Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Members, we have with us from the Department of Finance Catherine Nixon, head of civil law reform division in the Departmental Solicitor's Office (DSO); Dr Martin Tyrrell, policy adviser in the civil law reform division; and Fidelma O'Hagan, principal legal officer in the civil law reform division. You are all very welcome. This is an opportunity for you to brief us on where the Department is at with the Marriage and Civil Partnership Bill. We heard from the Minister at Second Stage. Catherine, we would welcome your giving us an opening statement. As always, members, indicate if you want to ask a question.

The Committee Clerk: Hansard, Chair.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Of course. Hansard is here. I always forget to welcome our friends in Hansard and permit them to record the session. Nobody objects, I presume, to Hansard's recording this.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Go ahead, Catherine.

Ms Catherine Nixon (Department of Finance): Thank you so much, Chair. I am deputising today, because Michael Foster, with whom you are more familiar, is currently away. My colleague Martin Tyrrell will lead and provide a summary of where we are at.

Dr Martin Tyrrell (Department of Finance): I will say a little bit about the Marriage (Northern Ireland) Order 2003. The Bill will amend the 2003 Order. At present, our intention with the Bill is to make modest changes to the Order, primarily because it has been working very well for 23 years. Throughout that period, it has been uncontroversial legislation. In that time, it has delivered approximately 175,000 marriages, of which just over 5,000 have been belief marriages brought through under temporary arrangements.

We view the Order as being settled —.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Martin, those would have been post the court judgement in 2018.

Dr Tyrrell: In 2017, following the Smyth case.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Did you say 3,000 or 5,000?

Dr Tyrrell: More than 5,000. We hit the 5,000 mark this time last year, so the number is probably more like 5,500.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Some 5,000 belief marriages have therefore taken place, and they have largely been humanist marriages.

Dr Tyrrell: Yes, under temporary arrangements. Basically, we have read belief marriage into the existing Marriage (Northern Ireland) Order 2003, so we are acting as if it is already present in the Order. The Bill will write belief marriage into the 2003 Order, Belief marriages have, however, been taking place as if they were in the 2003 Order.

We view the Order as being settled, well-functioning law. We have no great wish to disrupt the architecture of that legislation. At the same time, we are not complacent. We welcome and note the constructive criticisms that stakeholders have raised in their evidence and the comments of Committee members. We will take account of them.

I will say a little bit about the criticisms and suggestions. Two of them can be batched together. One is the definition of "belief body". There are some concerns that the definition is too broad, and, with too broad a definition, one might get groups that really should not be performing marriage ceremonies. For example, lobby groups or advocacy groups might get through under the current definition. The other is additional qualifying criteria for groups that wish to perform marriage ceremonies.

We have reserved the option of introducing additional qualifying criteria for groups that wish to perform marriage ceremonies. That option remains, and if there is a need, we will use it.

We also note concerns about the dignity of marriage and the proposal for there to be a dignity clause in the legislation. There are concerns about the fees that some celebrants charge. There are concerns that independent celebrants in particular have been left out of the legislation. The proposal continues that they be brought into the legislation. Finally, there are some concerns that the age of consent has not been increased in line with the new marriage age of 18.

A big concern for people is the stricter criteria. I will say a bit about the existing process for assessing groups that wish to perform marriage ceremonies. The Registrar General (RG) operates and is responsible for that process. We have liaised with colleagues in the General Register Office for Northern Ireland (GRONI), and our understanding of the current process is that a group that wishes to perform marriage ceremonies has to submit its constitution. The people whom a group want to put forward as celebrants have to be nominated from within the organisation. The nominating person has to assure the Registrar General of the nature of the group and the nominees and, importantly, that the marriage ceremony will include an appropriate declaration in which the two parties to the ceremony will declare that they accept each other as marriage partners. The declaration has to be included in the material that is supplied to the Registrar General.

Membership numbers are not a showstopper as far as groups are concerned, but groups do need to state what level of membership they have or give some estimate of it. If relevant, they have to provide evidence of charitable status. Among other things, that is meant to prevent nominal groups from applying to perform marriage ceremonies. It is also intended to prevent parody groups, by which I mean groups that mock the system or want to introduce a joke element and are not desperately serious about their belief system.

If we were to introduce stricter criteria, they would need to be based on the existing process and, in future, would be part of the process that the Registrar General operates. Moreover, there would have to be a public consultation undertaken. We could not simply introduce them through some regulatory process, because stricter criteria would represent a significant proposed change, which groups would have an interest in discussing. If introduced, the stricter criteria would have to apply equally to religious bodies and belief bodies. The Bill seeks to address inequality. We cannot therefore create a new inequality through the criteria in our legislation.

Finally, I do not believe that we can penalise newness or smallness. A group that is new need not be insincere. It can be as sincere about its belief system as a long-established group. Similarly, a small group need not be an insincere group. If we are testing the sincerity of groups, we cannot say that newness automatically equates to insincerity or that smallness automatically equates to insincerity. By their nature, new groups will be small. If we were to prevent new groups from performing marriage ceremonies, we might create a bar to their being able to build up their membership.

Finally, on the dignity clause —.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Theoretically, could such groups then apply for a judicial review, based on convention rights?

Dr Tyrrell: There would also be a concern that groups might say that we had blocked them on the grounds of the size of their membership, if, for instance, they had only 30 members. There are, however, groups performing marriage ceremonies at present that have 30 or 35 members. It could be the case that one group would be allowed to perform marriages because it had been doing so for a long time but that others, because they had only 30 members, would not be allowed to, even though they had the same membership as groups already performing marriage ceremonies. There may therefore be such issues, and I am a little bit concerned that they may be raised.

We note the proposals for a dignity clause to be included in the Bill. Our concern, however, is that the meaning of "dignified" is subjective. At present, the content of a ceremony is between the provider of the ceremony and the marriage party. We would also have to verify dignity. If we were to say that marriages had to be dignified, some process would need to be undertaken to verify dignity at the marriages that around 130 religious and belief bodies perform at present. In order to verify dignity at such marriages, we would have to have the resources, or, rather, GRONI would most likely have to have the resources, to verify dignity, and a case would have to be made for getting those resources in what is a tough financial climate. It would therefore be difficult to make a case for a verification of dignity unit if, as a result of the 2003 Order, there had not been a great deal of controversy surrounding dignity. The Order has not seen any concerns raised about the dignity of ceremonies, the appropriateness of groups or similar issues. It would therefore be difficult to make a case that there is a problem, because there is no evidence of a problem.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): It is the 2003 Order, but the relevant year is 2017, because —.

Dr Tyrrell: The Marriage (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 has been delivering marriages since 2003, so for 23 years. Since 2017, belief marriage has been possible under temporary arrangements. There is, however, no reason that inappropriate ceremonies or undignified ceremonies could not come through either the belief route or the religious route.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): OK.

Dr Tyrrell: I will leave it at that. That is pretty much all that I have to say by way of an introduction.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Thank you very much, Martin. As always, members, please indicate should you wish to ask a question.

My first question is about one of the points that was put to us. Humanists NI or NI Humanists — I am not sure which — made a point about dignity and said that the model being introduced here is closer to that in the South of Ireland, which, from its perspective, is too flexible. You, however, are saying, "No. If any issues arise —".

The Committee Clerk: The Dublin model is slightly more pinned down.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): The Dublin model is more pinned down. NI Humanists' point, however, is that it wants more to be pinned down in primary legislation. You are saying that, if that issue arises, it can be addressed laterally, not necessarily via straight regulation but through a process of consultation and then further regulation, if necessary.

Dr Tyrrell: Yes, that is right. We have reserved the power to introduce stricter criteria along the lines of those set out by the Dublin Government, but we would need to establish our own criteria and then put those criteria out for consultation. There would be a process, because it would represent a change, as we would be doing things differently. I raised the issue of whether we would be able to penalise newness or smallness. Those are the kinds of concerns that stakeholders would raise if we were to go out to consultation. I do not think that we could proceed without there being a consultation.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Do you mean that you could not go further than what is in the Bill now without doing a further consultation?

Dr Tyrrell: I do not think that that is a change that we could simply tack on to the legislation. We would need to undertake a consultation process. Scotland has gone for a consultation on strict criteria. England and Wales are consulting generally on their marriage law, but the issue of strict criteria forms, I think, part of the consultation there as well. If we were to take our lead from the Scottish Government, we would need to have a consultation process.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): It would require further regulation from the Department to define a little bit more what a belief body is. I think that I am right in saying that.

Dr Tyrrell: The definition is slightly different from a selection process. If a definition is proposed, we can certainly consider it. We can amend our definition if that is required or if we believe that doing so is necessary, so I certainly hear an argument —.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): You can amend the definition in the Bill through this process.

Dr Tyrrell: That is right, yes.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): The Bill gives you the power to produce further regulations. What is the proposed timescale for qualifying requirements, assuming that the Bill is passed before we dissolve in March and that it receives Royal Assent at some point after that?

Dr Tyrrell: It would happen in the next mandate. I do not know when. It is ultimately a ministerial decision, but the work certainly could not be undertaken in the current mandate with a view to making that change. I am not even sure that we are resourced at present to do the consultation in this mandate.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): OK.

Dr Tyrrell: We have said this at previous Committee meetings, but I will say it again: we are a small team.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Fair enough. We acknowledge that. To be fair to you, you have been before us on quite a few matters. I do not think that anyone on the Committee thinks that you do not earn your money. If we assume that the Bill is passed before the end of March, it is the case that you will not publish or produce anything before then, because you cannot do that before the Bill becomes law.

Dr Tyrrell: I am also worried about whether we can even do a consultation in the period prior to the election. I think —.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): I am not necessarily saying that you should do it during purdah. I do not think that that would be expected. Should stakeholders that are interested in that aspect and are awaiting the consultation expect you to be in a position to put it to a new Minister, or, perhaps the same Minister, by next May or June, or could it be in late 2027, 2028 or beyond?

Dr Tyrrell: To go back a step, we have the power to introduce stricter criteria if there is a need, but I am not sure that there is evidence of such a need.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): OK.

Dr Tyrrell: Under the system that has been in place for 23 years, we have had no problems with inappropriate groups performing marriage ceremonies or with undignified marriage ceremonies. The existing system is quite stringent. It requires significant information from groups that wish to perform marriage ceremonies, regardless of whether they are a belief body or a religious body. Any additional criteria that might be added to that need to reflect that fact. If they were put in place, what would such criteria do? We are very happy to discuss those types of questions, but we need to contextualise them by saying that there is an existing system for assessing groups and potential celebrants and officiants, so we need to think about what having further criteria would add to the system.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): If the Bill passes as it is, although you may need to consult on more things at some point in the next mandate, your position is that there will pretty much be continuity —

Dr Tyrrell: Yes, that is right.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): — of our current provision for belief marriage, rather than a massive new —.

Dr Tyrrell: There is no automatic move to having a consultation process on stricter criteria. Stricter criteria would be introduced if there were demonstrable need. At present, although we hear what people are saying, we are not convinced that there is a need to look at such criteria.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): OK. You are not convinced. That is helpful. Clause 6 will bring in a new offence of conduct relating to the marriage of persons under the age of 18. What conversations have you had with your counterparts in, I presume, the Department of Justice about potential additional resource? I do not know whether the PSNI has engaged on whether some additional resource will be required. I imagine that it would not be much, but it would be helpful if you could put something on the record.

Dr Tyrrell: We have had regular discussions with DOJ on issues such as criminalisation, and we did discuss resource issues. From memory, because I tend to be more concerned about our own resource issues than those of other Departments, I think that the resource levels required would be, as you say, Chair, small and would not —

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Break the bank.

Dr Tyrrell: — have great administrative overheads.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): OK. I will now bring in other members.

Ms Forsythe: Thank you all for being here to speak to us about the legislation. Under the Bill, bodies will not be allowed to conduct marriages for profit. I want to tease that out a wee bit in order to understand how it will work in practice. What fees or expenses will be allowed? How will commercial activity be identified? What action would be taken if the rules were to be broken?

Dr Tyrrell: Some of those questions are for GRONI, but I can speak to our understanding of the fees. What we have been able to gather from what is available online is that the average fee is £750 per marriage ceremony. That seems to be consistent across belief groups and independent celebrants, who cannot currently perform legally binding marriages. When people describe what they do and the hours that they put into working with couples who want a belief ceremony, they cite 20,30 or 40 hours of preparation. The £750 fee is apportioned across those hours, which makes for a very small income. I do not think that there is any significant income to be drawn from that fee, particularly given that there are roughly 500 belief marriages in any given year and that there are around 100 belief celebrants listed on the Humanists UK website who are willing to perform marriage ceremonies in Northern Ireland. Apportioning the total take from those 500 marriages across the number of potential celebrants makes for a small wage — it certainly does not make for a profit — so there is not a lot of money to be made out of it.

Humanists NI is a group that has functions beyond doing ceremonies. It becomes problematic when an organisation or an individual simply does ceremonies — that is the individual's profession — because that seems to be more like a commercial business. In the Scottish legislation, that is when the issue of commercial activity comes into play. We do not have that problem at the minute, because we do not have independent celebrants applying to carry out marriage ceremonies, but if we were to proceed with allowing or considering whether to allow independent celebrants to perform marriage ceremonies, we would have to look closely at that.

Ms Forsythe: You do not think that there is a gap but that there could be one if the Bill were to be expanded.

Dr Tyrrell: There is potential for that to happen. It is something that we would need to pick up during a consultation process. We could not introduce independent celebrants in law without there having been an extensive consultation process. That would be a major change, and, in effect, we would be the guinea pigs for that, because no other legislation in these islands has taken that step, so we would have to get it right. We would have no precedents to follow, so we would need to examine the issue closely.

Ms Forsythe: Thank you. Subsection (2)(b) of clause 3, "Belief marriage: definitions", would insert into the 2003 Order:

How did you arrive at the terminology used in subsection (2)(b) and how do you foresee it being interpreted?

Dr Tyrrell: It is straightforward: we lifted it from Scotland word for word but for lopping off a few words at the end. The definition in the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Act 2014 includes a reference to meetings, with the body being a group that "meets regularly". We did not include those words in our definition on advice that they were highly problematic. Religious groups meet regularly for worship, but belief groups do not really have an equivalent. They might meet for administrative functions or for planning, but they do not necessarily have large meetings in the same way in which religious groups do. The meetings requirement proved to be problematic in its implementation in Scotland, which is why it is not included in our version of the definition. Otherwise, our definition is word for word the same as the Scottish definition.

Ms Forsythe: The Scottish definition had a bit more information —

Dr Tyrrell: It has the bit about meetings.

Ms Forsythe: — plus what you were saying about the meetings. You looked at the Scottish Act and decided to replicate it in part but not completely. There was obviously a thought process to arrive at that decision.

Do you have any concerns about the Bill as drafted? Could it become a gateway for people of concern who can meet the definition? I am concerned about the terminology, and I am trying to tease that out a little bit. You talk about administrative meetings and what it means. I am struggling to grasp whether that definition means what I think it is intended to mean. Do you have any concerns?

Dr Tyrrell: I understand your concern. As it is written, anti-fox-hunting groups, for example, or political lobby groups could apply to perform marriages. That was one of the criticisms. If it were just those words in the legislation, that would certainly be a problem, but the words in the legislation need to be seen in the context of the process that is carried out by the Registrar General. Every group is assessed, case by case, by the Registrar General and has to provide supporting information. If an anti-fox-hunting group applied to the Registrar General to perform marriage ceremonies, the Registrar General would, I am pretty sure, exclude that group. That is clearly not the type of group that was intended in the legislation. The process would filter out groups if they were to apply. I suspect that no groups of that type have applied to date, but the process would filter out those kinds of groups from applying.

Ms Forsythe: You have grasped my concerns exactly. I would be very concerned about that. You said that such groups would be captured by the process, but I am concerned that, reading the two pieces of legislation together, we would be relying on an external process that is not clearly defined in the legislation. As I said, I am trying to tease out the detail of that. I understand that it is for the GRO, and that, if that were to happen, it would pick that up and take those actions, but is there a way in which that could be clearer in the legislation, rather than resting on a consequential piece?

Dr Tyrrell: We are certainly happy to consider alternative definitions and consider whether they would enhance the Bill and, thereby, the amendments to the Order. However, the process is very much part of the Marriage Order. The Registrar General and the GRO are, in effect, the custodians of the marriage law here. The day-to-day operation of the marriage law is the work of the GRO, and its process is an integral part of the outworking of the 2003 Order. When we amend it, it will continue to be an outworking of the Order.

Ms Forsythe: I appreciate that. I think that we are on the same page; I do not think that we are in disagreement. Teasing out that definition is quite important, especially as it is different. It is not a direct lift of all of it from Scotland; it is part of it. Ours would be a little bit different, and it could be tested. I am keen to look at that a little bit further.

Dr Tyrrell: We can certainly look at alternative wordings. The words that we left out from Scotland were left out because they were not practicable in Scotland, because the belief groups did not have those types of meetings that were a direct analogy to the religious worship of faith groups. We are certainly open to looking at other wording suggestions.

Ms Forsythe: Thank you very much.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Just on the challenging of people, at the minute, if an anti-fox-hunting group or a Man United supporters' group — other clubs are available — wants to perform marriages, they can apply to the Registrar General, who will say yay or nay to them. If he says nay to them, they could, theoretically, ask for a judicial review. That is what happened in the Smith case. Am I right that that could happen at the minute? In theory, a body could write to the Registrar General saying, "Under the provisions of the 2003 Order, as interpreted post 2017, we want to perform marriages. Will you allow us to? We are the Star Wars fan group of Belfast", or whatever it is.

Dr Tyrrell: It could certainly apply. There is absolutely no problem with any group applying. It would be assessed like any other group.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): To be clear, I am not asking for any friends.

Miss Hargey: Or for yourself.

Dr Tyrrell: If the group were judged inappropriate in the context of the legislation and the context of the Smith case —. There were two Smith cases, if you remember: there was the High Court case and the appeal court case. In one of those cases — I think that it was the initial High Court case — the judge gave a definition that I cannot remember exactly. It was something about the cogency and so forth of groups. There was a particular test to decide whether a group was a genuine belief group or not.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): And, roughly speaking, the GRO follows that at the minute.

Dr Tyrrell: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): So, if we are trying to lift and lay, we should bear in mind —. You are not aware of any group like that, but we can ask the GRO.

Dr Tyrrell: I am not, but those are questions for the GRO and the Registrar General. My understanding of the GRO's work is that it is done within the context of the legislation. In delivering the process, it is mindful of what the legislation, the Bill and the Smith case intend to achieve and the mischief that they intend to avoid.

Mr Kingston: Thank you for your presentation today. From looking at the responses that we have received, the two main concerns are about upholding the solemnity of the marriage ceremony and commitment and, secondly, respecting the faith-based, traditional view of marriage, which is that a marriage is between one man and one woman and is a lifelong commitment. We have already discussed solemnity; we rely largely on the Registrar General to uphold those standards. Have there been any instances where anyone has been prevented — any belief-based group has been refused permission or put under review?

Dr Tyrrell: My understanding is that some groups have been rejected in the past. I am not sure when that has happened. I am not sure whether that happened pre 2017, post 2017 or both. Those are very much questions for the Registrar General to answer. The Registrar General is obviously closer to the work than I will ever be, because he is engaged directly in it. I do not know how many groups have been rejected or when, but my understanding is that, over the 23 years, a few groups have applied and have been disappointed.

Mr Kingston: Clause 2(4) states that the Registrar General may not grant approval if a group:

And then at clause 4(9)(a) we are told that:

I know that there are protections for religious groups in the 2020 legislation, but I want to ask again. Their concern is that, if someone were to take a case or push for legislation to say that religious groups whose position is that marriage is only between one man and one woman should be required also to conduct same-sex marriages, and if there were an attempt to change the requirements, that would impact on those Churches and religious groups. Any attempt to introduce such a requirement would have to go through the Assembly.

Dr Tyrrell: I have heard those concerns. Certainly, a number of the stakeholder evidence papers that we received included those concerns. I am not a lawyer, I am a policy adviser, but my reading of the legislation is that there is nothing in it that would compel faith groups to perform ceremonies that they did not want to perform. Faith groups will have exactly the same freedoms after this Bill receives Royal Assent as they had before the Bill came into play. There will be no change on account of the Bill. It does not affect the freedoms of faith groups.

Mr Kingston: It is just the wording at clause 2(4). If the Registrar General believes that the belief group

could be read as meaning that future changes could be brought in. My understanding is that any changes would have to be approved by the Assembly and could not just be made by the Registrar General or the Department.

Dr Tyrrell: I do not have a copy of the legislation, but I think that that refers to the stricter qualifying criteria. It is pretty much what I said about the strict criteria: there would have to be a process of consultation, and then the Assembly would have to approve them. Now, the stricter criteria are primarily intended to introduce an extra layer, or an extra couple of criteria, into the current process. That would be the most effective way of bringing those into play. However, I certainly do not see them as affecting the existing freedoms of faith groups. Faith groups will continue to have the freedom to perform the types of marriage ceremony that they believe to be appropriate, and no other ceremonies. Am I right about that?

Ms Fidelma O'Hagan (Department of Finance): Yes.

Dr Tyrrell: I hope that I am not reading something into that.

Ms O'Hagan: No. A protection against compulsion is written into the Bill at clause 4(8). It extends the protection presently to include people who want a belief marriage to be solemnised. That is protected, absolutely. The clause 2(4) provisions that were referred to relate to any qualifying criteria that might be introduced further to an assessment of what might be needed at that time, which Martin spoke to earlier. It is a separate process.

Mr Kingston: OK. Thank you.

Ms Murphy: Martin, I just want to stick to the issue of stricter criteria. I suppose that I am kind of talking hypothetically because — based on what you are after informing us of — we do not really have a issue with independent groups. If we were to look at that, albeit that we would have to go through consultation, what stricter criteria might be imposed by the Department at a later date? You also touched on potential equality issues off the back of that.

Dr Tyrrell: The equality issues that I immediately think of are that, if we say that a group has to have a certain number of members and has to have been in existence for a certain number of years, we are penalising newness. Say the level was 50: you have to have 50 members to be able to perform a marriage, and a group has only got 30. It might say, "There is another group with 30 members that is already performing marriages. It got approval before any of this came into existence, and you are saying that we cannot perform marriages with 30 members. That is not equal. It is not fair treatment". There might be a case. It also penalises newness: a new group can be as sincere as a group that has existed for hundreds of years. A small group may not have any intention of becoming bigger. Some groups that are very sincere in their beliefs do not seek converts. They may welcome people who come looking for them, but they do not go out and seek converts. We would hit some problems. Then there is the difficulty of a split. If a religious group or belief group splits, its splinter group or breakaway group could apply and say, "Well, we have been performing marriages for the past 10 years. Just because we have broken away on a matter of principle, ideology or whatever, we are being barred from performing marriages and treated as new, even though we have actually been doing it for a long time".

I just see a lot of problems there on the equality side. I am not sure about the actual criteria. I would leave that to the process of consultation and desk research. If we go down the stricter criteria route, we will do that and carry out an assessment of the types of criteria that we are lacking. We would look at the current process for any potential gaps and how they might best be filled. We would do that first in consultation with the GRO, and subsequently with the stakeholders.

Ms Murphy: Thank you, Martin. Just a point of clarity on the new child marriage offence: will it apply to ceremonies that have taken place outside of this jurisdiction?

Dr Tyrrell: If the parties to the ceremony, or one of them, is normally resident here, the marriage will not be recognised here when they come back.

Ms Murphy: It will not be?

Dr Tyrrell: No.

Ms Murphy: Thank you for that. One final question: on the topic of the new child marriage offence and the practical implementation of this Bill, what training will be provided for the likes of safeguarding agencies and schools?

Dr Tyrrell: I do not know. We have focused on the actual content of the law. I am sorry, I do not have an answer to that question.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): I presume that, whenever marriage law is updated, the GRO normally sends out a communication to the main Churches, denominations, civil registry offices and the humanist groups that are currently permitted. In one sense, it is a continuation of the law in relation to belief and non-religious marriage, but in relation to marriage under 18, those are stakeholders. They are service providers that will need to know, even if the numbers are relatively tiny at this stage. The Catholic Church, the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, the local councils and all those organisations will need to know.

Dr Tyrrell: That would be the kind of thing that I would expect to see in the training for civil registrars in particular, who work directly under the Registrar General. That would become an element of their training.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): You mentioned that 5,000 marriages have happened since 2017. Out of interest, has there been a corresponding dip in the number of civil marriages by people who want an alternative to traditional religious marriage for whatever reason who might previously have had a straightforward civil ceremony?

Dr Tyrrell: There might well have been. I have not looked at the figures that closely. I assume that there were disguised belief marriages — that people who wanted a belief marriage went through the civil registration process and now have an alternative. The number of marriages in any year varies from 7,000 to 8,000. I have not looked at the figures.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): If there are 7,000 to 8,000 marriages, and 500 of those are currently belief marriages, it is less than 10%.

Nobody else wishes to ask a question. That has been helpful. I have one final point just to exhaust the questions, because we do not want to have to drag you back, and I am sure you do not want that either. Further to Áine's question about under-18 marriage, the offence of conducting a marriage for a person under the age of 18 is an offence — this seems obvious — committed in Northern Ireland. It is not an offence for somebody who breaks marriage law in another jurisdiction, because we cannot legislate for that.

Dr Tyrrell: The adult arrangers of the marriage might be liable if they are based in Northern Ireland. I think that, if you have adult arrangers of a child marriage in Northern Ireland, and the child marriage takes place outside of Northern Ireland, they —. Am I right on that?

Ms Nixon: Yes, That is correct. The conduct itself can take place outside of Northern Ireland. It does not have to have taken place in Northern Ireland for it to be an offence under these proposals.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): OK. That is helpful. I have no further questions. Thank you for coming in.