Humanist Marriage

Alex Davies-Jones Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I start by thanking my hon. Friends the Members for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) and for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge), and the hon. Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo), for securing this important—and, may I say, really lovely —debate.

I should stress that the strength of feeling and frustration around legally recognising humanist weddings is very clear to me from this debate. It is important for me to acknowledge at the outset that the Government fully understand and recognise the significance of the issue to hon. Members and to humanists more widely. I am aware that a number of hon. Member from both Houses are campaigning on the issue, including those Members who secured the debate. I thank all hon. Members for taking part and expressing their deeply personal experiences and views. It has really contributed to this positive debate.

Andrew Copson, chief executive of Humanists UK, has been at the forefront of this campaign. He has met officials from my Department on a number of occasions, and it has been very helpful to understand his views on the issue as we take forward any potential reform. It is also only right that I acknowledge the frustrations that humanists have felt while campaigning for a change to the law. I appreciate that this change has been ongoing on for a long time. For many humanists, the inclusion of the order-making power within the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 was hard fought for, and I know that it has been disappointing to them that this power has not been used to date.

I also do not think it would be right to have this debate without recognising the important contribution that humanists make to society. Humanists have often been at the forefront of the fight for social justice, campaigning for fairness, respect and equality for all. I join in celebrating the celebrants mentioned today for all the work they do to conduct weddings, funerals and important life events. The Government hugely acknowledge the tireless work of humanists, whether that is campaigning to abolish blasphemy laws, or Humanists UK raising the profile of illegal independent schools within Government.

I know that my noble Friend Lord Khan was very pleased to attend the World Humanists Day reception last year as the Minister for Faith, Communities and Resettlement. When the Prime Minister was Leader of the Opposition, he spoke in 2021 to mark Humanists UK’s 125th anniversary, saying:

“Ever since its foundation as an ethical movement, humanists have contributed enormously to our party’s and our nation’s achievements…Humanists and Humanists UK have been at the forefront of the fight for social change: to decriminalise homosexuality, to end corporal punishment in schools, and to introduce free school meals.”

I could not have put it better myself. That quote captures the profound and lasting impact of Humanists UK.

We are having this debate 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 deeply personal commitment. Marriage can provide many benefits, including emotional support, financial stability and legal protections. For those who choose to marry, it is a significant and meaningful decision—one that this Government are proud to promote and protect. Although the state rightly has a responsibility to ensure that marriage laws provide clarity and certainty around the legal status of marriage, we believe the conversation can and should go further. Our weddings law should always reflect the importance and meaning of marriage as an institution.

It is important to acknowledge the shape of our current law around weddings and explain how we have got to where we are, so let me begin by reflecting on the history of marriage law in England and Wales—unlike some wedding speeches, I promise to keep it brief and free of groan-inducing jokes.

Our weddings law has evolved gradually over centuries, with its core structure rooted in the 18th and 19th centuries. The foundations of weddings law were laid by the Clandestine Marriages Act 1753. The Act was designed to prevent secret or hasty marriages by requiring weddings to be undertaken by Anglican clergy in a parish church or public chapel. While the Act permitted Anglican weddings only, it explicitly exempted Jewish and Quaker marriage ceremonies. The Marriage Act 1836 marked a significant turning point, introducing civil marriage for the first time and allowing weddings to take place in registry offices and non-Anglican places of worship. It also brought in civil preliminaries, acknowledging the state’s interest in there being legal certainty about who is married.

The fundamental structure established in 1836 remains largely in place today, consolidated within the Marriage Act 1949. The model on which our law is based is broadly a buildings-based model, which means that most marriages are regulated according to the building in which they take place. There are exceptions to the system, because Jews and Quakers are not bound by this restriction and may marry in any location.

There is discrepancy in the law, because couples must choose between a civil or a religious wedding. If they opt for a religious wedding, the rules that apply will vary depending which religion the ceremony is conducted according to. Civil weddings, by contrast, must be held at a register office or at premises that have been officially approved for that purpose. Therefore, it is for historical reasons that humanists are currently unable to conduct legally binding weddings. There is no provision in our legislative framework for non-religious belief ceremonies to be legally binding, as a wedding must either be religious or civil.

As others have said, the Law Commission published a report in 2022 reviewing weddings law and concluded that it is

“inconsistent and complicated, inefficient, unfair, and needlessly restrictive”.

It found that the law does not work for couples of many different religions and beliefs, including humanists. The report was the result of extensive research and stakeholder engagement; the Law Commission received more than 1,500 responses to its consultation and engaging with more than 50 key stakeholders. It provided a number of instances where the law does not work for many couples, and one prominent example is that humanist couples are unable to have legally recognised humanist weddings in England and Wales.

The Law Commission also highlighted discrepancies affecting different religious groups. For instance, Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists and Hindus are required to marry in a registered place of worship, regardless of whether that place of worship is meaningful in a marriage context, and must use a prescribed form of words. In contrast, Jew and Quaker couples are permitted to marry in any location and without any prescribed wording. Another example identified was the challenges faced by mixed-faith couples, who are currently unable to have ceremonies that might reflect two different faiths.

To address the wide range of problems identified with the current law, the Law Commission made 57 recommendations for reform, underpinned by the proposal that current weddings law should be overhauled and a new legislative framework should be put in place. The Law Commission proposed a new framework to ensure that all groups are treated with fairness and consistency on how they get married.

I am keenly aware that humanists have expressed the view that the Law Commission’s recommendations do not provide the solution they are seeking. One of the main reasons for that is their preference for the Government to act quickly and use the order-making power, as several hon. Members have mentioned, which would allow for humanist weddings to take place within the current legislative framework.

[Andrew Cooper]

I understand the Minister’s point, but that does not accurately characterise my position. I am very happy for the Government to do a broader set of reforms, but I and others are arguing that we do not necessarily need to wait for that before acting on humanist marriage. The two things could happen in parallel. Would the Minister agree with that?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

It is important to ensure we do this properly. I am against any piecemeal reform here. If we are to do this, we need to do it properly and together, so that it is succinct. There are ways that that can be done, as I am about to come on to.

I acknowledge the calls made during this debate for the Government to take that step, and to take it quickly, and I will address them directly. Although it is true that using the order-making power would allow non-religious belief organisations to marry within the current framework of weddings law, it is important for us to take into account what the Law Commission has said about doing that. The Law Commission highlighted the complexities of the law in this area and concluded that exercising the order-making power is not, in its view, a viable option. As a responsible Government, we must take that view into account when considering the issue of weddings reform.

[Cat Eccles]

Does the Minister agree that those measures already exist for Quakers? Humanists are not asking for a huge change in the law.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I totally agree, and I recognise that point, which I have addressed in terms of Jews and Quakers; this is about equality before the law, but we need to recognise the concerns raised by the Law Commission about what making that change on its own could entail. We need to look at this in the round, which is exactly what the Government are doing.

I know that the hon. Members who secured this debate will be disappointed when I say that it would not be responsible for the Government to ignore the Law Commission’s report, but we cannot ignore the fact that the report identified a number of complex and significant recommendations. It is absolutely essential that those are considered carefully and in full, and that is exactly what we are doing. I stress that that does not mean the issue of humanist marriage is being overlooked. On the contrary, the Government are actively considering the matter of humanist weddings as part of their broader review of the Law Commission’s report.

As I have said, we are considering the issues very carefully. Although I know hon. Members will be disappointed that the Government have not yet made commitments in relation to the issue, I hope the debate today has at least provided some assurance that the Government understands and hear the strength of feeling on the issues, including the key importance not just of weddings, but of marriage itself, and that we are looking into them with the utmost care and attention. I hope that assures hon. Members that I very much sympathise with humanists’ wish for legally binding weddings. I am happy to confirm—and say “I do”—that my officials are working on this at pace, and that an update on the Government’s position on weddings law reform will come soon. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth, we may not yet be able to set the date, but we can certainly start planning.