Debate contribution: No-fault Divorce
Debate contribution by Mr Eóin Tennyson on .
- MLA
- Mr Eóin Tennyson
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 20 May 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- No-fault Divorce
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4491279
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The Alliance Party supports the introduction of no-fault divorce, as committed to in our 2022 Assembly manifesto, and welcomes the opportunity to debate the issue. The existing procedure and law managing divorce and the dissolution of civil partnerships is not fit for purpose and is in clear need of updating. The fundamental problem is, as has been set out, the requirement to prove that a marriage has broken down either by establishing fault on the part of one partner or by showing that the couple has lived separate lives for a prolonged number of years. Those who cannot afford to live in two separate households for years in order to prove that their marriage has broken down are left with the only option available to them, which is to establish fault. Establishing one of the three faults, be it adultery, unreasonable behaviour or desertion, can be difficult and often creates further tensions at a time when emotions are already incredibly high for partners and their families. Indeed, it can be an acrimonious, fractious and prolonged process, particularly for children. Some 21% of respondents to the Finding Fault survey stated that they believed that establishing fault had made it difficult to sort arrangements for children, and 78% said that it made the process more bitter. As has been referenced, there are examples of separated couples having to resort to establishing fault that is not necessarily based on fact in order to speed up the process. There are also widespread concerns about the potential for exploitation of the current system, whereby it can be used as a means for a perpetrator of domestic abuse to continue to exercise coercive control through the legal process, resulting in a victim of domestic abuse being effectively trapped in a marriage for a prolonged period. Additionally, victims having to recount specific details of abuse through the divorce process can compound mental and emotional distress and reopen incredibly traumatising experiences. England and Wales have already moved to introduce no-fault divorce procedures, and we can and should learn from their experience and ensure that this is not another example of Northern Ireland being left behind the rest of these islands.
No, I will not give way. I am usually keen to give way in debate, but, when I last tried to intervene on the Member, he would not give way and engage in debate and was personally rude. I have no intention of giving way to the Member on this occasion. In considering reform in this jurisdiction, we must deliver divorce laws that ensure that couples can separate as amicably as possible; seek to minimise conflict; uphold and protect the dignity, human rights and equality of those involved; maximise the chances of agreement being reached; and keep the risk of domestic abuse as low as possible. Where children are involved, their interests must, of course, be paramount, and a safe and secure outcome for them should be promoted. There is a clear public interest, therefore, in supporting people to achieve amicable resolutions to financial and care arrangements following a separation. The introduction of no-fault divorce is a clear step along the road in moving away from prolonged periods of animosity and blame. It is not, however, the end of the journey. Tackling some of the issues that have been raised — be it around inequality, domestic abuse, promoting healthy relationships and dealing with the well-being and life chances of children — will require a joined-up and cross-Executive effort, and I sincerely hope that the debate can be the start of that journey.
594 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.03 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.95).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.05 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.95 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.69 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.21 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.10 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:22 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.