Marriage Law Reform in England and Wales

The reform of marriage law in England and Wales seems finally to be on the agenda. Last month I met with the Law Commission to discuss the reform of marriage law and contribute to a national scoping study. The Law Commission is a statutory independent body created by the Law Commissions Act 1965 to keep the law under review and to recommend reform where it is needed. The aim of the Commission is to ensure that the law is fair, modern, simple and effective. For many years there has been no appetite for reforming marriage law; it has been put in the “too difficult” box.

Changes have, of course, been made over the years, not least the introduction of same sex marriage, but marriage is still fundamentally governed by the Marriage Act 1949, as amended. On this occasion it seems likely that further work will be requested from the Law Commission with a consultation paper leading to final proposals and perhaps draft legislation

The scoping study is therefore an important first stage in the process of reform of the law governing how and where people can marry in England and Wales. Their work does not cover Scotland as marriage is a responsibility of the Scottish Parliament. They wish to consider what issues exist within the current law, and possible avenues for reform. They were asked to undertake the work by the Government following the Government’s consultation on allowing the solemnization of marriage by non-religious belief bodies. This arose out of support in Parliament for such a change in the law when the issue was raised during consideration of the legislation on same-sex marriage. The Law Commission’s work is, however, wider than that of the consultation.

As part of the scoping study, they were interested to hear from different faith groups as to their experiences of the current law, any concerns they would like to raise, and any possible reforms they would like to see and that’s why they approached the General Assembly.  So off I went to the Home Office.

It was made clear that they would not be making recommendations for reform at this stage but that they wished to explore issues such as:
• who should have the authority to solemnize marriages,
• where marriages should be able to take place,
• what forms marriages should be able to take,
• what is required by way of prior notice and subsequent registration, and
• how the law deals with ceremonies that fail to comply with some or all of the legal requirements.

The work will not include who can be married, so there will be no consideration of changing the age of consent or the restrictions on marrying within prohibited degrees; the question of whether or not religious groups should be obliged to solemnize marriages of same sex couples nor of the rights or responsibilities which marriage imparts, such as the financial entitlements of surviving spouses or the consequences of divorce.

Aside from consideration of same-sex marriage there has not been any substantive recent discussion on possible marriage reform at the General Assembly Annual Meetings. I managed in the limited timescale available to ask for views from Ministers and Lay People in Charge. There was a remarkable (for Unitarians!) unanimity of views, particularly on moving towards a celebrant rather than a building based system, as in Scotland and indeed Ireland.

When I met the Law Commission I was able to explain the distinctive nature of Unitarian and Free Christian marriage belief and practice emphasising its diversity. In many ways the religious/non-religious boundary central to the current law is not helpful to our approach which seeks to make the wishes of the couple central to the marriage ceremony within our inclusive framework. There is also a need for greater simplicity in the administrative processes which would help authorised persons.

The Commission plan to produce a paper at the end of the year with their findings. At the latter stages, of course, the General Assembly will have more opportunities to make a more formal response.

To many Unitarians and Free Christians our involvement in the solemnization of marriage is an important contribution to our local communities, offering a service to all rather than simply to our membership. It is something I am sure we value and wish to maintain.

That we were invited to join in discussions on the future of marriage law affecting England and Wales is another endorsement of our position as a small yet influential faith group often leading the way on social change. This is, of course, an important role that the General Assembly plays on behalf of local congregations. I look forward to seeing this issue progressing to legislation.

Faith and Place in 20th and 21st Century England

I have pleased to participate in a workshop at English Heritage yesterday on use of historic assets and creating new faith spaces in England. We had a eclectic mix of old denominations; Quakers, Free Churches and Unitarians, as well as the new churches, who often have to decide whether or not to buy buildings from other users that may be listed.

We did a timeline which will feature on English Heritage's website which helped me reflect upon the Unitarian and Free Christian contribution to the built heritage of England; not least adding the Ancient Chapel of Toxteth in Liverpool from the early 1600's to the listing and other significant chapels and churches. We hold these buildings in trust for the nation as well as our congregations and local communities which brings rights and responsibilities.

We explored many of the issues relevant to managing a listed building; including whether it is more expensive to maintain. Evidence is that it is but that day to day maintenance is not significantly greater once buildings are a reasonable condition. Listed status of course results in access to recovery of VAT, National Lottery Heritage Fund and National Churches Fund financial support.

All churches were urged to produce a statement of significance to underpin planning and funding requests.

I raised the issue of how changes in worship may no longer be reflected in the interior layout. Unitarians now no longer regularly preach from the pulpit but from the floor and different forms of worship need open space as does the hosting of musical or community events which is not facilitated by fixed pews.

It was interesting to explore how new churches are seeking premises and the opportunities and legal requirements surrounding disposal.    

There are lots of images of Unitarian Churches on the website of the Unitarian Historical Society.

VAT on alterations to listed buildings

The extension of standard rate of VAT on alterations to listed buildings was included in the recent Budget and will adversely effect many historic churches and chapels of all denominations. I have made the following submission to HMRC expressing my concerns:

" I am writing on behalf of the General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches regarding the above consultation paper and would make the following submission.

We would wish to draw to your attention our concerns about one particular element, the withdrawal of the current rate VAT of zero on alterations to listed buildings. Although we are a small denomination probably at least half of our congregations possess church and chapel buildings that are listed. These are maintained almost entirely by volunteers and voluntary giving.

It is ironic that at a time when we have been working more closely than ever with English Heritage (for our English congregations) as part of their “Caring for Places of Worship” initiative that we find this undermined by these changes.

The consultation paper states that “the majority of the work covered by the relief consists of extension work which is not necessary for heritage purposes. The current rules therefore give a perverse incentive for change as opposed to repair… Removing the zero rate removes the perverse incentive to change listed buildings rather than repair them and ensures that all alteration work receives the same tax treatment”. There are major efforts to encourage the use of current and former church buildings for community use often and this often require alteration if that community use is to be widened – or even maintained. The consultation seems to assume that “repair” and “alteration” are mutually-exclusive alternatives: that is simply not always the case.

I note that it has been decided to extend the Listed Places of Worship Grants Scheme to cover alterations and the budget of the Scheme has been increased by £5 million for the current financial year. However, the LPWG Scheme is already under severe pressure and an extra £5 million will not meet the likely needs. There is no guarantee that funding for the Scheme will be maintained at that level in future years.

It is clear that the extension of the 20% VAT will place burdens on already stretched churches and chapels who have responsibilities to care for the nation’s heritage; in our case of the dissenting and nonconformist tradition of which we are marking the 350^th anniversary of this year and which has made such a contribution to the development of British society.

I would urge that you reconsider and that places of worship be excluded from this change."

Quakers challenged to embrace outreach; what should Unitarians do?

I was intrigued by the opening quote in a recent article in “Quaker News (Winter 2011, No 81):

“As Quakers, we don’t do outreach … when people need us, they will find us”.

I have heard similar remarks amongst Unitarians. We say that as a free and open faith we do not proselytise and never have done! (Well actually we have done but that is history).

The article, by Alistair Fuller, recognises an ambivalence amongst Quakers to outreach and also that to be truly effective, outreach needed to be an integral part of how Quakers live, both as individuals and in community.

“Effective, enthusiastic outreach flows from a meeting that is vibrant, rich, warm and welcoming, involving Friends who are deeply rooted and nourished in their own faith”.

So it is more about how one lives as much as what one says. Quaker meetings are more successful in attracting, and holding, attenders and enquirers when they have paid proper attention to the quality of their life together and have similarly together thought about and planned their outreach.

Quaker Week is a national initiative with a focus on local activities which has now been running for five years. The impact appears to have been in two ways; meetings have been bolder and more imaginative in findings ways to be more visible and accessible and they have been more effective in outreach when Friends are excited by their own Quakerism and more confident to share it. “This relationship between inreach and outreach has been the most significant piece of learning as a result of Quaker Week”. Nationally the Quakers plan an outreach conference in January 2013 to explore and develop this thinking.

This rightly confirms my own thinking that the quality of experience offered by Unitarian communities is in the end the vital factor of whether people who find us will actually stay. Raising our visibility nationally, and as importantly, locally is crucial but what the Quakers call inreach is so important. What would it be like to enable us to truly say that our congregation is vibrant, rich, warm and welcoming?

Is there a Future for Community?

“Is there a Future for Community?” seems a provocative question. “Of course there is” would be the immediate reply of many but is this response grounded in evidence? This was the topic for a Council of Christians and Jews sponsored Seminar today at the Institute for Government with the Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks and Professor Robert Putnam, Harvard University; well known for his book “Bowling Alone”.

Hosted by Lord Adonis, former Government Minister and chaired by Daniel Johnson, Editor of Standpoint, it drew a high quality audience. Prof. Putnam introduced the key findings of his latest book “American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us” (with David E. Campbell). He said that in the US religious people are “nicer” than secular; meaning that they give more, volunteer more and behave in more neighbourly ways. This seems a startling conclusion.

Apparently what denomination or faith groups you belong to does not make a difference; neither does the theology. What matters is frequency of engagement; going to Church or Synagogue or Mosque is therefore good for you! His work on the United Kingdom was already showing similar conclusions.

He also highlighted the dark side and emphasised that this must not be forgotten in any reporting of his work. Religious people can be somewhat intolerant of dissent and polarise opinion in public. This is counter-balanced on the ground in the US by the close inter-faith friendships that most people have in that very diverse nation.

Lord Sacks helpfully defined community; “Where they know who you are and miss you when you are not there”! These attributes were found in religious communities not Facebook or Twitter. Echoing Prof Putnam he rightly said that theology makes an interesting subject but religion makes a difference in the world by joining us to others.

Journalist, Matthew d’Ancona asked why this was so? There is as yet no answer and Prof Putnam is looking for the missing ingredient which ensures this is the case for religious groups and not other social movements or organisations.

Clearly the UK offers a very different picture to the US with (as with the rest of northern Europe) low levels of Church attendance. You should not therefore hope to build the “Big Society” by having a “revival” of religion. But what attributes are there to congregational life that provokes engagement with others; often outside the faith group to which you belong? I believe that Unitarian communities offer opportunities to engage with others on issues of meaning; there are few other spaces to do this in our busy world. So lets forget the secular-religion grandstanding and debate and focus on what brings us together across the various divides.