This debate has been raging back and forth for many months and on a personal level, owing to the ethical and legal significance of this decision, I have found it very challenging to come to a settled view on how to vote. I would like to reassure you that from the outset, I have taken on board all of the opinions expressed to me and I have spent many hours in deep thought over the implications of this Bill. I have met with local church leaders and constituents on both sides of the argument, with the Secretary of State for Women and Equality, Maria Miller MP, and with one of the civil servants responsible for drafting the bill to discuss it clause by clause.

To be clear, for me this discussion has never been about definition. As a strong supporter of civil partnerships and opponent of discrimination in all its forms, I have no principled objection to equal marriage in secular institutions.

However, throughout the discussions, a particular concern for me and many of my colleagues has been the risk of legal challenges on the basis of human rights law to religious institutions that choose not to marry same-sex couples. Whilst Ministers have emphasised that these institutions will be protected in the event of any changes to the law on marriage, it was nevertheless not clear to me at the early stages of the debate how this would be possible, particularly given recent European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) case law. I do firmly believe that religious institutions should have the right to marry according to their beliefs without fear of litigation.

In December, the Government announced its intention to introduce a so-called 'Quadruple lock' to protect religious organisations from litigation. This step did go some way to reassure me that Ministers do recognise the problem at hand and, as you may know, caused me to reassess my position. Part 1, Clause 1 of the Bill specifies that the legal duty of clergy of the Church of England and the Church in Wales to marry parishioners does not extend to same sex couples. Further, Clause 2 offers protection to individuals and organisations that do not choose to conduct or participate in a religious same-sex marriage ceremony. It also states that it is not unlawful discrimination under the Equality Act 2010, Schedule 3, for a religious institution or individual minister to refuse to marry a same sex couple.

However, I have now had a chance to reflect on the detail of the Bill and, whilst I do welcome these efforts to provide explicit protections, I have to admit that I am not yet fully convinced these exemptions would hold up to scrutiny in the face of potential litigation in the ECHR. Whilst amendments to the Equality Act are to be introduced, it nevertheless remains that the Act itself is a piece of national legislation, which in its application is ultimately subject to the judgment of the ECtHR. The vastly contradictory legal opinions offered by Aidan O'Neill QC and Karon Monaghan QC of Matrix Chambers, also demonstrate that even the most preeminent human rights barristers in this country disagree as to the strength of the protections provided to religious institutions. If you would like to see more detail on these legal complexities, I will be happy to send a copy of the legal opinions.

On a separate note, I have also listened carefully to the sincerely held views of many of my constituents that this legislation is both untimely and ultimately ignores their societal values. I know that many people, who fully respect equal rights of same-sex couples, nonetheless feel strongly that it is not for the Government to redefine communal rules that have existed for centuries. When I look at it from this perspective I do find it disappointing that MPs have been asked to vote on something which causes such a deep divide in public opinion after such a short and flawed period of consultation. And, as a constituency MP, I recognise that I have large numbers of constituents with perspectives on both sides of the divide, many of whom feel that far from introducing measures that are clearly divisive, the Government should right now be focusing on those issues which matter the most to the most vulnerable, i.e. safeguarding their well-being and restoring our struggling economy.

With this in mind, and having reflected deeply on the issues this bill raises at length, I did not feel it was right to vote for the Bill. As you will be aware, the Bill will now progress through its various stages in Parliament, including its first reading in the House of Lords. I will keep a close eye on the debate as the arguments on both sides develop.