Impact case study database

Impact on registrars’ practice

Pywell’s research confirmed anecdotal evidence that, despite almost all the 136 respondent registrars knowing the relevant law, there was considerable variation – even within the same registration service – in the wedding vows that they would instinctively permit couples to use [O1]. Most registrars did not immediately recognise as religious any vows other than the Church of England’s traditional ‘to have and to hold… to love and to cherish…’ – and even this would have been allowed by 25% of respondents. These findings support a reported account of a couple who were told, on the day before their wedding, that they could not use these words, despite their having previously been approved by a different superintendent registrar. Such inconsistencies distress couples: in the reported case, the groom stumbled over his amended words, and the bride ‘got the giggles’, marring the dignity of the occasion (see Robin de Peyer. ‘Couple’s wedding vows “too religious” for Tower Hamlets officials’, East London Advertiser, 3 July 2013. Available: https://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk/news/couple-s-wedding-vows-too-religious-for-tower-hamlets-officials-3446806, accessed 5 January 2021).

A Senior Registration Officer (SRO) from Gloucestershire Registration Service (GRS) read Pywell and Probert’s “excellent and informative guest post to Law & Religion UK”, and requested a copy of their article [O1]. She expressed her appreciation: “The full article was fascinating, and I have shared an overview of your methodology and findings with the rest of our team” [C1].

The SRO later explained how practice within GRS (which conducted 3,057 mixed-sex civil weddings in 2017) have changed as a result of the article: “[W]e included an overview of your study methodology and results in one of our Ceremonies Team’s regular training meetings […]. We […] will do further research and discuss together any requests where a decision is not immediately obvious. This applies as much to wording and readings that appear not to be ‘seemly and dignified’ as much as to religious readings, as you discuss in page 19 of your article […]. The discussion of the legal background has been useful in justifying our decisions to some couples who have challenged us” [C2].

GRS also developed a resource containing examples of wording, readings and music that have been classified as ‘religious’ or ‘essentially non-religious’, and these same lists are written on a “a large board in their office with the two lists for quick reference”. Pywell’s research “has increased our confidence in reaching decisions. We realise now, having read your article, that other districts struggle with the same questions, and that there often isn’t a ‘right’ answer, only the best answer we can give […] to be consistent […] and to give a reason for any decision to decline any particular request”. GRS is continuing “ to add to the resource that we created directly stimulated by your research” [C2].

The SRO contacted the registration services in the 14 other districts in the South West region – where another 18,852 mixed-sex civil weddings took place in 2017 – sharing GRS’s lists of ‘religious’ and ‘essentially non-religious’ sources to initiate a discussion on consistency and best practice between registration services: “Do you have a definition of ‘essentially religious’ that you find helpful in making decisions? [...] I offer our own current list of material we do and do not permit as our ‘starter for ten’” [C3]. This email was forwarded to Pywell on 13 March 2020, and England and Wales went into lockdown on 24 March. From that date, every registration service had to deal with very significant difficulties, including excess deaths with additional reporting requirements, the cancellation of all marriage ceremonies, and the inability to register births. The resultant backlog of work did not clear during the subsequent nine months and made it impossible to gather any evidence regarding the extent and nature of any changes made in response to GRS’s communication.

Impact on civil wedding celebrants’ practices and professional standards

Pywell’s research into wedding celebrants was half-funded (GBP6,000) by the Wedding Celebrancy Commission (WCC), because it was keen to have an independent academic view of celebrants’ work. Pywell found that almost all celebrants refer to their ceremonies as ‘wedding celebrations’ or ‘wedding ceremonies’, and some refer simply to ‘weddings’ or ‘marriages’. This terminology could lead couples to believe that such ceremonies result in their being legally married [O2]. This mistaken belief can have catastrophic consequences if the relationship breaks down: the couple remain no more than ‘common-law spouses’, whose lack of rights is the focus of political and social concern (see, e.g. BBC News, Cohabiting couples warned of ‘common law marriage’ myths, 27 November 2017).

Pywell found that the WCC’s Professional Standards for Celebrants – Couples Ceremonies did not require celebrants to ensure that couples are aware of the lack of legal status of a ceremony. She pointed this out to the WCC, who swiftly replied that Pywell had made “a very good point […] As a result of your research, we believe that there needs to be a change to our professional standards”, and noted that another of Pywell’s comments had led to: “a further suggestion that celebrants alter booking forms so couples sign to say they understand the ceremony has no legal implications. We will consider this as well [...]” [C4]. The WCC’s ‘Advising on and Managing Ceremony Choices – Couples Ceremonies’ standard was amended 19 days after Pywell had made the WCC aware of these issues. The first item in the ‘Competent to perform’ section is now “Inform all couples clearly that the ceremony conducted does not create a legally binding marriage” [C5].

These clarifications will ensure that the estimated 10,000 couples per year who opt for celebrant-led ceremonies are fully aware that they will acquire no legal rights or obligations.

Pywell delivered a webinar summarising her findings and recommendations to 20 independent celebrants on 12 October 2020. She subsequently answered questions from those present, and a recording of the session in YouTube on the WCC’s website had received 223 views as at 31 December 2020 [C6]. She was subsequently told that: “The statistics that you were able to produce have great impact, not only as they are the first to be compiled, but they also add context to the celebrant’s role and are therefore invaluable […]. It has been immeasurably important for celebrants to gain a deeper understanding of the sector that they work in, and your work, and the presentation of it directly to celebrants, makes a huge difference to this” [C7]. For unknown technical reasons, not all the participants are visible in the YouTube recording, which was made by one of Pywell’s colleagues.

Impact on the Law Commission’s ‘Weddings’ project

The aim of ‘Weddings’ is to “provide recommendations for a reformed law of weddings that allows for greater choice within a simple, fair and consistent legal structure”. Its principles for reform are: “Certainty and simplicity; fairness and equality; protecting the state’s interest; respecting individuals’ wishes and beliefs; and removing any unnecessary regulation, so as to increase the choice and lower the cost of wedding venues for couples” (Law Commission, Getting Married: A Consultation Paper on Weddings Law, 3 September 2020, paras 1.68 and 1.69).

The Law Commission’s consultation paper cites Pywell’s research 18 times [C8], referring to findings such as:

• An estimated 10,000 ceremonies – a number that has doubled since 2015 – are conducted annually by independent wedding celebrants [O2];

• The availability of ‘minimal’ ceremonies is often severely limited [O4, O5];

• The legal requirement to use the words ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ should be removed, as these terms exclude some transgender, gender-fluid and intersex people [O1];

• Some words that are currently not allowed in civil weddings because they are ‘religious’ do not in fact include reference to any deity, afterlife or the sanctity of marriage [O1];

• The fees most commonly charged by independent celebrants are comparable with those charged by most registration services for weddings at approved premises, such as hotels, stately homes and barns [O2].

Pywell’s body of work thus ensures that the Consultation Paper is based on current evidence, and that the respondents who offer views on how the law should be reformed will be better-informed. The Law Commissioner provided a letter for the Panel, stating that Pywell’s research “informed the Commission’s thinking as we formulated our provisional proposals for reform of the law”, and outlining the specific impacts of [O1, O2, O4, O5, O3] had not been published when the Consultation Paper was drafted [C9]. Pywell received a personal invitation from the Law Commission to act as a consultee, and her response referred to [O3].

The content and impact of the Law Commission’s final report, due in 2021, remain to be seen, but there is widespread public support for a review of this area of law. The judgment in R (Harrison and others) v Secretary of State for Justice [2020] EWHC 2096 (Administrative Division; 7 and 8 July 2020) accepted that the current law discriminates against humanist couples, because they cannot be married by a celebrant of their choice. However, Mrs Justice Eady declined to rule in favour of the claimants because of the imminence of the Law Commission’s review. She commented that its result should be the removal of discrimination against humanist and all other couples who cannot marry in accordance with their beliefs or non-beliefs. Counsel for both parties in the case had pre-publication access to [O3], and one Barrister-at-Law involved in the case confirmed that Pywell’s research “was carefully considered by counsel in this case and it did help to inform the arguments” [C10]. The reasoning inherent in the judgment – that there should be a much wider choice of celebrants – reflects one of Pywell’s main recommendations.