe for change. First, the law will move away from regulating the building in which a wedding takes place, and instead focus on the officiant responsible for conducting the ceremony. That will make it easier for people to get married in a variety of settings, giving them flexibility and choice. Secondly, we will introduce a single set of rules governing all weddings, with the exception of retaining Anglican preliminaries. That will enable many more couples to have ceremonies that reflect their values and beliefs.

At the centre of the reforms is the Government’s commitment to protect the dignity and integrity of weddings as we create a level playing field for all groups. We will give couples more choice and freedom over how they marry, but ceremonies must always reflect the significant lifelong commitment that marriage represents.

To progress those reforms, and to answer the question from the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), the Government will publish a consultation early this year. I appreciate that it is already March, and as one knows, “early this year” can be a flexible concept in this place, but our determination remains to get on with that consultation, building on the Law Commission’s report. That report was comprehensive, and the Government’s consultation will therefore focus on more detailed aspects of reform, including the dignity and suitability of locations and ceremonies, and the role of independent officiants.

I want to address the point made by the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale about the necessity of notice periods. As he said, under the current law of England and Wales, once a couple have given notice of their intention to marry, they must generally wait 28 days before they are issued their marriage schedule. He pointed to Gibraltar as an example of a place where that process is much quicker—having strong connections to Gibraltar, I know that is why it is an attractive jurisdiction, not just for John and Yoko, but for many others since.

The notice period exists to ensure that any legal impediment to the marriage, or any other concerns about it, can be raised and dealt with before the marriage is given approval to go ahead. The Law Commission considered the preliminaries process in detail in its report and emphasised the importance of maintaining a robust notice system, given the protections that it offers for vulnerable people and against forced and sham marriages. That is important.

While recommending that the process be modernised, including by enabling couples to give notice online, the commission did not propose shortening the existing 28-day notice period. However, it noted that the process could be made easier for couples, and recommended providing an online system for giving notice, as the right hon. Gentleman also suggested. The Government are carefully considering our approach to preliminaries and the process for giving notice. As part of that work, I will ensure that the policy team engages with international jurisdictions, including overseas territories such as the ones the right hon. Gentleman mentioned.

The case for reform in this area is compelling. It will result in a great many benefits. The right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale noted that the current law means that weddings, while good for the local economy, can become very costly for both couples and businesses. The Government agree that weddings can be far too expensive, so our reforms will make it more affordable for couples to get married. A new system to regulate officiants should make many lower-cost options much more accessible. Families will no longer need to fund two weddings—one that is legally binding, and one that is not but reflects their culture and beliefs.

Reforms will also see a significant boost to the economy, with the Law Commission estimating that they could lead to a 3% increase in weddings in England. Wouldn’t that be a fine thing? There are also a huge number of social benefits. We will make it easier for religious groups to marry in accordance with their beliefs, improving equality and preventing vulnerable individuals, particularly women, from unknowingly having a wedding without legal protections.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins) and the hon. Member for Richmond Park for raising the issue of humanist marriage. They will know that the Government committed to allow non-religious belief organisations, such as humanists, to conduct legally binding weddings, representing another huge step forward to ensure that marriage law reflects the make-up of modern Britain. I look forward to seeing those plans come forward. I will offer to write to my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon), who is no longer here, on how the Cornish language operates within our marriage system.

Suffice it to say that reform is coming and the consultation is coming. We need a broader national conversation for the comprehensive reform that is required. Something as important as modernising our wedding laws for the first time in a very long time needs to be undertaken in a thoughtful, considered and comprehensive way. I look forward to seeing many of the reforms and the modern step change that will allow more couples to enjoy this precious thing long into the future.

14:02

[David Mundell]

I thank all participants for their engagement in this debate. I particularly welcome the Minister’s remarks and the tone of those remarks. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) said, it is important to reflect on the experience of the people carrying out weddings at this time, and few people are more experienced than those in Gretna Green.

I am glad that the Minister said she would look at other jurisdictions. As I said in my remarks, our Home Secretary has highlighted Denmark as a country with robust rules and regulations on immigration and illegal immigration, yet Denmark is able to consider whether a marriage is a sham or one of true commitment within five days. It is important to look at the systems that allow that to happen. The length of time is not, in itself, necessarily a way of ensuring an outcome if the systems behind it cannot detect the issues that we are trying to detect by creating a waiting period.

We also touched on the fact that people should not be put off getting married by the bureaucracy or cost. That is at the heart of this. A couple’s commitment to each other and wish to get married should prevail, and bureaucracy and cost should not be impediments.

On the digital issues, it should not be easier to complete divorce proceedings than to complete the forms required for marriage. The digitalisation of many of these processes should certainly be a priority. Having served in government myself, I am familiar with the time periods involved, and I know that “early in the year” might well progress to September—we always regarded the winter as going through to March or April. However, I hope that the proposals will be introduced soon, and that this discussion, debate and dialogue can continue.

As I said in opening, bureaucracy should not be an impediment to love. We should encourage people who want to get married to do so in the way they wish, while protecting the integrity of marriage. I thank all those who have contributed to the debate, and I look forward to its continuation.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the potential merits of modernising marriage regulations.

14:05

Sitting suspended.