Debate contribution: No-fault Divorce
Debate contribution by Ms Claire Sugden on .
- MLA
- Ms Claire Sugden
- Party at the time
- Independent
- Date
- 20 May 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- No-fault Divorce
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4491324
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. I appreciate that from a litigation perspective. However, in most circumstances, this is highly emotional. It is about relationships breaking down, and conversations about why the marriage is breaking down will happen in the home. As I will go on to say, by creating more hurdles, we are interfering. If this is about not interfering in family life, by being one of the only jurisdictions in the United Kingdom that does not have this, we are actually interfering in family lives. Mr Allister, I appreciate your perspective, but I do not agree with it. At the point at which a couple reluctantly agrees to divorce — there is a reluctance there — there is no opportunity for reconciliation, and, to an extent, we have to respect that.
I will make some progress, if the Member does not mind. I have been interested in this policy change since I was Minister of Justice. I have raised it with the Finance Minister, and I believe that she intends to move in that direction, which is very welcome. A lot of the motivation for my interest, albeit it did not fall within the remit of the Minister of Justice but to the Minister of Finance's responsibility for civil matters, came from the impact that the change would have on the courts and in relation to domestic abuse. We have heard other Members discuss that. It provides an opportunity to address social, legal and practical considerations, and it is increasingly common across jurisdictions not just in GB but in international law, in which it is now standard. There are many practical reasons for making the change that I will speak to later, if I have time. However, the most important and impactful reason is to reduce the adversarial nature of divorce, particularly when young children are involved. I recognise that the motion specifically refers to that. It removes the need to assign blame. It reduces animosity. It makes the whole process less contentious. Lowering the level of conflict during divorce proceedings helps to create a more amicable environment that is, of course, less damaging to the children. Bear in mind that that damage can exist long past the point of decree absolute. When a divorce process creates so much animosity, the damage and impact are lasting. It is difficult — I said that in my response to Mr Allister — and I really do not think that anyone considers it flippantly. At the point at which divorce becomes a serious option for a couple, I doubt that reconciliation is likely. It is not in my interests as a parliamentarian to consider whether a marriage is viable; that is entirely a matter for the couple. I acknowledge that there are cases in which, for many reasons, marriage does not work. In those cases, the state need not interfere by creating more hurdles than necessary, particularly when we have seen other jurisdictions progress. Our current process is now interfering in that way.
Yes, go ahead.
Mr Allister, those are really interesting figures. However, how many divorces have proceeded and concluded? If there is an opportunity for reconciliation, it is my understanding that either party can look towards that in what they decide. However, again, Mr Allister, it is an equal partnership: if one individual in a marriage does not want to be part of the marriage, it is no longer equal and divorce is imminent. Simplifying the grounds for divorce reduces the complexity of court cases, leading to quicker resolution and a smaller court backlog. In recent days, we saw news reports on our court backlog and how slow our system continues to be. Nothing has changed in the eight years since I was Minister of Justice — that was eight years ago. If anything, it seems slower, and we need to look at practical ways to address that. This will not fix it, but it will certainly help. That is how we can start to address these things in Northern Ireland and start looking to societal change and progress around our attitudes to marriage and divorce. I really want to touch on domestic abuse before my time runs out. That is a really important reason why we should progress this issue. Speak to Women's Aid, Nexus and the organisations that know better than any of us in the House to understand how this small but impactful change could help victims in Northern Ireland.
743 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: 0.04 (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 (0.96).
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.96 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | 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 | 0.66 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.28 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.06 |
| 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.