I was addressing amendment No. 16, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). Proposed subsection (4B) could just about sit beside subsection (5), but it would create an exceptionally messy situation. One can imagine the priest being pulled out of the cupboard as soon as the registrar left the room. For that reason, I would be less inclined to support his amendment than the one proposed by the Conservative Front Bench spokesman, but they both come from the same direction and are broadly worthy in their intent.

With regard to amendment No. 184 and the explanation given of it by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), I would say that I share the analysis of the hon. Member for Rhondda concerning what constitutes religious marriage, if I can call it that, or holy matrimony. I take that view as a Christian who was married in church. Throughout my dealings with the Bill, I have taken strongly to heart the difference

between what the hon. Member for Christchurch called holy matrimony and civil marriage, which is entirely secular. However, it is right that we should allow for Christian analysis other than that to which I or the hon. Member for Rhondda may subscribe. For Parliament to dictate to the Church what it may or may not do is fundamentally wrong. The establishment of the Church of England notwithstanding, an important constitutional principle is at stake.

Having said that, my final thought is that, as the hon. Member for Rhondda said, we have a curious situation in which civil registrars will not allow even religious texts or scripture reading to be used in the course of a service, and some sort of flexibility should be introduced to civil marriage. If we are re-enacting the provisions of civil marriage, warts and all, that is one of the warts that we should re-enact for civil partnerships, but with a view to reintroducing flexibility at a later stage. Once civil partnerships are put on to the statute book, they can be dealt with at the same time as civil marriage.