Wedding Law Reform in England and Wales

Answer: Yes

Clear, accessible and discreet information should explain a person’s right to choose whether, when and whom they marry; the meaning of free and informed consent and mental capacity; and that consent may be withdrawn at any point before the marriage takes place.

It should explain possible signs of coercion or control, including threats, intimidation, isolation, financial control and pressure from family or community members. It should provide confidential routes to seek help through the Forced Marriage Unit, the registrar, police, adult safeguarding and specialist domestic abuse services.

Information should be available in plain English, Welsh, other commonly used languages and accessible formats. The platform should include a discreet exit facility and avoid unsafe notifications where practicable, particularly where someone may be using a shared device.

Answer: Yes

The proposed information is appropriate, but it should be prominent, concise and available before a person completes the notice process rather than being hidden behind optional links.

General relationship support should be clearly separated from safeguarding advice about forced marriage, coercion or abuse. Where forced marriage or so-called honour-based abuse is suspected, people should not be directed towards family mediation, reconciliation or community intervention, as this may increase the danger.

The information and support offered should be confidential and inclusive of people of all genders, sexual orientations, religions or beliefs, disabilities and immigration circumstances.

Evidence requirements should be broad, proportionate and sensitive to the circumstances of people experiencing abuse. A court order, police report or previous formal complaint should not be mandatory, as many people at risk will not have reported their situation and may be endangered by doing so.

Acceptable evidence could include a Forced Marriage Protection Order, non-molestation order, restraining order, police or social-care record, medical evidence, or a statement from a police officer, social worker, healthcare professional, solicitor, specialist support worker, refuge, safeguarding lead or suitably trained chaplain or minister with direct knowledge of the circumstances.

Registrars should also be able to consider credible alternative evidence or a detailed personal statement where formal documentation is unavailable, subject to appropriate senior review. Publication should be suspended while the application is considered, with a prompt review or appeal process.

All evidence must be handled confidentially, with only the minimum necessary information recorded or shared. The protection of someone facing a credible risk of harm should take priority over the general publicity function of the notice.

Answer: Yes

Yes, provided that the questions are carefully designed and are not treated as a tick-box exercise.

Each party should be interviewed separately and privately, without their partner, relatives, friends or community representatives present. Questions should be asked sensitively and in plain language, with reasonable adjustments for disability, neurodiversity, learning disability, mental capacity and communication needs.

Where interpretation is required, an independent accredited interpreter should be provided. Relatives, friends or community members should never be used as interpreters.

Registrars should receive specialist training to recognise coercive control, forced marriage, predatory marriage, sham marriage and concerns about capacity. There should be a clear safeguarding and referral procedure where concerns arise, together with another confidential opportunity to disclose concerns later, as a person may not feel able to speak openly during their first interview.

Answer: Yes

Pagan Ministry Church strongly supports this proposal. In many religious and belief traditions, consent and commitment are expressed through meaningful actions rather than through a prescribed civil formula.

Within a Pagan handfasting, the deliberate joining and binding of the couple’s hands may form a central expression of their decision to enter into marriage. Permitting an action to carry legal meaning would allow the spiritual and legal elements of the ceremony to become one coherent event rather than requiring an artificial interruption for statutory wording.

However, a symbolic action should not automatically be treated as legal consent. The approved ceremony should clearly identify the action through which the marriage is formed. Both parties, the officiant and the witnesses must understand its legal significance, and the officiant must be satisfied that each party performs it freely and deliberately.

Scotland provides a useful working model. Religious and belief marriages may already be solemnised there by authorised celebrants. National Records of Scotland considers the proposed form of ceremony and requires authorised celebrants to use the form adopted by their religious or belief body. This demonstrates that diverse belief ceremonies can be accommodated while maintaining legal certainty and regulatory oversight.

Answer: Yes

The proposed wording, “I [name] accept you [name] as my husband, wife or spouse”, is brief, understandable and clearly identifies the moment at which consent is expressed.

The inclusion of “spouse” provides an appropriate inclusive option for couples who do not wish to use gendered terms. The wording should remain sufficiently flexible, however, that an equally clear statement with the same legal meaning is not rejected merely because different words or an accessible method of communication are used.

The legal test should be whether each party has freely and intelligibly expressed their present intention to marry the other, rather than whether every word has been repeated exactly.

Answer: Yes

Variations should be acceptable where they communicate the same clear and immediate consent to enter into marriage. Examples could include:

• “I [name] take you [name] as my husband, wife or spouse.”
• “I [name] choose to marry you [name].”
• “I [name] accept you [name] as my spouse in marriage.”

Equivalent words should also be permitted in languages other than English or Welsh, provided their meaning has been confirmed beforehand.

British Sign Language, communication aids, speech-generating devices and other accessible forms of communication should be expressly accepted. A stammer, involuntary vocalisation, speech impairment or other disability or medical condition must not invalidate an otherwise clear expression of consent.

Wherever reasonably possible, proposed variations should be agreed with the officiant before the ceremony and recorded with the ceremony plan. This would provide flexibility without leaving the officiant or couple uncertain about legal validity at the ceremony itself.

Answer: Yes

Pagan Ministry Church supports a clear dignity framework, provided it remains principles-based, proportionate and respectful of religious, cultural and personal diversity.

Dignity should be judged by whether the couple freely understands and enters the marriage, whether the legal act is clearly identifiable and whether the occasion is treated as meaningful. It should not be judged by whether a ceremony resembles a conventional civil or mainstream religious wedding.

Guidance and training must specifically warn against treating unfamiliar minority-faith practices, outdoor worship, alternative dress, ritual movement, music or symbolism as inherently less dignified. Decisions should be based on the actual effect of an element upon consent, safety and the significance of marriage.

Answer: Yes

The proposed standard properly places free and informed consent at the centre of the ceremony and recognises marriage as a serious legal and personal commitment.

However, “seriousness” must not be interpreted as requiring a sombre ceremony. Joy, humour, music, participation and culturally or religiously meaningful ritual can reinforce rather than diminish the importance of the occasion.

References to lifelong commitment should describe the nature and intention of marriage at the point it is entered into. They should not be used to judge couples according to their beliefs concerning divorce, previous marriages or family circumstances.

Answer: Yes

The proposed location standard is reasonable. The couple, officiant, witnesses and any other legally necessary participants must be able to attend safely, understand what is taking place and witness the expression of consent.

The assessment should be proportionate to the location. An outdoor, woodland, coastal or other non-traditional setting should not be considered undignified merely because complete privacy or silence cannot be guaranteed. Reasonable planning, including weather contingencies, clear positioning and control of foreseeable interruptions, should normally be sufficient.

“Meaningful participation” should apply principally to those whose presence is legally required. A location should not fail merely because every guest cannot see or hear every element perfectly.

Answer: Yes

The proposed standard is appropriate, provided that “focus” and “respect” are interpreted inclusively.

Pagan ceremonies may include handfasting, circle casting, invocations, chanting, drumming, movement, the sharing of a ceremonial cup, participation by family members and other symbolic acts. Such elements can express the seriousness and spiritual meaning of marriage and should not be treated as distractions merely because they differ from conventional services.

The proper question is whether the ceremony as a whole enables clear consent and meaningfully recognises the marriage, not whether it follows a restrained or familiar format.

Answer: Yes

The proposed factors provide a useful starting point, but the religious, cultural or spiritual significance of a location should be expressly considered alongside personal significance.

For Pagan couples, a woodland, stone circle, garden, shoreline or other natural location may function as sacred space even though it is not a formally designated place of worship. A lack of walls, seating or conventional decoration should not count against it.

The assessment should also consider accessibility, reasonable adjustments, environmental conditions, landowner permission and practical contingency arrangements. Privacy should be appropriate to the couple’s wishes and circumstances rather than an absolute requirement, as many religious weddings have traditionally been public or communal events.

Answer: No

Pagan Ministry Church does not agree with all the proposed factors as currently drafted. Behaviour, control of the environment and personal meaning are relevant, but “personal presentation, including attire” is too subjective to be a reliable legal factor.

Clothing does not in itself determine whether a marriage is dignified. Religious robes, historical clothing, alternative fashion, ceremonial dress, gender expression, disability-related clothing or inexpensive clothing could all be unfairly judged against conventional expectations.

Presentation should only be relevant where it has a direct and demonstrable effect upon the legal ceremony, such as deliberately obscuring identity, preventing communication or forming part of an arrangement which clearly reduces the marriage to a parody.

Guidance should expressly state that unconventional, cultural or religious attire is not evidence that a ceremony lacks dignity.

Answer: Yes

Limited restrictions are appropriate, but there should not be a blanket prohibition on food or drink.

Casual consumption which distracts from the ceremony, or alcohol consumption which impairs the couple, officiant or witnesses, should not be permitted during the legal proceedings. The officiant must be satisfied that both parties have capacity and are freely and clearly expressing consent.

Ceremonial use must remain permitted. Pagan and other belief ceremonies may involve sharing a small quantity of wine, mead, water, bread, cake or other food or drink as a blessing or symbolic act. Medical needs, disability, pregnancy and the needs of children or infants must also be accommodated.

The distinction should therefore depend upon purpose, quantity and effect. A ceremonial sip from a shared cup is materially different from recreational drinking throughout the ceremony.

Answer: Yes

Restrictions should apply where an act genuinely causes the marriage to become incidental, obscures the expression of consent or presents the legal marriage entirely as a joke or commercial novelty.

However, “gimmick-based” is subjective and should not become a label applied to unfamiliar customs. Handfasting cords, jumping a broom, ceremonial robes, ritual tools, masks, music, chanting, theatrical presentation or themed clothing may carry sincere personal, cultural or religious meaning.

Restrictions should therefore be based upon the effect of an element upon the ceremony as a whole, not upon whether it is unusual, humorous or visually striking. A light-hearted moment does not trivialise a marriage where the couple’s consent and commitment remain clear and central.

Guidance should use general principles rather than a fixed list of permitted and prohibited activities, as such lists risk favouring familiar traditions over minority practices.

Answer: Yes

Individual religious or non-religious belief elements should be permitted within a clearly identified civil ceremony. This would allow couples from mixed-faith backgrounds, couples without access to an authorised belief officiant and couples wishing to acknowledge family traditions to personalise their ceremony.

In a Pagan context, permissible individual elements might include:

• briefly tying the couple’s hands with a cord
• a reading concerning nature, the seasons or Pagan spirituality
• lighting a candle or placing flowers, stones or other symbolic objects
• sharing a small ceremonial cup
• a blessing or short invocation led by a guest

A complete Pagan belief service might involve formally creating sacred space, calling the quarters or elements, invoking deities, ritual purification, a structured handfasting and blessing, followed by the formal closing of the sacred space. Reproducing that complete sequence would be a belief ceremony rather than merely including an individual belief element.

“Handfasting” can describe either one symbolic act or an entire religious ceremony. Decisions should therefore consider the substance and combination of the elements rather than relying solely upon their names.

Answer: Yes

State-employed registrars should remain religiously neutral and should not be required or permitted to lead prayers, invocations, blessings or other belief rituals as part of their official role.

Couples should nevertheless be permitted to include approved belief elements led by themselves, a guest, minister or other third party. The registrar should be able to introduce the person neutrally, explain when the element will occur and manage the ceremony without this being treated as participation in the belief itself.

This approach protects the registrar’s neutrality and freedom of conscience while allowing couples meaningful personal and religious expression. It must not result in registrars excluding unfamiliar minority-faith content simply because they do not recognise or understand it.

Answer: Yes

Voluntary pre-authorisation may be useful for commercial or established venues that regularly host weddings. It could reduce repeated assessments and give couples and officiants confidence that basic safety requirements have previously been considered.

However, Pagan Ministry Church strongly supports the move away from a buildings-based system. Pre-authorisation must remain entirely optional and must never become an informal expectation or presumption of suitability.

Pagan handfastings frequently take place in woodlands, gardens, fields and other secluded natural settings which may have spiritual significance for the couple. Such locations should not require registration, licensing or inclusion upon an approved list merely because a legal marriage ceremony takes place there.

The authorised officiant should assess each location according to practical matters such as lawful access, safety, the ability of the couple and witnesses to participate, and whether free consent can be clearly expressed. An unregistered location should not be considered less legitimate or dignified than a commercial wedding venue.

Answer: Yes - three years

Pre-authorisation should be time-limited, renewable and capable of being suspended or revoked where safety or dignity requirements are no longer met.

Venue operators should be required to report significant changes, such as alterations to the area used for ceremonies, changes affecting accessibility or safety, or a change in the management responsible for compliance. Minor or irrelevant changes should not require a complete new application.

Renewal should be proportionate and less burdensome where the venue’s circumstances and compliance record remain unchanged. There should also be a fair review or appeal process where authorisation is refused, suspended or revoked.

These arrangements should apply only to venues which voluntarily seek pre-authorisation. The expiry or absence of venue authorisation must not prevent a wedding from taking place at a woodland, private home, outdoor sacred space or other one-off location which the officiant has assessed as safe and suitable.

Three years provides a reasonable balance between proper oversight and avoiding unnecessary administration and expense. It is also broadly consistent with the familiar period commonly used under the existing approved-premises system.

The regulator should remain able to inspect or review a venue sooner where credible concerns arise, rather than relying solely upon the renewal date.

Answer: Yes

Some additional safeguards are appropriate, but they should be proportionate and should not amount to compulsory licensing or routine official inspection of every private home.

Each party should have communicated separately and confidentially with the registrar during the preliminaries process. The officiant should also have a clear opportunity to speak privately with either party before the ceremony and should be able to pause or refuse to proceed where concerns arise about consent, capacity, coercion or safety.

Where there are identified concerns, the officiant should be able to require a prior visit, further safeguarding checks or use of an alternative location. Independent interpreters should be used where necessary, rather than relatives or members of the household.

Basic practical matters should be confirmed beforehand, including lawful access to the property, safe entry and exit, reasonable occupancy, accessibility, fire and emergency arrangements and a suitable area in which the parties can freely express consent.

These safeguards should be risk-based. Private homes should not automatically be treated as suspicious or unsafe. The consultation itself notes that the Law Commission found no evidence of increased forced, predatory or sham marriage in Scotland or in existing religious traditions where home weddings are already permitted.

Answer: Yes

Weddings should be permitted in territorial seas and inland waters where safety, legal jurisdiction and dignity can be properly maintained.

Rivers, lakes, canals and coastal locations may have strong personal, family, cultural or spiritual meaning. Water and particular natural landscapes can also hold religious significance within Pagan traditions. Such locations should not be considered less dignified simply because they are unconventional.

The officiant should confirm that the vessel or location may lawfully and safely be used, that the responsible owner or operator has consented, that the legally required participants can see, hear and understand the ceremony, and that appropriate weather and emergency arrangements exist.

The location and time of the marriage should be recorded sufficiently clearly to establish that it occurred within the relevant jurisdiction. There should also be a contingency plan where weather, navigation or safety conditions make the intended location unsuitable.

Answer: Yes

Pagan Ministry Church has no objection in principle to legally recognised civil weddings taking place in international waters aboard UK-registered cruise ships with a port of choice in England or Wales.

The civil preliminaries process should be completed before departure, and the marriage should be conducted by an appropriately authorised officiant under the law of England and Wales. The ship’s registration, the date, time and position of the ceremony and the identity of the officiant should be clearly recorded.

Procedures should address circumstances where weather, safety or a change of route prevents the ship from reaching international waters at the intended time. Couples must be told clearly that the ceremony cannot proceed as a valid international-waters marriage until the legal location requirements are met.

Subject to those safeguards, the unusual location does not diminish the couple’s consent or the seriousness of their marriage.

Answer: Yes

All officiants should have a legal duty to uphold the dignity and significance of marriage, together with their responsibilities concerning consent, capacity, safeguarding and legal compliance.

However, dignity must be assessed objectively and inclusively. It must not be measured by whether a wedding resembles a conventional Christian, civil or commercial ceremony. A woodland handfasting, alternative clothing, ritual movement, music or unfamiliar religious symbolism may be entirely dignified and meaningful.

The same duties and freedoms must apply equally to mixed-sex, same-sex and gender-diverse couples. The relevant considerations are free consent, legal capacity, sincerity and the significance placed upon the marriage, not the sex, gender or sexual orientation of the couple.

Answer: No - no mandatory establishment period

A fixed three-year requirement is an arbitrary measure of organisational credibility. It would exclude newly constituted organisations even where their ministers have substantial previous experience, appropriate training, sound governance and established religious community involvement.

Pagan Ministry Church is newly constituted, but its founder has served as a Pagan High Priest for almost 30 years and has extensive experience conducting handfastings and other religious ceremonies. That experience should not be disregarded merely because it has now been brought within a new organisational structure.

We propose no mandatory establishment period. Instead, new organisations should be assessed upon their constitution, beliefs, governance, safeguarding arrangements, training, complaints procedures and their ability to supervise and remove officiants.

A graduated system could allow an officiant from a new organisation to receive provisional authorisation for a named marriage or limited period. Fuller authorisation could follow after satisfactory experience and regulatory review. This would protect the public without excluding legitimate emerging religious organisations.

Answer: No

Pagan Ministry Church does not believe that a fixed household threshold is an appropriate test of whether a religious or belief organisation is genuine. As the questionnaire required a numerical choice, we selected 1-19 households, but our preferred position is that no fixed number should apply.

Paganism is decentralised and includes covens, groves, small local groups, online communities and solitary practitioners. Many people do not belong to a formal organisation, while others remain guarded about publicly recording their religious identity. Membership may also be recorded under numerous identities including Pagan, Wiccan, Druid, Heathen and other traditions.

A requirement for 100 households would favour large, centralised religions and could exclude genuine minority-faith organisations regardless of their governance, competence or community need. Numbers do not demonstrate that an organisation can train, supervise and hold officiants accountable.

Eligibility should instead be based upon genuine religious or belief status, an established connection between the beliefs and marriage, suitable governance, training, safeguarding and regulatory accountability.

Where numbers are considered at all, they should form only one part of the evidence and should include individuals rather than households. One competent officiant may legitimately serve a small but genuine religious community.

Answer: Yes

Express exclusions can provide useful clarity where an organisation plainly exists for political, industrial, commercial or unlawful purposes rather than principally to advance a religious or non-religious belief system.

Organisations promoting unlawful purposes must not be permitted to nominate officiants. Political parties, trade unions and chambers of commerce are likewise not, in themselves, religious or belief organisations established to solemnise marriage.

However, exclusions must be narrowly drafted. An organisation must not be excluded merely because its religious beliefs are unfamiliar, held by a minority, controversial or include lawful campaigning on social or political matters.

A religious group associated with members of a particular profession, union or public service should not be excluded where it is genuinely independent and satisfies the ordinary religious or belief criteria. Decisions should be transparent and subject to review or appeal.

Answer: Yes

Independent officiants should be permitted to conduct legally binding weddings. They could provide an important option for mixed-faith couples, couples with personal or spiritual beliefs and those who do not wish to affiliate with one particular religious or belief organisation.

Independent officiants should nevertheless meet the same fundamental standards concerning training, consent, capacity, safeguarding, dignity, record keeping and accountability as other officiants. They should be subject to a fit and proper person test, effective complaints procedures and meaningful regulatory oversight.

The independent route must not become an easier way to avoid the requirements applying to belief officiants, nor should commercial interests take priority over the legal and pastoral responsibilities of the role.

Answer: Yes

Maritime officiants should be permitted to conduct legally binding weddings aboard qualifying UK-registered cruise ships in international waters.

They should be subject to the same legal, safeguarding, training and dignity requirements as other officiants, together with additional requirements concerning maritime jurisdiction, the ship’s location and the safe operation of the vessel.

The civil preliminaries must have been completed before departure, and there must be clear procedures for recording the date, time and position of the ceremony and returning the marriage documentation for registration.

Answer: Yes

Maritime officiants should ordinarily be deck officers because they possess the authority and navigational knowledge needed to confirm the ship’s location and ensure that the ceremony does not interfere with safe operation.

The captain may be preferred, but this should not be an absolute requirement. The captain may be unavailable because of navigational, safety or operational responsibilities. Other appropriately senior and trained deck officers, including the deputy captain or chief mate, should be fully capable of acting.

The validity of a wedding should depend upon the officiant being properly authorised and competent, not upon whether the captain personally conducted it.

Answer: No

The listed requirements provide a sound starting point, but Pagan Ministry Church does not consider the definition sufficiently precise or complete. Terms such as “good character” and an offence considered “incompatible with the role” require clear, objective and proportionate guidance.

A minor, historic or unrelated conviction should not automatically prevent an otherwise suitable person from becoming an officiant. Decisions should consider the nature of the conduct, its relevance to the role, the time elapsed, evidence of rehabilitation and any continuing risk.

The definition should also address safeguarding, conflicts of interest, honesty, impartiality and willingness to comply with regulatory and complaints procedures.

The assessment should include:

• completion of approved legal, consent, capacity and safeguarding training
• an appropriate lawful criminal-record check
• consideration of relevant disciplinary findings or previous deauthorisation
• disclosure and proper management of conflicts of interest
• an undertaking to comply with equality law, data protection, record keeping and complaints procedures
• evidence that the person understands forced, predatory and sham marriage risks

Relevant offences could include forced marriage, coercive control, domestic abuse, sexual offending, serious dishonesty, fraud or offences involving the abuse of a position of trust. Any refusal should be reasoned, proportionate and subject to review or appeal.

Religious identity, unconventional beliefs, lawful minority views, gender, sexual orientation or the use of unfamiliar ceremonial practices must never be treated as evidence that someone is not fit and proper.

Answer: Yes

Additional proportionate measures would help identify patterns of poor practice before they develop into serious failures. Monitoring should focus upon competence, safeguarding and legal compliance rather than imposing excessive bureaucracy or judging officiants according to mainstream religious or cultural expectations.

Suitable mechanisms could include:

• a central register showing whether an officiant is currently authorised
• compulsory continuing professional development when law or official guidance changes
• proportionate, risk-based audits of ceremony and location assessment records
• confidential routes for couples, witnesses and other officiants to raise concerns
• mandatory reporting of serious safeguarding incidents, invalid ceremonies or significant breaches
• periodic declarations concerning criminal convictions, disciplinary action and conflicts of interest
• monitoring of repeated complaints or recurring administrative errors
• anonymised publication of regulatory decisions and common lessons

Couple feedback may help identify patterns, but a negative review should not itself prove misconduct. Officiants must have an opportunity to respond, and personal information about couples and ceremonies must be protected.

Answer: No to the Anglican exemption

Five years is a reasonable renewal period, but Pagan Ministry Church disagrees with excluding Anglican clergy from the requirement.

A modern officiant-based system should apply equivalent standards of legal competence, safeguarding and accountability across religious traditions. Historical establishment should not create a permanent exemption from safeguards imposed upon Pagan, other minority-faith, independent and maritime officiants.

We therefore support renewal every five years for all officiants, including Anglican clergy. Renewal should confirm continuing eligibility, completion of required professional development and awareness of changes in law and safeguarding practice.

The process should be straightforward and affordable where there have been no concerns. Temporary continuation should be permitted where a timely renewal application remains under consideration, so that couples are not disadvantaged by administrative delay.

Answer: Yes

Officiants who seriously or repeatedly fail to fulfil their legal responsibilities should be subject to proportionate sanctions, including deauthorisation where necessary.

The available responses should include advice, additional training, formal warning, supervised practice, temporary suspension and deauthorisation. Immediate suspension may be justified where there is a credible safeguarding risk or doubt about the validity of ceremonies.

There must be a fair investigation, clear reasons, an opportunity to respond and an independent appeal process.

Enforcement of the dignity framework must not become a means of penalising minority-faith ceremonies merely because they are unfamiliar. A woodland handfasting, ritual clothing, chanting, drumming or symbolic actions should not attract sanctions unless there is clear evidence that legal consent, safety or the significance of the marriage was genuinely undermined.

Answer: Yes

A central complaints function would provide consistency, independence and a route of redress where a nominating or membership organisation fails to act properly.

The regulator should be able to receive complaints directly, investigate serious concerns, obtain relevant records and intervene where an organisation has mishandled a complaint or has a conflict of interest.

Complaints procedures must be accessible, confidential, timely and available to people with disabilities or communication needs. Both the complainant and officiant should be kept informed, and decisions should give clear reasons and provide appeal rights.

The regulator should publish anonymised information about outcomes and recurring problems. It should also distinguish between genuine misconduct and complaints based simply upon hostility towards a religion, same-sex marriage, gender identity or unfamiliar ceremonial practices.

Answer: No

Independent officiants should not be compelled to join and pay a private membership organisation as the only route to legal authorisation.

Approved professional bodies could provide monitoring and support for officiants who choose to join them, but there should also be a direct route through the central regulator. Otherwise, a small number of organisations could become commercial gatekeepers controlling entry, fees, training and continued authorisation.

Any approved membership body must be transparent about charges, conflicts of interest, disciplinary processes and commercial relationships. Officiants must be able to transfer between bodies without losing their authorisation solely because they have changed membership.

The central regulator should directly oversee independent officiants who do not join an approved body, while using proportionate fees and digital administration to manage the workload.

Answer: No

The proposed criteria are a useful foundation but require further safeguards.

Approved organisations should also be required to demonstrate:

• accessible safeguarding and complaints procedures
• impartial disciplinary decision-making and independent appeal arrangements
• appropriate data protection and secure record keeping
• policies for managing conflicts of interest
• transparent and proportionate membership, training and renewal fees
• equality, inclusion and religious-literacy standards
• arrangements for organisational closure or loss of approval, so officiants and couples are protected
• proper separation between regulatory decisions and the sale of commercial wedding services

Requirements concerning financial sustainability and operational capacity must be proportionate. They should not favour large organisations or exclude small but properly governed religious and professional bodies.

Ofqual-approved training may be one acceptable route, but it should not be the sole route. Equivalent training approved by the central regulator should also be recognised, particularly where minority-faith organisations require religiously informed provision.

Answer: Yes

The Maritime and Coastguard Agency is the most appropriate existing specialist body to oversee maritime officiants. It already sets competency standards and oversees the qualifications of deck officers serving on UK-registered ships.

Its responsibilities should include confirming eligibility, arranging the necessary weddings-law training, monitoring authorisation and referring wedding-related complaints or serious breaches to the central weddings regulator.

Maritime officers should not be required to join an additional private membership organisation merely to conduct weddings as part of their maritime role. There should be a clear division between the MCA’s maritime expertise and the central regulator’s responsibility for consistent weddings-law standards and complaints.

Answer: No

The central regulator should provide or commission a standard national core training programme covering weddings law, legal consent, mental capacity, forced and predatory marriage, sham marriage, safeguarding, registration, record keeping and the dignity framework.

This core programme should be available online and at low or no cost, with accessible alternatives where required. It would ensure that every officiant receives the same authoritative legal information regardless of the size or wealth of their organisation.

Belief organisations and approved membership bodies should then provide additional training concerning ceremony practice, pastoral care, professional conduct and their own religious or organisational requirements.

Allowing private organisations alone to control compulsory legal training risks inconsistent interpretation, excessive charges and barriers for emerging or minority-faith organisations. They may deliver approved core training, but a regulator-provided or commissioned route must remain available.

Answer: Yes

Pagan Ministry Church agrees that the General Register Office is the existing organisation most suited to undertake the role of central regulator.