Debate Excerpts: Rachel Hopkins vs Jeff Smith

Humanist Marriages

Debate between Rachel Hopkins and Jeff Smith

Thursday 27th January 2022

(2 years, 3 months ago)

Westminster Hall

Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts

Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.

Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.

This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record

Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)

- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Thank you, Dr Huq; it is really good to see you in the Chair. I apologise for my late arrival—I had another commitment —and thank you for your indulgence in allowing me to speak. I congratulate the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) on securing the debate, and I am sorry that I missed most of his speech.

Rachel Hopkins

- Hansard - -

It was very good.

Jeff Smith

- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I do not doubt it.

I declare an interest as a vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary humanist group and a member of Humanists UK.

The UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, Dr Ahmed Shaheed, recently conducted a survey of marriage laws around the world. He found that, broadly speaking, there are four approaches. The first, which is the most common, is for the state to legally recognise only civil marriages, or perhaps to not even recognise any ceremony at all and simply have the state involved in signing the paperwork entirely separately from any ceremonial aspects. That is seen in most European countries, including—most famously—France but also Germany; across much of Asia, with China, Korea and Japan taking the non-ceremonial approach; in most of Latin America; and across much of Africa.

The second approach is to recognise only religious marriages. That is the case across much of the middle east, north Africa, Iran, Indonesia and Malaysia. In Dr Shaheed’s view, that is not human rights-compliant because it denies couples the chance to have a marriage at all unless it is religious, and in some cases only of a certain religion. The third approach is for the state to recognise religious and civil marriages but not humanist marriages. As we have heard, that is the approach in England and Wales. It is easy to assume that, because that is the situation here, it is quite typical of the situation everywhere else, but that is not the case. In fact, it is seen only in a few European countries, with the nearest to us probably being Denmark, and—possibly due to the colonial inheritance—in a number of Commonwealth countries in Africa, the Caribbean and in parts of Canada.

Finally, the fourth approach is to also legally recognise humanist marriages. That is now the situation in the large majority of our neighbours, namely Scotland, Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, the Channel Islands, Norway and Iceland, and also the US, Australia, New Zealand and other parts of Canada. Common to all the countries in the latter section is that they started off recognising only religious and civil marriages but moved to recognising humanist marriages either because of political will and political pressure or following court cases, as was the situation in Northern Ireland and parts of the US. That demonstrates that we are perhaps more isolated than we might realise.

It is also worth knowing what Dr Shaheed thinks of each approach, in terms of human rights. Recognising only civil marriages may not be as flexible in giving people what they want. Famously, in France, it is common for Catholic churches to be situated opposite town halls, so that a wedding party can easily transition from the civil marriage to the religious ceremony. None the less, that is seen by Dr Shaheed as lawful, because it treats everyone equally, regardless of their religion or belief; he does not believe that approach violates international human rights treaties. As already mentioned, recognising only religious ceremonies is wrong, compelling people to take part in religious acts or denying them the right to marry at all.

However, in Dr Shaheed’s view, recognising only civil and religious marriages also represents discrimination on the basis of religion or belief. It treats religious people more favourably than humanists, offering the former a privilege that is denied to the latter. That privilege does not have to be offered to any religious or humanist group, but where it is, it should be offered to all. That is the case in the US and Ireland. It can also be seen in the universal periodic review of the UK conducted by Dr Shaheed’s predecessor Asma Jahangir as long ago as 2008. In that review, she wrote that

“humanists made the criticism that in practice there are institutional and legal examples of discrimination against non-religious believers…while humanist weddings are legal in Scotland since June 2005, marriages conducted by humanist celebrants are not recognized in the law of England and Wales.”

That was in 2005—17 years ago—and nothing has changed since.

The correctness of Dr Shaheed’s assessment can be seen in the judgment of the High Court in the 2008 case, R (Harrison and others) v. Secretary of State for Justice, in which the judge found that

“there is a continuing discriminatory impact upon those who seek to manifest their humanist beliefs through marriage…the discrimination suffered by the Claimants is real: the difference of treatment they experience in seeking to manifest their humanist beliefs through the ceremony of marriage is a matter of substance, not merely one of form…I have found that—subject only to the question of justification—the present law gives rise to article 14 discrimination in the Claimants enjoyment of their article 9 rights.”

She rules that the Secretary of State for Justice cannot

“simply sit on his hands”

and do nothing. The judge also said that she had given the Government the benefit of the doubt that they would reform marriage law after the Law Commission review. She wrote:

“Although I may deprecate the delay that has occurred since 2015, I cannot ignore the fact that there is currently an on-going review of the law of marriage in this country that will necessarily engage with the wider concerns that have been raised.”

She found that,

“the Defendant’s stated desire to consider any reform on a wholesale, rather than piecemeal, basis”

was a legitimate aim, because,

“the Government has identified concerns as to the potential consequences of addressing one area of unequal treatment without doing so as part of a more general reform. Specifically, in relation to the treatment of humanist and other non-religious belief marriages, particular issues were identified relating to the location where the ceremony might take place…these were matters seen to potentially give rise to new species of discrimination if reform was only undertaken on a piecemeal basis.”

That was the Government’s defence, but they have undermined that legitimate aim through their action on outdoor civil and religious marriages. That is not to say that I do not welcome the reforms to enable outdoor marriages—I do—but merely to say that it leaves the Government with no excuse to not also legally recognise humanist marriages.

What I find most difficult to understand about the Government’s position is that the judgment in that case is legally binding case law that the Government must follow. Even before the outdoor marriage reforms, it was the case that the Government must extend legal recognition to humanist marriages after the Law Commission review is over. Yet the Government’s repeated position, in response to all letters, parliamentary questions and other approaches since the 2020 judgment, has been to simply say:

“The Government will decide on provision for non-religious belief marriage in light of the Law Commission's recommendations.”

Even in the light of the judgment, the Government have not committed to acting at the end of the review, only saying that they will decide whether to act once the review is over. How can that position possibly be tenable, given the very clear judgment from the High Court?

I have three questions for the Minister. Will the Government today commit to legally recognising humanist marriages at the earliest opportunity? Failing that, will they commit to doing so after the current review? If so, how soon do they intend to bring that legislation into force? These are really important questions about ending discrimination in this country, to give everybody a fair chance.

All 3 Debates between Rachel Hopkins and Jeff Smith

Oral Answers to Questions

Humanist Marriages

Oral Answers to Questions