HC Deb 15 July 1994 vol 246 cc1327-40

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered; reported, without amendment.

Order for Third Reading read.

1.4 pm

Mr. Gyles Brandreth (City of Chester)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I am pleased to say that the Bill enjoys support on both sides of the House and beyond. You may have noticed, Madam Deputy Speaker, that today every national newspaper is carrying a delightful picture of yesterday's royal wedding. I hope that you have also seen a wonderful British film called "Four Weddings and a Funeral", which is a considerable box office hit—one of the most successful British films ever made. It is playing to marvellous business throughout this country and on five continents.

It seems that the whole world loves an English wedding and my Bill is designed to give couples who choose a civil wedding in England and Wales even greater choice as to where their marriages take place. The Bill would implement two of the most popular recommendations contained in the Government's 1990 White Paper, "Registration: proposals for change"—those aimed at introducing greater choice and flexibility for couples over a venue for civil marriage, by empowering local authorities to license suitable buildings, in addition to registry offices, as venues for such marriages, and by allowing couples to marry by civil ceremony in any registry office or approved building in England and Wales.

As the law stands, couples wishing to marry by civil ceremony have to do so at the registry office in the district where at least one of them resides. There are many reasons why people wish to marry by civil ceremony in other places, the most common being that they have moved away from their family home to study or work, but wish to return there for their marriage. Perhaps the registry office does not meet their expectations of a suitable place for marriage—it may not be sufficiently stylish or large. Those of us who believe in marriage want it to be celebrated in the style and manner that the couple choose.

Mr. Peter Luff (Worcester)

I would appreciate it if my hon. Friend could reassure those of us who watched, "Love Story" and saw the rather sickening chic of the marriage sequence in that film, or who occasionally browse through the pages of Hello! magazine and have seen some of the grosser excesses of Las Vegas-style weddings, that his Bill will not open the floodgates for such scenes.

Mr. Brandreth

I am shocked by the revelation that my hon. Friend reads Hello! magazine. "Love Story" is not a British movie and therefore not one that I have seen. My hon. Friend can be reassured that there is no way that we want to move towards the Las Vegas style of wedding. Marriage is, we hope, a uniquely important event in any couple's life and the ceremony must be conducted with dignity in suitable premises. I shall elaborate in a moment.

By allowing local authorities to approve buildings such as stately homes and hotels as venues for civil marriages, and by removing the requirement to marry in the district of residence, the Bill will give allow members of the public a greater choice over the venue of their marriages.

Mr. Roger Evans (Monmouth)

My hon. Friend mentioned stately homes and hotels. I do not understand whether it is a requirement of the Bill that a marriage should take place in a public place, in the sense that an approved location is one to which the public can have access.

Mr. Brandreth

Yes. Being a distinguished lawyer, my hon. Friend has gone to the heart of the matter. One of the basics of the English marriage is that it should take place in a public place, so the place must be accessible to the public. Obviously a constituency such as mine, which is rich in heritage and packed with historic buildings and the finest hotels, is ideal. Candidly, I foresee a day when the City of Chester becomes the most popular location for weddings in the United Kingdom.

The Bill ensures that local authorities adopt a responsible attitude in approving buildings for civil marriages, by providing for the making of regulations setting out the procedures to be followed by councils. That follows consultation with the local authority associations and the drawing up of formal guidelines. The Bill has the support of the Association of County Councils, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, and the Society of Registration Officers—the registrars' professional organisation.

Mr. David Lidington (Aylesbury)

I am concerned because the Bill does not mention the Association of District Councils. For those of us who live outside the main metropolitan areas, the district council is the chief planning authority and it might be worried if unsuitable premises, from a planning point of view, were selected by the county council. Has my hon. Friend taken that into account in the Bill?

Mr. Brandreth

Yes. My hon. Friend will find that district and county councils will be able to work together on this in a satisfactory way. I shall show him the range of consultation that has taken place and he will be reassured on the involvement of the district councils.

As I have mentioned the registration service, this could be an appropriate point at which to pay a tribute to that service and the contribution that it has made to the civilised ordering of important moments in all our lives. The registration service in England and Wales came into being in 1837 and, in many respects, its organisation and procedures have not changed greatly up to the present day. It is in some ways comparable with the city of Chester and—some would say—with the hon. Member for the City of Chester in that it is a service that is as modern as tomorrow and yet has a lot of time for yesterday.

Mrs. Angela Knight (Erewash)

I am sure that my hon. Friend is whetting the appetites of those who wish learn about the provisions of the Bill and about the delights of the city of Chester. When will the proposals be put into effect if the House agrees to them?

Mr. Brandreth

If the Bill goes through the House and has a satisfactory passage through the other place, we hope that weddings will be taking place in this way this time next year, so it will be reasonably imminent.

Exactly a decade ago, the Government's programme of efficiency scrutinies included an inquiry into the registration service. The findings were published in the efficiency scrutiny report on the registration of births, marriages and deaths, and the report made nearly 50 recommendations for change.

In 1987, the Government announced that if time could be found, new legislation would be introduced. As a first step, a working group was set up and was asked to consider the scrutiny recommendations and to make proposals for the form that the legislation should take. The working group covered a wide range of interests, with representations from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, the Department of Health and Social Security—as it then was—the Home Office, the Association of County Councils and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. In sub-groups of the working party, the Society of Registration Officers, the National and Local Government Officers Association—as it then was—the Local Authorities Conditions of Service Advisory Board, the Society of Genealogists, the Institute of Population Registration and the Institute of Heraldic and Genealogical Studies were also represented. The consultation process was wide and deep.

Mr. Michael Stern (Bristol, North-West)

My hon. Friend has given a long and impressive list of professional societies, corporate bodies and voluntary organisations which were consulted in connection with the Bill. Were people at any stage also consulted?

Mr. Brandreth

Very much so. The working group reported in 1988 and its recommendations were published in a Green Paper called "Registration: a modern service". That Green Paper received 600 responses from throughout the United Kingdom, including many from public bodies and other organisations, but also many from individuals. The great majority of those who responded registered broad agreement with the proposals.

In January 1990, the White Paper to which I referred was published and the proposals that it contained put forward a sound basis for reforming and modernising the registration service in England and Wales. Because of the many other reforms that this great reforming Government have introduced, it has not yet been possible to find time in the parliamentary programme to introduce the legislation necessary to implement many of the proposals. I am aiming to remedy the matter from the Back Benches.

Last year, I introduced a Bill relating to the registration of deaths. The Bill whose Third Reading we are now considering proposes to introduce two of the most popular recommendations contained in the White Paper to give members of the public greater choice over where their civil marriages may take place. It will also give local authorities greater scope and flexibility to deliver a service geared to the needs of the local population.

I pay tribute to hon. Members on both sides of the House for the work that they have undertaken to get the Bill to this stage. I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), who has taken a keen interest in this matter. He has been actively supported from his Front Bench by the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) and by the spokesperson on the Liberal Democrats Front Bench—I suppose that it is its lone Bench really—the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne).

In Committee, the hon. Member for Leyton tabled half a dozen amendments, half of which would have brought a religious dimension to what is essentially a Bill about civil marriage. It is important to understand that the Bill relates to civil marriages. About half the marriages that take place nowadays in England and Wales are civil weddings.

The hon. Member for Leyton wanted the Bill amended to allow for religious marriages to be solemnised in any building approved by local authorities. He felt, in particular, that it should be made a requirement for every local authority to approve a Buddhist or a Hindu temple, a Muslim mosque or a Sikh gurdwara within its area and that persons other than registrars should be able to solemnise such marriages.

I hope that I was able to reassure the hon. Member that the law already provides for the registration for marriages of any building used as a place for religious worship and certified as such by the Registrar-General. I believe that the procedures involved are reasonably straightforward and the cost is certainly minimal. There are 281 eastern religious buildings currently registered for marriages in England and Wales. There is scope for further considerable extension. Marriage ceremonies in those buildings can already be performed by the religious celebrant, where that is required.

The hon. Member for Leyton also tabled an amendment to allow marriages to take place in gardens and other public open spaces, bringing English law into line with that of other parts of the world. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) mentioned the possibility of beach-style weddings, the sort of thing that might feature in American or Australian films. That would change English marriage law fundamentally. My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) raised that point in a timely intervention. Apart from specific and historical exceptions, marriages in England and Wales must take place in a registry office, a church or chapel of the Church of England or the Church of Wales, or in buildings of other religious denominations, Christian or non-Christian, registered for marriages. It is a basic tenet of English law that marriages take place in buildings publicly recognised as being suitable and approved for the purpose.

It is also necessary for the venue of the marriage to be capable of clear description so that a specific and known venue can be included on the notice displayed at the registry office and to give ample opportunity for any legal objection to be made. The idea of a wedding in a garden may seem romantic, but it could be an elusive venue. We do not want to encourage people to get married behind the bushes. We want to know where the marriage is taking place.

The climate in our country might be said to be against open-air marriages. It might be possible for a marriage to take place in what could be described as a garden room within a permanent structure. It would not be possible, however, to hold a marriage in a large open space, somewhere like Hyde park, because one would arrive to witness the wedding, but would not know where it was—it could be anywhere. That is why we do not envisage open-air marriages.

A moored ship on a permanent site, such as the Thames, might be a possibility as a venue, but not a free-floating vessel. One must know where—[Laughter.] My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) is amused at that suggestion, but there is a serious point behind it. One wants to be able to attend a wedding, let us say—[Laughter.]

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)

I intervene to assist the hon. Gentleman while he convulses. It is an interesting point. Should not marriages be conducted on a moving vessel?

Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South)

On a submarine?

Mr. Banks

Some marriages would have been better conducted in a submarine, kept quiet and never allowed to rise to the surface. What about a captain's power to twin people? I thought that captains still had such power. Would it go?

Mr. Brandreth

That power will not be affected. We are talking about civil weddings in England and Wales. My serious point—it is wonderful that such a happy measure is being received in such happy terms—is that it is vital that people are able to have access to the place where a wedding is taking place. Although we want to introduce greater choice in respect of a wedding venue, it is a serious and important public event. Therefore, access to it by the general public is essential. A wedding must be at a location that is well known, open to the public and, consequently, stationary.

The hon. Member for Leyton withdrew an amendment aimed at ensuring that the regulations that are provided for in the Bill would be formally approved by the House and the other place rather than being subject to affirmative resolution. Although I recognise the importance of the Bill—the number of right hon. and hon. Members who are present today underlines its importance—I do not believe that the regulations made under it are of such significance that they warrant the affirmative resolution procedure.

In Committee, I was able to offer some good news to the hon. Member for Leyton—this will please my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mrs. Knight)—who asked when the legislation would be implemented. I have encouraging news on the timetable for the implementation of the Bill. The hon. Member for Leyton proposed that the Bill should automatically come into force three months after receiving Royal Assent. I do not believe that such an amendment would have been necessary.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister. Not only is he a fine Minister and an adornment to any Government, but he has taken a particular interest in the work of the registration service. Publicly and behind the scenes, he has worked hard to ensure that the important reforms are put forward as rapidly but as sagely as possible. I have been assured by my hon. Friend that, should the Bill pass into law this Session, from January next year, couples will be able to marry in the register office of their choice in England and Wales.

Clause 2, however, requires the making of regulations and the setting up of the necessary procedures for the approval of premises by local authorities. We do not want to harm a good job by doing it in a hurry, particularly when, as has been said, there might be a need for discussions between county councils and district councils. A three-month deadline would be restrictive. I hope that the provisions can be brought into effect within the first six months of next year.

A spring or early summer wedding in an approved building is therefore a distinct possibility. Think of it, Madam Deputy Speaker—this time next year, at wedding receptions across the land, once the bride and groom have been toasted and once the best man has celebrated the bridesmaids, glasses might be raised to the hon. Members who give a fair wind to the Bill today.

Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed)

Would it not be very good if, as they raised their glasses, they could think of the prospect of living in a warm and comfortable home which had been enhanced by the House also making progress on the Energy Conservation Bill?

Mr. Brandreth

We have to proceed one measure at a time, but I understand the right hon. Gentleman's desire to move on to his business, which is why I conclude by saying that this is a good-news Bill which is designed only to add to the nation's sum of human happiness. I commend it to the House.

1.24 pm
Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton)

I welcome the Bill and the change that will occur in our nation's marriage laws provided that the Bill passes all its stages before the end of this Session. I am one of the Bill's sponsors and I congratulate the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) on getting it this far. When, in Committee, he compared the Chairman, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill), to Hugh Grant, the star of "Four Weddings and a Funeral", I thought that he was pushing his luck. I am pleased that he did not compare you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to Andie MacDowell, the female lead in that film, because that certainly would have been pushing his luck. When he said that, I thought that he might—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes)

Order. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman does not push his luck. He must remember that Third Reading is about the content of the Bill.

Mr. Cohen

Yes, I had better move on to safer ground.

The current marriage laws were enacted in 1949 and are out of date and restrictive. They do not give couples who want to get married the same rights and choices as those in other countries. I want that choice to be expanded, which is why I introduced a Bill—number 13 on today's Order Paper—on St. Valentine's day last year and again this year. But my Bill will not make progress, whereas this one will. With due respect to this Bill's proposer, my Bill is better, but we must take what we can get and the form that he proposes is welcome.

This Bill deals with civil weddings and their location, whereas mine deals also with their religious aspect. In my Bill, couples can choose to get married in the manner that they wish, whereas under this Bill, the registrar decides where the venue should be, but at least it is a move in the right direction. I was particularly concerned that many couples are forced to have two weddings. In 1949, the law makers in this country knew only about the Church of England, the Quakers and the Jews. Many other ethnic minorities were not covered effectively by the wedding laws, so they have been forced to have two weddings: first, a religious ceremony—

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he is not answering an exam question comparing and contrasting the various methods. He must concentrate on the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Cohen

This Bill relates only to civil weddings, so many people will still be forced to have two weddings. Those people will be not just ethnic minorities but couples in which only one partner is religious or when the partners have different religions. Such couples will have problems. The hon. Member for City of Chester assured us that a wedding could take place in gurdwaras, mosques or temples, and I welcome that. I hope that the "Minister for marriages", as he called himself in Committee, will add his assurance in that respect. Perhaps the guidelines that his Ministry will publish will included guidance for local authorities and registrars to allow marriages to take place in those venues in all circumstances if they are located in their vicinity. I hope that the guidelines will take that matter into account.

I should like marriages to take place in gardens, open spaces and parks. That happens in other countries. It is well known that in Australia couples like to get married under Sydney bridge. I do not see why couples in this country—

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. I fear that the hon. Gentleman was not listening when I said earlier that we can discuss only what is in the Bill. Open-air locations, and certainly Sydney bridge, are not in the Bill.

Mr. Cohen

I appreciate what you are saying, Madam Deputy Speaker, but the Bill is about locations for weddings and marriages. The registrar can choose nice buildings in the location, which is right. The locations should include the person's own garden. That would fall in line with giving the couple the choice. When people get married they spend money and are prepared to do so, but some may not wish to spend too much money.

The couple may also wish to get married in the place where they will live out their vows, so their garden may have a special significance to them. It is a shame that we are still restricting that choice. The measure could still include provision for open doors, mentioned by the hon. Member for City of Chester, even if the ceremony were in an open space. There could be an arrangement so that other people could object so that the marriage complied with requirements under the current law.

I welcome the Bill. A press release has been issued by an organisation called Garlands. There is a role for celebrants to conduct marriages, as happens in other countries around the world. Our law should recognise the fact that a celebrant could have a good role to play. I should have thought that the Government would have welcomed the idea of a celebrant, who conducts a sort of business—the Government say that we should encourage small businesses.

When I was presenting my amendments in Committee I spoke to one of the Clerks of the House who said that he hoped that the Bill and the changes would be passed because when he retired he would like to build a church in a beautiful location and let people come to be married there for a charge. That is a reasonable aspiration and a business which could be encouraged by both sides of the House.

The press release is headed, "Wedding Survey Reveals Discontent with Venues". It states: More than one in five couples with no religious beliefs marries in church simply because they want the tradition and pomp of a church ceremony. 'It was everything I wanted' said one bride. 'I just closed my mind when it came to the religious bit.' A survey of recently married couples published today reveals that 60 per cent. weren't able to have their first choice of wedding venue because of Britain's current restrictive marriage laws. Churches were the first choice of those who held firm religious beliefs, but over half of those questioned would choose to marry in a beautiful garden, if they could. And stately homes, castles and hotels also came out high on everyone's list. Nobody at all gave a register office as their ideal venue. In fact, increasing numbers are voting with their feet and are getting married abroad in their search for a romantic wedding. The survey was commissioned by … Garlands"— which— specialises in organising wedding ceremonies in unusual venues. The survey continued: Current law allows a marriage to be legalised only in a register office or church … Many couples come"— to Garlands— wanting to be married in a beautiful building or by a river and then are heartbroken to find that, although they can have their own ceremony where they like, they still have to go to a register office to register their marriage. And they feel that this effectively means having two ceremonies. It states: The survey shows that religious couples often have to marry in a register office because the local priest is intransigent over divorce or mixed religions, or refuses to marry non-churchgoers. And non-religious couples often choose a church simply because they want the solemnity of atmosphere or else they end up in a register office if they aren't prepared to lie about their beliefs. Although many register offices are attempting to make their ceremonies more memorable affairs in order to accommodate the desire for a meaningful event, some are still very mundane places without character. 'Dark, dismal and naff was how one bride described her London register office. 'Drab and office like' said another. The only alternative one-stop venue at present is a church but in fact only 1 per cent. of those questioned were churchgoers. Some 53 per cent. of the brides claimed some religious beliefs and 40 per cent. of grooms. But 35 per cent. of brides and 48 per cent. of grooms said they had no religious beliefs at all. A Garlands representative said: That's very significant… Many people aren't religious but their wedding is still the most important day in their lives and they should have an equal right to a grand and dignified ceremony where they want it. If only a tiny minority of the population are churchgoers, it seems wrong that other than register offices churches are the only buildings which can be licensed to register marriages. The press release then refers to the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for City of Chester. It welcomes the relaxation of marriage laws and states that his Bill proposes that certain other buildings such as stately homes and hotels should be able to be registered for marriages and that couples should be allowed to marry in any register officer and not just the one in the local authority area in which they live. Gyles Brandreth's Bill is a start but it doesn't go far enough… I'd like to see a situation where the marriage is legalised not because of the building it takes place in but by the officiant who performs the ceremony—whether he or she is a priest, registrar or trained marriage celebrant. Then people could have their wedding where they want just as they do in the Australia and the USA. They're much more enlightened than we are. That is a press release from a company and a celebrant with knowledge in this area and it puts the issues clearly. The proposal would widen choice. It shows how out of date our marriage laws are. It shows how we could and should introduce further reform to take into account couples' wishes on marriage, which are not being met in many cases.

The Bill introduced by the hon. Member for City of Chester is an important start in the achievement of change and I welcome that. It is the only prospect of achieving change quickly. I hope that we will approve it today, that it will be passed in another place and that those many couples that the hon. Gentleman referred to can have the wedding of their choice next summer.

A change in the law will still be necessary in the not-too-distant future to increase choice so that couples' wishes can be met. I congratulate the hon. Member for City of Chester. He has set in motion important changes. The Minister for marriages is also the Under-Secretary of State for Health. The Department of Health has only few opportunities to present legislation to the House in every Session and marriages, I suspect, are a long way down the list of important matters on which health legislation is required. If it were left to the Government, it is likely that it would take several decades to change the marriage laws.

I congratulate the hon. Member for City of Chester on picking up the issue and proposing changes that can be passed by the House.

1.37 pm
Mr. Anthony Coombs (Wyre Forest)

Like the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) on introducing the Bill and on the perspicacious, persuasive, perceptive and even passionate way in which he spoke. Like a wine waiter introducing us to the virtues of a good claret, he showed that this particular variety would be distinctive and greatly enjoyed by many celebrating people.

As the hon. Member for Leyton said, it is right that we should pass a deregulation measure which will allow the 60 per cent. of people who do get their first choice of marriage venue a greater opportunity to do so. As part of my lengthy preparation for the debate, I asked the registrar of deaths and births in Kidderminster in my constituency about the figures on marriages in registry offices and in Church of England and other authorised religious establishments. In 1989–90, there were slightly more marriages in religious establishments—346 compared with 288 registry office weddings. By 1993–94, the position had been reversed and more people—286 against 283—were getting married in registry offices. The measure will give those people greater choice. The figures are not surprising as one third of marriages nowadays are remarriages.

As the hon. Member for Leyton said, sadly, parts of the Church of England take a dirigiste attitude and people are forced into registry office weddings although they would prefer a religious ceremony. That probably has something to do with the appalling fact that a 1991 survey showed that some 57 per cent. of people of the marriageable age of 18 to 24—it is getting older nowadays—were ignorant of the nature, purpose and history of Good Friday. By encouraging people in the way that the measure seeks to do, that situation could be improved.

There is a broader reason why it is important to give couples more choice of places in which to be married. It is that successful marriages depend on the involvement not only of couples' families but of their communities. Given the production line nature of many registry office weddings, it is often difficult to provide a personalised atmosphere, but the investment and memorableness of the wedding occasion are preludes to a successful marriage.

Earlier this year, The Daily Telegraph published an article in which Lesley Garner said: Marriage is more than a ritual that many consider outdated. It is the offering of protection and security under the law. Any change in the way in which people get married—especially as it affects those 50 per cent. who get married in registry offices—that underlines that and involves the family in a place that is familiar or has an impressive setting, would make it more likely that people will take their marriage vows more seriously and think more carefully about the implications. It may be a forlorn hope, but in my view that could lead to more stable marriages.

Such changes may also encourage more people to get married. At present, 25 per cent. of children are born out of wedlock. While I make no comment on people's decisions about life style, many people do not get married because they feel that it is a hassle and would not mean much to them. If they were able to get married surrounded by their family in a happy and familiar setting, they might be prepared to consider it slightly more seriously. That leads me to what I think is the Bill's only fault, which, I hope, can be remedied by the regulations that will oversee the way in which local authorities decide on the places that are appropriate for marriages.

I have a great deal of sympathy for the view expressed by the hon. Member for Leyton that we should encourage maximum flexibility in the choice of places for registered weddings. Sadly, many stately homes and chateaux mariages—the sort of hotels that would be applying for licences—are anything but the kind of places where marriage vows should be properly exchanged.

Perhaps the house of an aunt or that of a mother or father would be more appropriate for marriage vows, whether outside or indoors. The legislation should allow local authorities on a temporary or permanent basis to permit such places to be used for registered weddings after deciding that health and safety and planning regulations have been met. It is important that the public should be able to gain access to such events. Obviously, that would be up to the local authority and, ultimately, the registrar. He will have discretion over whether to marry a couple after he has seen—together, I hope, with local authority officials—the surroundings in which weddings will take place.

Provided that the regulations can be drawn up in a flexible way, people will be allowed to marry in registered surroundings of their own choice rather than the long-standing and possibly inappropriate choice of the local authority. That would meet the objectives of the Bill.

With that important proviso, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester on bringing the Bill to the House and I wish it every success.

1.46 pm
Mr. David Lidington (Aylesbury)

Like other hon. Members, I welcome the principles that animated my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) to introduce the Bill. I want to take just a few minutes to deal with three or four points of concern about the detail of the Bill, with which I hope either he or my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will deal when they reply to the debate.

My first point is that to which I alluded in an intervention; it concerns the respective duties of county and district councils. In the majority of cases, there would be little difficulty in the two local authorities reaching agreement on the designation of a particular building as a suitable site for civil marriages. There would be no problem with most hotels, to take the example most frequently cited. However, I can imagine circumstances in which there might be a clash of opinion. We all know of certain public buildings and of private buildings with a public function, such as sports stadiums, whose construction and use has been permitted by the local district council subject to fairly stringent planning conditions.

Where there is a difference of opinion between the two authorities, whose power will prevail? Will it be the county council, with its proposed right under the Bill to designate particular premises as suitable for civil marriages, or the district council, which might say that the building cannot be used because its planning conditions state that it may be used for certain defined purposes only and not for anything else? Will the county council, as registration authority, have to seek planning permission from the district council?

I want to question the definition of "premises" in the Bill. I do not think that a full answer was given to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen). I understand that a particular building or a garden attached to a building is covered by the definition of "premises". If a couple wanted a Disraeli wedding, they could book Hughenden house or its garden. If they wanted to be a little more adventurous and have a John Wilkes wedding, they could book Prebendal house in Aylesbury for that purpose. However, if they wanted a Hellfire club wedding, would the West Wycombe caves count as premises under the Bill's definition?

Even though a couple could not use a field or a large park, would a small, easily identifiable, well-defined and fenced area of open space count as premises? Could they hold a John Hampden wedding by the Ship Money memorial in the field just outside Prestwood?

My third query relates to public access. Public access is crucial because a wedding is not only a private but a public ceremony. All of us who have been through the ceremony as a participant know that the most heart-stopping moment comes when the minister or registrar asks whether there are any objections to the marriage. I am worried especially about the designation of premises outside a couple's registration district. I hope that the regulations will contain provision for adequate notice to be given—and to be given publicly—of certificates and licences so that members of the public are able to exercise their lawful right to voice a legitimate objection in that one in a million case where such an objection exists.

My final concern relates to the record of marriages taking place under the proposed new system. In passing, I regret that my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester did not feel able to include in the Bill a provision covering information additional to that contained in marriage certificates. In this respect, England and Wales have much to learn from the Scottish system.

I ask the Minister and my hon. Friend to take on board the use that genealogists make of certificates, licences and other material relating to weddings. Such material is especially important for the reconstruction of family history. Whereas my hon. Friend and I would probably not have too much difficulty tracing our ancestors, even though we might not know exactly where they were born and married or where they died, people with a more common surname might find it more difficult knowing only the name. In such cases, the place of residence and, associated with that, the place of marriage, become more important. I hope, therefore, that registers of licences and certificates provided for in the Bill, and especially of documents relating to marriages that have taken place out of a couple's home registration district, will be made available as a matter of course to genealogists and other legitimate researchers.

1.51 pm
Mr. Michael Stern (Bristol, North-West)

In view of the time, I shall be as brief as possible. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) for introducing the Bill because I was one of those caught up in the bureaucracy that he seeks to abolish.

Eighteen years ago, when my wife and I were planning to get married, I was living and working in London and she was living and working in High Wycombe, although we wished to marry in York where her parents lived and where she had been brought up. In order to be married in York, not only did she have to re-establish her residence there for a couple of months before the wedding but I had to make four separate visits to the registrar in London to persuade him to study up and get the forms right to enable us to be married in York. My impression was that if two professional, reasonably articulate people found it so difficult to overcome such bureaucracy, most people must be living in sin because they could not have got through all the hoops in the first place.

I hope that either the Minister or my hon. Friend can clarify, first, the religious use of premises. The notes that my hon. Friend has helpfully circulated state that for premises to be registered under the Bill there must be no recent or continuing connection with any religion. Filton folk centre is a major public building in the town of Filton in my constituency, and it would be ideal for registration under the Bill as drafted. However, at weekends it is regularly used for services by at least one major evangelical Christian group.

The premises would be perfectly adequate for the celebration of marriages at other times or, indeed, at the same time because there are plenty of rooms in the building. I hope that the restriction under the regulations concerning connection with any religion will be applied, if necessary, not to the whole of a building but to a particular part of a building or a particular part of a building at a particular time. If not, what would otherwise be ideal premises will be completely excluded.

There are two matters on which the Bill does not go far enough. There has already been some discussion of whether people should be entitled to be married in a private home or their own home. In fact, quietly, the Bill permits that in two types of home. The Bill will permit the marriage at home of the owners or occupiers of a stately home or their families. It will permit the marriage at home of the owner-occupiers or employees living on the premises of a hotel. That is wholly admirable. I hope that in building on the legislation in future that principle could be extended. I hope that the matter can be considered in the regulations.

I understand the difficulties that are admirably expressed in the notes that my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester circulated in relation to his argument that weddings must be held in a public place. However, I commend to him the principle that the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) and I became used to in our youth. At certain times of the year—I am thinking of the passover service held at home—private premises are thrown open to all comers. The door is left open and an extra place is laid at the table to anyone who wishes to walk in. I can see no reason why, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) said, a private house cannot be made into a public place for a particular purpose and on a particular occasion. There are now many religions and branches of religions in this country for which either a combined religious and civil ceremony or one following the other would be ideally held at home. I cannot honestly see any reason why the law should be so restrictive as to bar people from ordering what is often the most important day in their life as they and their families desire.

The second matter is that, to my great regret, while the Bill and the proposed regulations under it recognise the increasing practice of registrars of allowing some music at a civil ceremony, there is still a crazy distinction—I can only describe it as such—between religious and secular music. Why is it that popular tunes such as "Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring" or "Sheep May Safely Graze" are barred from use in a ceremony because they originally formed part of a cantata? Why is it that Rossini's "Stabat Mater", which has been described by critics as the most secular piece of religious music ever written, should be barred because of its title?

Why is it that if one is particularly fond of Ravel's "Danses Sacrées et Profanes"—roughly translated as sacred and secular dances—one has to pick the bits of the dances that are permitted to be played legally at a ceremony? It is a crazy distinction and any registrar who was serious about it would find that there was little secular music that had not been made into a hymn tune at some time or another.

I hope that when the regulations are made under the Bill they will be somewhat wider in their application to what is permissible. Subject to that, I commend my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester for introducing the Bill. I wish he had been in a position to do so 19 years ago and I certainly do not wish to delay its passage.

1.58 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville)

Time is pressing on so I shall simply limit myself to dealing with some of the points raised during the debate. First, the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) raised yet again his obviously deeply felt desire to have been married in a garden. As we know, there are some problems with marriage law—

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. My problem is that that is scarcely relevant.

Mr. Sackville

That is what I was about to say, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall turn to my next point.

The Bill is about civil marriage. Matters to do with marriages in temples are taken care of. Those places can be registered and, as long as an authorised person or registrar is present, there need be only one ceremony. I think therefore that that is not relevant to today.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) made a good point about which local authority would be designating. The answer is that it is metropolitan boroughs, county councils and London borough councils at present. That will remain the case, although district councils—of course, there may be changes in all this; we do not know—can put forward their own civic buildings for consideration. But there will be no change to that.

My hon. Friend said that among other excellent places in his constituency are the Hellfire club caves at Wycombe. I have to tell him that I used to play in a rock band called "The Hellfire Club", and I have some knowledge of the activities that those gentlemen—Wilkes and others—got up to in the caves. Those activities would not lend any sort of dignity to the institution of marriage, so the answer to his question is probably no. Being caves, they can hardly be called a permanent structure, either—although that is a matter for geologists.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr.Stern) raised a number of interesting points. He pointed to the criteria for designation, and mentioned a place used by religious groups at some point. The criterion will be something along these lines: any building that would be seemly and dignified, and therefore appropriate to the institution of marriage, will be permitted. The fact that such buildings might be used at some other time for religious purposes would probably not be relevant, but that would have to be left to the discretion of the local authority concerned.

On the matter of the music, I was deeply impressed, as was the whole House, with my hon. Friend's erudition in these matters. If I may, I will write to him and deal with what he said.

I warmly welcome the Bill. We have a strange, quaint custom, particularly at the beginning of Adjournment debates, of welcoming debates that do nothing to help the Government, and congratulating hon. Members who are about to get up and do everything that they can to destroy one's credibility. In this case, however, I most sincerely and warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth). For the past two years, I have been trying to find ways to help the White Paper commitment to the improvement of civil marriage. My hon. Friend has made that possible. I am quite sure that what he and other hon. Members have said—that this will add to the dignity and, we must now say, the popularity of marriage at a time when it certainly needs it—means that this is one of the most useful and beneficial pieces of legislation to have emerged in the past 11 years.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.