Debate contribution: Marriage and Civil Partnership Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Matthew O'Toole on .
- MLA
- Mr Matthew O'Toole
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 20 April 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Marriage and Civil Partnership Bill: Second Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5493264
Read the official Assembly record
Text
She certainly does, and much more than that, Minister. Over the past nine years, those who have wanted to have a belief marriage have been able to seek one in the North, but the Bill puts that on a proper statutory footing. I welcome that; it is overdue. I congratulate those who had to litigate to address that anomaly. The truth is that, too often, people have had to litigate, campaign and pressurise in order to get social change and reform in Northern Ireland. It is welcome, however, and the Committee will understand all the various impacts and hear from the various people affected. I welcome the bit of progress that is represented by that being formally enshrined in law. One slight drawback — an issue with the Bill — is the absence of no-fault divorce. It would have been very welcome to see progress on no-fault divorce and its inclusion in the legislation. Almost exactly two years ago, there was a debate in the Chamber, secured by the Minister's party, in which the then Finance Minister, Caoimhe Archibald, indicated her broad support for including no-fault divorce in the Bill, although she said that there would be ongoing work with officials. This is the only part of these islands where fault divorce persists. It is a fairly archaic system that perpetuates certain problems. One such problem is that it can create an adversarial situation during what is often a sad and regrettable situation.
I think that this is vital and germane. At one point, there was an expectation that it would be included in the Bill, and it is important that I am able to bring that point up. I am not talking about something that is utterly irrelevant. No-fault divorce is critical, because it has the possibility of making divorces less adversarial when assets and, particularly, the custody of children are being dealt with. It can make for much less difficult and adversarial situations. It can also be a vital tool to ensure that women who are in situations of domestic abuse can be freed from very difficult marriages without having to go through the difficult, adversarial, exhausting and often traumatic process of a fault divorce. It is highly regrettable, when we are trying to prioritise ending violence against women and girls, that we have missed the opportunity to include no-fault divorce in the Bill. I appreciate that the Finance Minister's predecessor wanted to make progress in that area, and it would be helpful to have an update on why it is not in the Bill. I simply make the point that we are now the only part of these islands —.
We are the only part of the UK and Ireland —
— without no-fault divorce. Those are the only points that I wanted to make on that, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. It is critical stuff. We support the Bill —
— but we are —.
I will return to the substance of the Bill. It would have been a much stronger Bill had we been able to include no-fault divorce in it. A majority of Members of the Assembly supported that. This is the obvious legislative opportunity to do that, and I think that people will reflect on this as being another failure of the Assembly to deliver timely progress. We are supportive of the Bill and everything that is in it, and we look forward to scrutinising it. It is regrettable that no-fault divorce was not included in it, but we otherwise look forward to scrutinising it and will support it at Second Stage.
598 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: 0.06 (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 (0.93).
- 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 | 0.06 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.05 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.93 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.06 | 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 | 0.83 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.12 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.04 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:21 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.