Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): I welcome Michael Conlon, chief executive of Humanists Together, and Chloe Cairns, who is a celebrant from Humanists Together. They are joining us online. Michael and Chloe, we appreciate your time in coming to give us evidence. Hopefully, you have seen the Bill. We would appreciate an opening statement from you, and members can then ask any pertinent questions.

Mr Michael Conlon (Humanists Together): Hello, Chair. I have prepared an opening statement, and at the end of that opening statement, I would like to address two points that Boyd Sleator raised with regard to our organisation and, I suspect, my website.

Chair and Committee members, thank you so much for taking the time and inviting us along. Humanists Together is a humanist belief-based organisation, and it is registered and governed here in Northern Ireland/North of Ireland. It is authorised by the General Register Office (GRO) to nominate celebrants for legally recognised marriages. Our policies and decisions have been shaped by the people with direct experience of delivering ceremonies in the communities in which they serve. We support the Bill, and we support raising the minimum marriage age to 18. We are asking for three things: objective, published and qualifying criteria; consultation with every authorised belief body before regulations are made; and clear rules that distinguish reasonable challenges in order to support training and oversight from profiteering.

I want to say a brief word on experience. By October 2025, it was announced that 5,000 humanist marriages had been recorded here in Northern Ireland. Approximately 2,000 of those, by our count, were conducted by the 16 celebrants who now make up Humanists Together.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Apologies, Michael. Could you give us those numbers again?

Mr Conlon: Yes. On, I believe, 5 October 2025, the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency announced that there had been 5,000 humanist ceremonies here. Approximately 2,000 of those were conducted by ourselves. I do have a point to make on that, however. I want to make it clear that most of that work was done while those celebrants were accredited with another body. I make no claim to it on behalf of our organisation. However, experience does belong to people. I accept that while we are a new organisation, our celebrants are not new to this work. We understand the concerns about smaller belief bodies. We share the view that every authorised body must meet those high standards and keep accurate records. Our difference is about how that is tested. We would rather be judged on what we do — our training, vetting, safeguarding, complaints, records, governance and interactions with the General Register Office — rather than how long we have existed or how many members we have.

Experienced celebrants who join us from other organisations are all required to complete our legal training module. A new celebrant who has not undertaken training before must undertake our full training suite before they are allowed to undertake any work in the community. We hold all our records centrally under our data protection policy. One thing that I think that it is important to say to the Committee is that Humanists Together does not charge couples an additional administration fee, and we do not require that couples become members of our organisation. We believe that that is a personal choice that should happen outside of the marriage.

In my work, I meet couples from different traditions who feel that humanist ceremonies can honour both of the families by beginning from a place of equality, and that goes for couples from the Protestant/unionist/loyalist communities and the Catholic/nationalist/republican communities. That experience demonstrates why choice, inclusion and the removal of unnecessary barriers matter. The Bill can give that choice a permanent footing. We ask the Committee to support the framework in which the Registrar General assesses every religious belief body on clear standards and on accountability.

We are happy to take some questions, but, first, I would like to address what Boyd Sleator said about there not being an option on our website for people to join us as members. He is absolutely correct. That is a strategic decision that our board made because we are a smaller organisation. As a smaller organisation currently going through a period of growth, we are making sure that we are doing so in a way that is consulted on with our current members, our board members and the communities in which we work. We will announce our new membership categories in January, but, at the minute, that is why the membership option is not there. I believe that that is clear somewhere on our website. Separately, I think that Boyd alluded to my personal website, Celebrant Michael. You will see there that it is a temporary website. Around two weeks ago, I had a bit of a glitch in my website, and I had to take everything down and put up a temporary website in its place. I apologise, as Boyd might not have seen humanism there, but, for full transparency, it will be mentioned on my website before the end of your session today.

We are open to any questions.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Thank you, Michael. As always, I ask members to indicate if they wish to ask a question.

Disagreements on policy questions are totally reasonable. Deliberating on such things is what Committees are here to do, so that is fine, but it is not really for us to mediate differences in opinion between organisations.

Why should there not be more specific obligations around beliefs and a philosophical community, which was the argument made by the witnesses in the previous session, versus the slightly more liberal approach? Why do you think that there should not be obligations concerning a membership organisation and an established framework of belief?

Mr Conlon: We do believe that that should be there, but we do not believe that there should be a minimum membership or a minimum amount of time for which an organisation must have existed. If we are to put humanist and belief organisations on a par with religious organisations, we should note that, as we have seen, religions have disagreements, and they have other ways in which they can prove or demonstrate their philosophy in the community. We do that day in, day out, but are we shouting about it on our website or social media? We are not. Our focus is on ensuring that the public, as well as the couples and the families with whom we work, have confidence in us and our celebrants. I also point out the fact that our celebrants conduct not only marriages but funerals and naming ceremonies, which welcome a new member to a family. The gamut is wider than that.

In the past year, since we formally became Humanists Together and moved away from our initial organisation, which was Common Ground Humanists, we have been working with Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action and lots of other community organisations. We can demonstrate how our celebrants can add value to our society and help it to be better in the broadest sense, because we meet people where they are and in moments of absolute joy or absolute heartbreak. We play a very skilled role in managing that. We see Northern Ireland/the North of Ireland across the entire gamut of society. Not everyone identifies with humanism, but the vast majority of people whom we have met demonstrate those humanist values.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): One specific position that has been put to us is that the Scottish model was too open and that the Scottish Government now have to amend their rules. Do you recognise that as a risk here?

Mr Conlon: There is that risk here, but we also have to understand that we are at the very beginning of the development of humanist services and ceremonies. The explosion of humanism throughout the whole island of Ireland has been documented. That is a matter for the regulator. We are saying that people need more choice.

One of the three humanist organisations here is Humanists UK. In my five years as a celebrant, I did not deal with Northern Ireland Humanists; I dealt directly with Humanists UK. That distinction needs to be clarified, because, as celebrants, we dealt with the head office in London, not the local committee that was on the ground.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Will you clarify that, Michael? Representatives of NI Humanists were in front of the Committee in the previous session, but that organisation is affiliated with Humanists UK. Previously, you were a Humanists UK celebrant, but you did not go through the NI Humanists local committee. You were registered directly with Humanists UK in London.

Mr Conlon: Yes. I went through and applied to Humanists UK. It took me three attempts to do so. That was not about getting through the programme but about having the confidence to submit the application and realising that I wanted to do it. I went through the training programme, and I completed very similar training to that which Stefanie Onipko completed, albeit five years ago. All my dealings, however, have been with the head office of Humanists UK. I had limited dealings with Northern Ireland Humanists and Boyd's office during that time. One of the reasons that Humanists Together has come together is to be an alternative voice in the humanist space in the North/Northern Ireland. That is where we are at.

As an organisation, we can see the issues that not only Scotland but Dublin had. Humanist celebrants are the only type of marriage solemnisers on the island who cannot work freely across the island — across the border. If I were to set up a religious organisation that met the criteria and started offering to solemnise marriages, I could operate freely across the border, North and South, asserting my rights, I believe, under the Good Friday Agreement. That has not been progressed either.

We are based in a unique part of the UK and Ireland, and we just have to accept that. We have a unique say in how we lead on this. For example, lots of Northern Irish or Irish couples who live in England come back here to have a humanist wedding. Some couples want their celebrant to travel to where they currently live, however, and, at the minute, I cannot register with the registrar for England and Wales, whereas there is a reciprocal agreement between Scotland and the North.

There are lots of other nuances that need to be addressed in the wider scope of marriages, North and South, and east and west. I want to make sure that we focus on the Bill to make sure that it is right for the couples and families with whom we work and that we meet every one of the standards to which the Registrar General will hold us to account.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Presumably, lots of that could be done by regulation. Were regulation to be brought forward by the Department, presumably it would be able to say, for example, that celebrants who are registered with a recognised humanist organisation anywhere in the UK or Ireland are eligible to perform humanist ceremonies in Northern Ireland. Is that something that the Department could put into the regulations?

Mr Conlon: I believe so. The difficulty would be making sure that that is coordinated in the North, South, east and west. That is one of the challenges. Humanists Together has gathered the unique experience of the close to 2,000 marriages that our celebrants have conducted under different organisations and will present a document to the UK Government later this evening on their review of English and Welsh marriage law. For years, we have been on the receiving end of what happens in England and Wales, and it is nice to be able to offer back some advice, based on our experience. It would be great if that could be facilitated within the regulatory framework. It would also help to copper-fasten peace and cooperation between the islands on a North, South, east and west basis. It makes sense. Let us not put in place another barrier for people who want to bring their celebrant with them.

Mr Harvey: What is your view on the Dublin model, Michael and Chloe?

Mr Conlon: Chloe, if you do not mind, I will speak to this initially. The Dublin model is quite restrictive, in that the only organisation that currently exists in the Republic of Ireland that can authorise celebrants to conduct marriages is the Humanist Association of Ireland (HAI). The Humanist Association of Ireland is the big organisation, and it has indicated that it does not want other, smaller organisations coming into the Republic to conduct marriages. We have met some resistance there. I have gone further, explaining how important the Good Friday Agreement is to us, being based in the North, and our aspirations in relation to it, one of which is to work freely in the North, South, east and west, across the islands. It is disappointing that we could not find a way to cooperate with the Humanist Association of Ireland. Neither could Humanists UK when I was the celebrant coordinator there.

A way to resolve the issue would be for the HAI to put our celebrants on its register and recognise Humanists UK's training, as well as, perhaps, our training. Its advice, however, is that it is not in a position to do that. The Dublin model does not work, therefore; it shuts the door and creates a monopoly. Humanists Together would be afraid of a monopoly being created by one organisation in the North/Northern Ireland. We have talked about people profiting from this and whether it will become commercial. How would that be defined by the Committee, the Registrar General and the Minister? There are about 100 celebrants with Humanists UK in Northern Ireland across their three ceremony types. Training costs anywhere between £1,500 and £1,700. Over a period of five years, that is an income generator of about £250,000. Last year, 5,000 ceremonies were conducted, and each couple was charged a £40 administration fee. We do not believe that should be the case. None of us likes it when ticket companies add administration fees to our credit cards when we buy tickets to the Odyssey, for example, so why should organisations add on that administration fee? We believe that that should be done freely. I suspect that the reason why larger organisations are reluctant or openly sharing their concerns about smaller organisations is that they want to protect their monopoly, but that discussion is not for here. My focus today is to ensure that we get a Bill that protects couples, our institutions, the registrar and the celebrants. It is about a joint approach to changing marriage law that improves the lives of our people.

I have been a cross-community worker for more than 30 years, and I have seen that our society is changing so fast. Through my wedding work, I am shocked at how many mixed marriages have been hidden in communities for decades, and I learn about them when I work with families on funerals. In my wedding work, I see the peace-process babies meeting people from other communities that, sometimes, they have not even been into, and they are falling in love. I was a young youth worker in the 90s, and, when I see that happen now, it brings pure joy to my soul and to the souls of our celebrants because we can see the change happening as a result of offering couples an alternative.

I answered your question, but I got distracted with all those other important things. I addressed some issues that were not directly related to your question, and I apologise.

Mr Harvey: That is fine. It saves me asking you another question. I appreciate it.

Mr Kingston: Michael and Chloe, are you suggesting any changes to the wording of the legislation?

Mr Conlon: No, we are not suggesting changes to the wording of the legislation. Our main focus is that every belief organisation should be treated equally, regardless of size and the time that they have been in service.

Mr Kingston: Obviously, our main job is to get the text the way that we want it, and you are not suggesting any changes. I want to clarify that you are content with the wording.

Mr Conlon: Yes.

Mr Kingston: On the issue of qualifying requirements for celebrants, I admit that I have not read the 2003 Order, which I need to do, but, in the changes here, the Registrar General would not grant authority to people who do not meet the qualifying requirements that may be prescribed. That is at clause 2(4), and further down at clause 3(2)(b) — maybe I have noted the wrong one — it says that changes have to go through the Assembly. Sorry, clause 4(9) states:

What is your understanding of the regulations that apply to who can be a celebrant? Is it in the gift of the Registrar General, or would changes have to go through the Assembly?

Mr Conlon: The changes are a matter for the Committee and the registrar. We have gone through the process with the Registrar General to get initial approval to conduct marriages. That involved contacting them, setting out our case, showing that we were organised and registered. We are set up as a limited company, but we have started our charity regulation process, and that updated Bill is also going through. We are in that unique period where we are waiting on our charity regulation.

The core thing for us is to make sure that organisations are treated equally and fairly across the entire sector. The mechanisms for how that happens are best placed with the experts in the Department and with the Committee.

Mr Kingston: The Bill states that the Registrar General must not grant authority:

Sorry, I meant to read out clause 3(2)(b). The definition of a religious body is:

The current criteria are quite broad. Is it in the gift of the Registrar General if he thinks that things are getting out of hand, or would that, ultimately, have to come back through legislation? Does the Registrar General have the ability to tighten regulations?

Mr Conlon: I think that the Registrar General should have the ability to tighten regulations but, as I say, that depends on what regulations are presented before the Committee to ensure that everyone is treated equally, to ensure that religious and belief organisations are put on a par with each other. That is our core message today: we all must be treated the same, and the registrar should have those powers. The registrar already has the power to remove individual celebrants from the register, as does the organisation, even before it gets to the registrar. Those powers are already there. I think that the registrar, or perhaps the regulator, should have more control over that. Our main focus for today is to ensure that we are treated equally and fairly.

Mr Kingston: OK. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Just for clarity, Brian, the Bill states that any regulations that come out of this will be approved by the Assembly. Any regulations specifying, and this is one of the main questions that we are interested in today, how much of this needs to be done on the face of the Bill via amendment, which is the position of the Northern Ireland Humanists, and how much can be done via regulation, which is another position.

Michael, you mentioned charitable status. Currently, Humanists Together are a limited company. One of the points made by the previous speakers was about profit-making or profiting from celebrants. Celebrants obviously charge fees. Would you like to say something about that? Is it your intention, when you become a charity, that you will publish accounts? Obviously you currently have to publish accounts as you are a limited company. Once you become a charity, you will have to meet certain obligations around resources. What do you do now, in relation to profits, and what will you do when you become a charity, assuming you become one?

Mr Conlon: I have worked in the community and charity sector my entire life, so I am well aware and well versed on the regulations, and we are going through that process. With regard to our income and profit-making, as I say, we have not generated over £200,000 from training, nor have we generated £250,000 from administration fees. If we had generated that money, we would have reinvested that money straight into our community base here across Northern Ireland.

You will note that I am the chief executive of Humanists Together. My salary is one pound. That is to ensure that I can carry out the instructions of our board. That is clear and transparent. There is no salary being made from developing Humanists Together. I am quite happy to share details about our income with the Committee. We generate our income from our members' fees. Our celebrant members currently pay £30, and our general members pay £10. Our accounts are currently being produced, and all that will be transparent on our website.

I know, from working within the charities sector, how important transparency is to the general public. I have an example from when I worked in Dublin. A very rich philanthropist saw two charities that he wanted to donate to. One was totally transparent on their website about who they were, how they spent their money and what they believed in. The other had existed for a very long time, continuing to do a specific piece of work. The philanthropist donated a significant sum of money to the organisation that was fully transparent. That is what Humanists Together is, and that is our intention for the future: the public will be able to see us as an open book.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): OK. We have heard two different broad sets of views about the approach. I am loath to get into the slight differences of opinion in the humanist community about the approach. In general, for us, the key thing is that we get as much evidence as we can on the structural issues. Chloe, do you want to add anything as a celebrant?

Ms Chloe Cairns (Humanists Together): Yes. I will touch on the different governing bodies. It is, for instance, a little like the way in which people with religious beliefs can choose the Church that they join — the Church that reflects their views and beliefs and where they are most comfortable. The range of governing bodies acknowledged by the GRO gives people across our communities the same opportunity to have a marriage ceremony that is not only meaningful and reflects their values and beliefs but is legally binding. The celebrant who is officiating their marriage will not only be appropriately trained but updated and advised by a registered governing body, which, in turn, is advised by the GRO. The communication between the governing body and the GRO, the regulatory body, is very important, and that is where everybody should get all their information and guidance from. In that way, the couples and the people in our community are protected by that, and that is necessary.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Should it be the governing body for humanist weddings or the GRO that puts the structure in place? What we expect to happen, if the Bill is not amended, is that the GRO will put in place a structure. The GRO could phrase that in different ways via regulation, and the Assembly will vote on it. The GRO could choose to specify a named regulator or to say that it is ultimately for the GRO to recognise, as it views appropriate, individual organisations, registry bodies or whatever. Should there be a specific, named humanist regulator? It could be your organisation, NI Humanists or some other organisation, or should it be for the GRO to coordinate?

Ms Cairns: Personally, I feel that the GRO should coordinate that because it best understands the legislation. Also, it is good to reflect on the fact that it has worked quite well. Couples are well protected, and their ceremonies are legally officiated by people who treat the occasion with the integrity and respect that it deserves, and it has worked so far. It is important to acknowledge that what is in place works, and all the governing bodies are being advised appropriately by the GRO.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): We have no further questions. We have covered a lot of ground, and we appreciate your time. We have heard a good range of perspectives. Thank you, Michael and Chloe. You can send us any written information that you wish us to receive.