Marriage Regulations

David Mundell Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of modernising marriage regulations.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. The gateway to my constituency, and indeed Scotland, is the historical village of Gretna Green. For centuries, Gretna Green has been shorthand for the potent idea that love cannot be constrained by needless bureaucracy. That really started in 1754, following the implementation of the Marriage Act 1753 in England and Wales. The Act was intended to prevent secret or impulsive marriages by requiring those under 21 to obtain parental consent, and forcing all weddings into the church with public announcements.

However, those strictures did not apply in Scotland, where a couple could legally marry simply by declaring their intention in front of witnesses. That legal difference created an immediate opportunity for young lovers seeking to marry quickly or without the permission of disapproving families. Gretna Green was the first village that these runaway couples reached after crossing the border on the main coaching route to Scotland.

In Scottish custom, a blacksmith was seen as someone who could symbolically forge relationships just as they forged metal. As the law in Scotland allowed almost anyone to conduct a ceremony, Gretna Green’s blacksmith became the wedding officiant, marrying couples over the anvil—an object that symbolised the forging of a new life together.

By the time the law changed in 1856, to require a 21-day residency period in Scotland, the village’s reputation as a romantic destination was already assured, and remains so today. Couples still come to marry in Gretna Green. Indeed, only recently, Bryn and Sandra flew in from Sydney, Australia to marry there, following in the footsteps of Bryn’s grandparents. Not everyone travels as far as from Sydney, but more than 4,000 couples from across the UK choose Gretna Green each year, with up to 60 weddings every Valentine’s day alone. In fact, one in five of all marriages in Scotland takes place in Dumfries and Galloway.

Two adults wishing to marry in the United Kingdom must now wait nearly a month—a full 28-day notice period—simply to formalise their commitment. When we can apply for passports online, secure mortgages and even complete divorces within a matter of days, that legal lag looks like an anachronism, wholly out of sync with technology, norms and modern public expectations.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman talks about anachronisms. Would he agree that the inequity between humanist marriages being legal in Scotland and not being permitted in England and Wales is an ongoing anachronism that should be addressed?

[David Mundell]

I agree. The hon. Lady will be aware that many humanists come to Scotland, and indeed to Gretna Green, to get married for that very reason. That issue needs to be addressed in the context of modernising marriage regulations.

Dumfries and Galloway council, one of the three councils in my Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale constituency, has indicated that it could complete all the necessary checks within five days, yet the law mandates a wait that effectively stretches to 29 days in real terms. In the United States, Minnesota and Massachusetts require a similar three to five days for checks, while New York and Las Vegas allow for marriages within minutes or 24 hours. The British overseas territory of Gibraltar requires only 24 hours, and Denmark, sometimes competing with Gretna Green to be the Las Vegas of Europe, requires just five days. In Denmark, a jurisdiction that the Home Secretary seems very keen to promote, the system protects against abuse and fraud while allowing couples to marry within days rather than weeks. Why can the UK not do the same?

This debate is not about weakening safeguards or making marriage easy in a way that invites fraud; it is about asking whether our system reflects the realities of modern life. Under the Immigration Act 2014, the UK Home Office already has the power to extend the standard marriage notice period to 70 days. If the UK Government already have the power to identify, investigate and disrupt sham marriages, why does every couple need to have their wedding delayed?

The public are clear. They want a system that is simpler, fairer and more flexible. A recent YouGov poll found that 88% of UK adults support the ability to fast-track the marriage process. With fewer than half of UK adults now married, we are witnessing an historic shift in the structure of our families. While shifting social ideas play a part, 61% of adults cite the rising cost and complexity of weddings as a key reason for the decision to decline the opportunity.

Inaction also has an economic cost. The UK wedding sector is estimated to be worth £10 billion to £15 billion annually, supporting countless jobs and venues across the UK, as in Gretna Green. Such venues are spread across the breadth of the country, and I am sure Members present have venues in their own constituencies that come to mind. By maintaining a needlessly slow process, more flexible jurisdictions will come to benefit more than Britain from spending on weddings. Many visitors from the United States now come to Scotland to get married, having seen “Highlander”, “Outlander” and other such programmes on international television channels and realised the beauty of the country.

I of course appreciate that the Government in Holyrood and the Scottish Parliament have responsibility for some of these issues in Scotland, and I would also be delighted to see the Scottish Government take forward proposals at the first opportunity, but in the absence of them doing so, the UK Government have the capacity to demonstrate a different way of doing things. I do not wish to pre-empt what the Minister may have to say, but she may reference the Law Commission’s 2022 report, “Celebrating Marriage: A New Weddings Law”, and the announcement in October last year that the UK Government would reform wedding law.

Although the Law Commission’s report was extensive and thoughtful, its focus was largely on where weddings can take place and who can conduct them. It suggested moving towards a system focused on authorised officiants, rather than on licensed buildings, which would allow for more outdoor and home ceremonies—reforms that I wholeheartedly support. The administrative notice period, however, received far less attention in that review. With the Government already having accepted that marriage law needs modernisation, why not tackle the waiting time, too?

To be clear, this is not about deregulating marriage law, but about making it fit for the modern day through digital notice systems and more flexible waiting periods, the recognition of independent celebrants to allow personalised, but legally binding ceremonies—the hon. Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins) has already referred to the opportunity for humanist weddings—and simplified documentation that reflects modern administrative capability. One suggestion has been the appointment of a marriage tsar to move forward the aforementioned modernisation. However, I am sure that if it is driven from within Government, it can take place.

Administrative delays are not merely bureaucratic inconveniences; they carry a profound human and financial toll. For many, particularly in our armed forces, these administrative hurdles are not merely inconvenient; they can be fundamentally incompatible with the realities of service life. In recent days, we have all seen service personnel deployed at short notice. That is part of being in the services, as are unpredictable posting cycles that do not align with a rigid, 28-day delay, and the marriage system’s opaque exceptions are difficult to navigate at a time of high stress.

Moreover, with the average UK wedding now costing more than £20,000, delays can lead to the loss of substantial venue deposits and the risk of escalating catering and other fees, which have also risen by about 24% due to inflation. This “cost of worry” creates uncertainty, where heartbreaking last-minute cancellations become a reality for those caught in an antiquated system. These hurdles, and the costs associated with them, effectively put marriage on the back burner for many who would otherwise want to marry.

The history of Gretna Green shows that love cannot wait, love should not wait, and neither should we. I look forward to the Minister’s response and hope that she will agree that the time has come to review the administrative hurdles that stand in the way of love today.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mundell]

I thank all participants for their engagement in this debate. I particularly welcome the Minister’s remarks and the tone of those remarks. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) said, it is important to reflect on the experience of the people carrying out weddings at this time, and few people are more experienced than those in Gretna Green.

I am glad that the Minister said she would look at other jurisdictions. As I said in my remarks, our Home Secretary has highlighted Denmark as a country with robust rules and regulations on immigration and illegal immigration, yet Denmark is able to consider whether a marriage is a sham or one of true commitment within five days. It is important to look at the systems that allow that to happen. The length of time is not, in itself, necessarily a way of ensuring an outcome if the systems behind it cannot detect the issues that we are trying to detect by creating a waiting period.

We also touched on the fact that people should not be put off getting married by the bureaucracy or cost. That is at the heart of this. A couple’s commitment to each other and wish to get married should prevail, and bureaucracy and cost should not be impediments.

On the digital issues, it should not be easier to complete divorce proceedings than to complete the forms required for marriage. The digitalisation of many of these processes should certainly be a priority. Having served in government myself, I am familiar with the time periods involved, and I know that “early in the year” might well progress to September—we always regarded the winter as going through to March or April. However, I hope that the proposals will be introduced soon, and that this discussion, debate and dialogue can continue.

As I said in opening, bureaucracy should not be an impediment to love. We should encourage people who want to get married to do so in the way they wish, while protecting the integrity of marriage. I thank all those who have contributed to the debate, and I look forward to its continuation.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the potential merits of modernising marriage regulations.