---

Church of England Marriage Measure

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their remarks. We are consistently grateful, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, said, to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd. He has now had to go to a dinner engagement, for which he kindly made himself late so that he could fulfil his role at this moment. The committee does its business with great expedition and, generally, with considerable friendliness as well as a proper sharpness. It was, in that instance, sharp, friendly and expeditious and we are grateful for that. I am grateful to the noble Baroness both for her general comments and her public appreciation of Miss Ingrid Slaughter, who is present this evening and who has indeed been, and in all kinds of ways continues to be, a remarkable servant of the Church of England. In an earlier incarnation, she was also of relevance to the power industry, given our previous debate. I was then interested in the comments of the final two speakers, the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, who speaks so eloquently for the Welsh Methodist position and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn. I am grateful to them and respond in two ways. First, on the Ecclesiastical Committee, those who represented the General Synod noted that, yes, at a number of points the ways in which this measure worked out would need to be kept under review. Would particular or lovely churches be swamped? Would the Church of England be able to service the measure by providing marriage preparation at a distance, as it were, encouraging connections between clergy in one place where the marriage takes place and clergy in the church from which the people came? We noted that we needed to keep the measure under review in those respects. The question of the ecumenical scene and its changes was not raised on that occasion. That is a very important point. Clearly, if we make progress, whether on the Church of England-Methodist covenant or in other ways, aspects of the measure will need to be brought up to date as we do so. Flexibility is extremely important, as is proper preparation. The really significant element—because this is the only one the Church of England can manage—is marriage by a rite of the Church of England. Of course, if that were in the context of a local ecumenical partnership, where a Church of England service was taking place in Methodist premises in a parish, it would be entered in the register books of the parish concerned and that would be relevant to the measure, as it would had the parents’ marriage been so solemnized, as it might have been. I appreciate the noble Lord’s point about suitcases. Among the main drivers for this measure is the desire to try to avoid clergy kindly agreeing to break the law, and couples pressing clergy to break the law, or breaking the law—technically speaking, the Marriage Act 1949—by being reduced to leaving suitcases and saying that that constitutes residence. It is precisely to make it easier for people with real qualifying connections to marry according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England that this measure has been brought forward. I am grateful for those two points—encouraging us to look at it carefully as time goes on and keep it under review, and to look for any further elements of flexibility that are within our power to adopt. That concludes my response. It now falls to me to ask the House to approve the Motion. On Question, Motion agreed to.