Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): I welcome Sophie Easton, campaign lead, the Give Couples Choice Movement (GCCM). Hi, Sophie. I do not know whether you can hear us.

Ms Sophie Easton (Give Couples Choice Movement): Hello.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Hello, Sophie. Thank you very much for joining us. We appreciate your time. We have already heard from two different NI humanist organisations. We are very keen to hear your perspective on the Bill. Will you give us a brief opening statement? Then, members will ask any questions that they have.

Ms Easton: Absolutely. Hello, everybody. Thank you so much, Committee, for inviting me to speak today. I am here as a representative of the Give Couples Choice Movement, which is a volunteer-led group that was formed in 2020 to build support for the wedding law review that was taking place in England and Wales. I am also a qualified independent celebrant and, perhaps most importantly, a married person who felt somewhat let down by the lack of choice that was available on my own wedding day. Had I known at the time that independent celebrants existed, that would certainly have been my choice. For the past few years, I have been advocating for their inclusion in future reform.

I am here to speak on behalf of independent celebrants, but, most importantly, on behalf of the couples who choose them. We need to consider the reasons why so many couples choose an independent celebrant over a registrar, religious minister or humanist celebrant and whether those reasons are strong enough to advocate for their legal authorisation.

First of all, I would like to make it clear that we strongly welcome the Bill. We, however, ask the Committee to seriously consider extending the Bill's scope to include independent officiants. Omitting them now would undoubtedly mean having to revise the legislation in the near future, with couples whose needs were still not being met calling for change.

In my evidence, I would like to draw upon the current legal situation in England and Wales. You may be aware that tomorrow is the closing date for the UK Government consultation on wedding law reform, which follows on from the thorough review that was conducted by the Law Commission. Chapter 6 of that consultation document considers the role of officiants. If it is OK, I will just read out a short extract from that chapter.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Are you reading out a section from the UK Government's consultation?

Ms Easton: Yes, that is right: the consultation document on law reform in England and Wales. It states:

Why have the Government taken that view for England and Wales, and why do we feel that Northern Ireland should follow suit? If I may, I would like to briefly set out three reasons. First, doing so would align the UK with a number of other jurisdictions, such as Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the Channel Islands, where marriage systems that regulate independent officiants have been working well for many years. Secondly, we are the only category of officiant that can meet the needs of interfaith couples — for example, when one partner is from a Catholic background and the other is from a Muslim background — who wish to honour both traditions in a single ceremony. That is not to forget the many couples who do not follow a belief doctrine but want to have spiritual beliefs woven into their ceremony. Thirdly, we need to consider the principle of what we are saying to couples if we press ahead without including independent officiants. Surely, we are saying that, in order to have a personal, meaningful marriage ceremony, they have just two choices: a recognised religious body or a belief body that categorically:

That is from the NI Humanists website. We all know that many value systems sit between those polarised sets of beliefs.

Finally, if I may, I would like to briefly address the concern that was raised previously by the Finance Minister about the prohibition on profit-making in the Marriage (Northern Ireland) Order 2003. There is a common misconception that independent celebrants act purely for commercial gain, lacking the integrity that comes from representing a specific belief. However, that is simply not the case. In the consultation document for England and Wales, the Government concluded that authorising independent officiants would not:

The Government went on to say that evidence shows that fees charged by independent officiants are "broadly comparable" with those charged by registrars and by humanist celebrants.

In summary, we urge the Committee to go one step further with the Marriage and Civil Partnership Bill by authorising independent officiants as well as non-religious belief officiants. Without that step, we feel that the Bill will fall short of the inclusion that it seeks to achieve. We invite the Committee to draw on the work being done in England and Wales, to consult the Ministry of Justice on how the system will work in practice and to consider how that could be applied to the Northern Ireland framework. Thank you very much for listening.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Thank you, Sophie. Sophie is giving her evidence remotely, so there is a slight delay. I ask members to bear that in mind when asking Sophie a question. As always, I ask members to indicate if they wish to ask a question.

I think that I am right in saying that the position of the independent celebrant group — your group, Give Couples Choice Movement — is, in summary, that the Bill needs to be amended. Currently, the entirety of Part 1 is about belief bodies and belief marriage. You would like that to be amended or another Part added to the Bill to create a regulatory structure, presumably introduced by the General Register Office (GRO), as with the other regulatory requirements of the Bill, for the registration of independent celebrants as opposed to belief bodies. This is a different category.

Ms Easton: Yes, it would be a different category. What the Government have proposed for England and Wales is that independent officiants be regulated by their membership bodies, with overarching oversight from the GRO.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): What are the membership bodies that offer regulation?

Ms Easton: There are several membership bodies. It would be up to the GRO to approve which ones can authorise celebrants to conduct legally binding marriages.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Are there any membership bodies that accept members in Northern Ireland who offer non-legally binding weddings here at the moment?

Ms Easton: I believe that there are UK-wide membership bodies that include members from Northern Ireland. The Association of Independent Celebrants is one of those.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Someone here could, theoretically, become a member. It is possible to perform a ceremony that is not legally binding and is not official.

Ms Easton: That is right, yes, much in the same way as, at the moment, humanist celebrants in England and Wales are providing non-legally binding weddings, and the legal marriage has to be done separately. It is the same process for independent celebrants.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): We are taking evidence that may be used by people, so we might as well play devil's advocate in asking some questions; perhaps I should not use that phrase. You have talked about this being about religious marriage, which is in the context of a Christian church, a synagogue or whatever, with specific belief systems and faith; versus a belief, ie a humanist structure, which is a rejection of, as it were, a belief in a deity, where independent celebrants are neither of those things. It is perfectly legitimate for somebody to not want to get married either in a religious setting or by a humanist organisation. What would you say to the point that that person can have a civil marriage done by a registrar — I should declare that I was married by a registrar in a civil situation — where the registrar allows a person to include, in most cases, their own poem, for example. I am just asking this question: what would be the response to a person who asks, "Well, why not just allow people to include their own personal content in a civil ceremony?" I would say that that happens more often than not.

Ms Easton: I was also married by a registrar, which is why I felt ever so slightly let down. That is not a reflection on the registrar but on the resources that registration districts have and the time that they have available to provide personalised ceremonies. Generally, a registrar will not be able to meet the couple beforehand, so I did not know who was going to be standing in front of us marrying us or what they were going to say during the ceremony. There was no opportunity to see that script. She was a lovely person, but it was a very off-the-shelf script because, obviously, she had not met us before. The difference is that independent celebrants, much like humanist celebrants, have that opportunity. The couple choose the celebrant on the basis of whom they warm to and may want somebody who has a similar set of beliefs and values to theirs. The couple choose the celebrant, and, over time, they get to know each other, and the celebrant will produce a highly bespoke ceremony script for them. Registrars cannot include any religious or spiritual content in their ceremonies. For example, at my wedding, I wanted to have some music that had religious connotations, but I was not allowed to have it, even though those connotations were very loose. Those are the key reasons why that system is not serving couples who sit somewhere between religion and non-religion.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Yes. As you say, there may be complex relationships. One person may have a very strong faith while the other may not have any faith. They might want aspects of spirituality, a particular faith, scripture or whatever to be part of their ceremony, but it is not appropriate for them, in their particular circumstances, to have a church wedding. You might see this as a mischaracterisation, but what would you say to somebody who says that allowing independent celebrants might allow for trivialisation? Humanists are very clear in saying that it is about a particular belief structure that is not about a deity but is a belief structure that is ordered and is very keen on the solemnity of the wedding ceremony in the same way as applies to naming ceremonies or end-of-life ceremonies. It is very clearly not religious but maintains some degree of solemnity. I am sure that this is not the case for you, but the argument about the potential for independent celebrants would be that that could lead to trivialisation — I am not endorsing this; I am just putting it to you — through people using a Jedi knight or an Elvis impersonator. I really am not trying to trivialise it. I am putting the position that it could lead to trivialisation of a solemn thing. What do you say to that?

Ms Easton: That was taken very seriously by the Law Commission in its review and by the Government in their consultation, which is why they have produced what they call the dignity framework in the consultation. That is a very substantial chapter of what they are asking for opinions on. That is basically to make sure that officiants can exercise their discretion in deciding whether the content or the location of a ceremony is appropriate and dignified enough to honour the seriousness of marriage and the commitment that is being made. The other thing to say is that, under the proposed scheme, independent officiants would have regulation from their membership bodies and from the GRO in much the same way as a humanist celebrant would be regulated by their humanist body and the GRO. That dignity framework would be applied to both sets of officiants in exactly the same way to make sure that we were not trivialising marriage.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): OK. If I understand it, your position is very much to reject the idea that —. It is not about complete liberalisation so that literally anybody, for whatever random reason, commercial or otherwise, can perform marriages. There would still be a degree of solemnity. That is helpful.

Mr Tennyson: Thank you, Sophie, for that evidence. I have been open at the Committee about my support for legal recognition of independent celebrants, because I believe that an inequality is created when couples have to go to a registrar and then have a separate ceremony when they do not wish to have a belief-based marriage or a religious marriage or when the two members of the couple are from different faiths and cannot adequately have that reflected in a registrar setting or a religious setting. We need to fill that important gap in the law.

I have two questions, one of which builds on what the Chair has just asked.

From your understanding of the UK Government's intention for England and Wales, is it likely, if we do not recognise independent celebrants in Northern Ireland, that there will be a disparity in the UK in the near future in couples' rights? My second question is this: in your understanding of the direction of travel in England and Wales, what safeguards do you anticipate the UK Government putting in around things such as training and the nature of the services in order to protect the solemnity of the ceremony?

Ms Easton: In answer to your first question, yes, there would definitely be a clear disparity, assuming that the Government go ahead with what they are proposing. Scotland does not authorise independent celebrants at the moment either. In answer to your second question, there is a lot of content on safeguarding in the consultation document regarding training that would be provided by membership bodies and the training organisations that already exist and are already training celebrants. One thing that they have proposed is that training should be regulated by the Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation so that random organisations cannot just pop up and say, "We're going to train you to be a celebrant". They would have to follow a set curriculum.

Mr Tennyson: That is helpful, Sophie. Thank you.

Mr Kingston: Sophie, thanks for your paper and for your attendance online. Our main concern is the upholding of standards, the solemnity of the wedding ceremony and the law becoming so loose that things could just get out of hand, as was explained earlier. Under the legislation, the Registrar General grants authority to the person, but they have to be a member of a religious or belief body. Is that religious or belief body upholding the standards of their organisation, with, presumably, the person who is granted authority being accountable to that religious or belief body? If the Registrar General is giving authority to an individual celebrant, it seems to me that there is no other body in between to uphold the standards and that the Registrar General, if they get a complaint, somehow has to investigate that person as an individual. There is no other body in between that would uphold the standards. Our concern is that it becomes just individuals operating as celebrants. What is your reply to that?

Ms Easton: Interestingly, when the Law Commission did its review, that is what it suggested, namely that the GRO would license individual officiants. The Government have rejected that idea and said that they should be authorised by their membership bodies, which are approved by the GRO. Actually, the set-up would be exactly the same as for the humanist organisation being regulated by the GRO and then nominating officiants to perform legal marriages. It would just be that the celebrant membership bodies would nominate their officiants.

I personally think that that is a much better and much more consistent way of doing things. The Government also said that, for the membership bodies to be approved to nominate officiants, they would need to meet certain criteria. For example, they would need to have a clear governance structure, a consistent and clear complaints policy to identify any issues arising with any officiants, and officiants would need to go through a process of annual continuing professional development. They propose that they would have to apply to be re-regulated or re-authorised every three years. I think that they are trying to make the process quite similar to how it would work with humanist officiants.

Mr Kingston: Does the Give Couples Choice Movement exist as a body for independent celebrants? Do independent celebrants have to be members of it or registered with it?

Ms Easton: No.

Mr Kingston: Am I right in thinking that there is no other body between the Registrar General and the individual celebrant in the model that you talked about?

Ms Easton: No, there would be approved membership organisations. The Give Couples Choice Movement would not be one of those organisations. We exist only to push forward this law reform. That is why we were set up. We will cease to exist if the law reform goes ahead. An example of a membership body is the Association of Independent Celebrants; another is The Celebrant Guild. The General Register Office would decide which of the membership bodies were to be approved and regulated for independent officiants. The GCCM, which I represent, would not be one of them.

Mr Kingston: OK. Thank you for that.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): I think that that is it, members, at this point. We have had really useful evidence from two humanist organisations and an independent celebrant organisation. Thank you very much, Sophie. Thank you for responding to our call for evidence. Let me double-check this: did you respond to the initial departmental call for evidence? Have you had any response from the Department on its position?

Ms Easton: I responded, but the only response that I had was to invite me to this session. I do not know the Department's position.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): We are very pleased that you came along and gave us very interesting evidence. It is definitely food for thought for us as we produce our report and proceed to the next stage. I was not aware — a slap on the wrist for me as Finance Committee Chair — that the UK Government's consultation was closing tomorrow. I am not asking you to do our homework for us, but, if you hear anything from that or if anything interesting emerges from which we would, you think, benefit, let us know.

Ms Easton: Will do. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): I have one more question, and you may not know the answer. I presume that, in the South of Ireland, the independent celebrant sector is not recognised, given the relatively closely regulated model of regulating humanist celebrants. Are you aware of that?

Ms Easton: Yes. It is not recognised.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Thank you very much for your time. That was most helpful.

Ms Easton: Thank you so much. Thank you for having me.