MATTERS RAISED BEFORE THE REVISION COMMITTEE
AND THE GENERAL SYNOD
Section 1 -Qualifying connections under section
1 of the Church of England Marriage Measure 2008
Mission initiatives and other 'fresh expressions
of church'
46. The Reverend Christian Selvaratnam submitted
two proposals to the Revision Committee for amendment to clause
1 of the draft Measure to extend the list of qualifying connections
with a parish: first, to include habitual attendance at public
worship for not less than six months in a mission initiative to
which a bishop's mission order related where the order made provision
providing for there to be a qualifying connection with a particular
parish where those conditions were met; and secondly, to include
habitual attendance at public worship for not less than six months
within the context of a 'fresh expression of church' that was
not the subject of a bishop's mission order, where the bishop
has designated it as being associated with the parish in question
for this purpose.
47. Mr Selvaratnam argued that since many people
now worshipped in Fresh Expressions and other mission initiatives
(particularly younger couples of marrying age), it was only right
that the qualifying connection provisions should extend to them.
48. The Revision Committee acknowledged that
such initiatives for worship were becoming increasingly important
and supported the proposals in principle. However, since the 2008
Measure was statute law, it was important that the legal rights
it established were certain and capable of enforcement, and the
Revision Committee acknowledged that it was difficult to see how
Mr Selvaratnam's proposals could be defined with enough certainty
that they might be incorporated within the ambit of the 2008 Measure.
Although the Steering Committee for the Measure appreciated the
thinking behind Mr Selvaratnam's proposals, it advised the Revision
Committee that the law already sufficiently dealt with the issue
and did not believe amendments should be made to the draft Measure.
The Steering Committee had come to the view that those worshipping
in a Fresh Expression of Church or other mission initiative ought
to rely on the provisions for a qualifying connection in the 2008
Measure if they were able, and beyond that should use the special
licence procedure.
49. The Committee acknowledged that it did not
seem possible to extend the qualifying connection provisions in
the manner envisaged by Mr Selvaratnam in the context of the draft
Measure, but noted that the issue would likely come up again in
the future. The Committee therefore did not make any amendments
to clause 1 of the draft Measure to extend the qualifying connection
to include public worship at a mission initiative or a fresh expression
of church.
50. At the Revision Stage in full Synod, Mr Selvaratnam
tabled amendments to the same effect as those he had proposed
to the Revision Committee. The Steering Committee for the Measure
was opposed to the amendments for the same reasons as Mr Selvaratnam's
earlier proposals had been rejected by the Revision Committee.
The amendments were lost when put to a vote in the Synod.
Application of certain provisions of the Marriage
Act 1949 to marriage by virtue of a qualifying connection
51. The Measure as originally introduced into
the Synod, while it applied a number of existing statutory provisions
to marriages by virtue of a qualifying connection, did not make
provision applying section 6(3) of the 1949 Act or section 29(3)
of the Pastoral Measure 1983 in such cases. (See paragraphs 31
to 36 above for a description of these provisions.) The Revision
Committee received a proposal from the Dean of the Arches which
argued that it should do so. This was on the basis that persons
who wished to marry on the basis of a qualifying connection with
a parish should be put in an equivalent position to those who
married on the basis of residence in the parish or of being habitual
worshippers there.
52. The Revision Committee agreed that as a matter
of principle it was desirable, wherever possible, that that should
be done. The Committee therefore accepted the Dean's proposals
and amended the draft Measure accordingly.
53. The Dean had also submitted that section
15(2) of the 1949 Act, which made provision for the grant of a
common licence in the circumstances to which section 6(3) of the
Act applied, should also be applied to the case of marriages by
virtue of a qualifying connection. The Committee was, however,
advised that as a consequence of accepting the Dean's proposal
to apply section 6(3), marriage by common licence in the same
circumstances would be covered automatically by section 2 of the
2008 Measure as it stood because of the way in which that section
operated. It was therefore unnecessary to amend the draft Measure
further to apply section 15(2) of the 1949 Act.
PASTORAL REORGANISATION
54. The Venerable Paul Ferguson submitted a proposal
to the Revision Committee that related to the position where pastoral
reorganisation had taken place in a parish with which a person
had a qualifying connection. The Archdeacon proposed that where
the boundaries of a parish had been changed, a person should be
able to establish a qualifying connection with both (a) the parish
where the place in question now was and (b) the parish in which
the place in question used to be at the time when the facts giving
rise to the connection with that place arose. However, the Committee
was advised that that was already the effect of section 1 of the
2008 Measure: the qualifying connection that a person is deemed
to have by section 1(13) is not in substitution for the connection
that a person has by virtue of section 1(3).
55. Nevertheless, to clarify the issue, the Steering
Committee proposed an amendment to insert the phrase, 'Without
prejudice to section 1(3)' at the start of section 1(13) of the
2008 Measure. The Revision Committee accepted that amendment.
56. The Revision Committee also agreed to insert
provision to amend section 1 of the 2008 Measure to address the
position where a person has had a qualifying connection with a
parish (parish A) and a church that was the parish church of that
parish was now the parish church of a different parish (parish
B) so that he or she would be deemed to have a qualifying connection
with parish B, and agreed to amend the draft Measure accordingly.
Section 2 -Form and time of publication of banns
PROPOSALS TO ABOLISH BANNS AS A LEGAL PRELIMINARY
TO MARRIAGE
57. The Revision Committee had received submissions
from the Right Reverend Donald Allister, Bishop of Peterborough
and the Reverend Stephen Trott, supported in principle by the
Reverend Paul Benfield, which proposed the abolition of banns
as a legal preliminary to marriage.
58. The Chair of the Revision Committee determined
those submissions to be out of order on the basis that they proposed
amendments that were not relevant to the general purport of the
draft Measure or within the scope of any relevant clause and that
they could not, therefore, be given effect by the Revision Committee.
59. The Revision Committee noted that, had the
proposals been within scope, it would nevertheless have rejected
the proposal that banns should be abolished as a legal preliminary
to marriage: the publication of banns presented a valuable pastoral
opportunity.
Form of banns where marriage is by virtue
of a qualifying connection
60. The Reverend Mark Steadman and the Reverend
Paul Benfield each proposed that clause 2(1) of the draft Measure
should be expanded to include an additional form of words to be
used when publishing the banns of persons who intend to marry
by virtue of a qualifying connection. Mr Steadman suggested that
the statutory form of words should make express provision for
that circumstance in order to clarify the law on banns and to
reconcile differences between the law and practice.
61. The Revision Committee acknowledged that
there might be some disparity between the law and practice in
that regard, but rather than proposing an amendment to clause
2 of the draft Measure to address the issue, suggested that the
House of Bishops be asked to revisit its statutory guidance, issued
under section 3 of the 2008 Measure, as it related to the publication
of banns in order to make the legal position clear to the clergy.
62. The Revision Committee therefore did not
make any amendments to clause 2(1).
SERVICE AT WHICH BANNS TO BE PUBLISHED
63. The Reverend Dr Rob Munro proposed in a submission
to the Revision Committee that clause 2(2) should be amended to
enable banns to be published at a service other than that required
by section 7(1) of the 1949 Act. The 1949 Act currently requires
banns to be published on three Sundays at morning service, or,
only if there is no morning service, at an evening service. Dr
Munro submitted that pastoral considerations - in particular the
likelihood that many couples would attend in the evening even
if there were a morning service - meant that the clergy should
simply have a discretion as to the Sunday service at which banns
would be published.
64. The Committee agreed that Dr Munro's suggestion
made practical sense and amended the draft Measure accordingly.
65. However, at the Revision Stage in full Synod,
the Reverend Canon Simon Killwick moved an amendment to substitute
for Dr Munro's amendment a provision that would require banns
to be published at the 'principal service' on the Sunday in question
and also, optionally, at another service on that day. Canon Killwick
recognised the existence of the pastoral considerations which
Dr Munro was concerned about but argued that the publication of
banns was essentially a public, legal act and ought therefore
to take place at the service at which the greatest number of people
were likely to attend. An option of an additional publication
on the same day would address the pastoral concerns that had been
raised.
66. The General Synod voted in favour of Canon Killwick's
amendment.
On behalf of the Legislative Committee
P.N.E. Bruinvels
Canon Peter N. E. Bruinvels
Deputy Chairman
November 2011
| 
