Debate contribution: Marriage and Civil Partnership Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Mr John O'Dowd on 20 April 2026.

MLA

Mr John O'Dowd

Party at the time

Sinn Féin

Date

20 April 2026

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Marriage and Civil Partnership Bill: Second Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5493777

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank Members for their welcome contributions to today's debate on the Marriage and Civil Partnership Bill. As I said at the outset, the Bill has been developed through a process of research, analysis and public consultation. Its proposals on the minimum age for marriage and civil partnership reflect the recommendations of respected specialists and local and international opinion and have been overwhelmingly supported by those who replied to our consultation. Its proposals on belief marriage reflect the judgement of the courts in 2017 and temporary arrangements that have been working well for close to a decade. I will now turn to the points raised by Members today. I welcome the support outlined by Matthew O'Toole and look forward to my officials working with him, as Chair of the Committee, during the Committee scrutiny stage. Matthew asked about no-fault divorce. To clarify, that was never part of the proposals in this Bill. No-fault divorce was to be introduced through a separate Bill in this mandate. He will know that we have consulted on no-fault divorce. Around the same time that I brought a policy paper on this legislation to the Executive, I also introduced a policy paper on no-fault divorce. I have not got agreement from the DUP yet to table that Executive paper. Time is running out for the Executive to deliver legislation in this mandate. If we are to deliver that legislation, agreement needs to come forward very quickly in order for the no-fault divorce paper to move forward. I support the principle and outlines of moving that forward, but we require DUP agreement to have it tabled at the Executive. I welcome the comments from the Deputy Chair of the Finance Committee, Diane Forsythe, including those about the points that she will raise during the scrutiny of the Bill. Consideration will be given to the issues as they arise. I welcome the comments from Jemma Dolan and Deirdre Hargey. I fully agree that the Bill will bring us into line with best practice on child marriage and provide the necessary equality for belief marriages. Eóin Tennyson, on behalf of the Alliance Party, raised the issue of independent celebrants. England and Wales have only consulted on independent celebrants. We are keeping an eye on those proposals, but, as yet, concrete plans have not been put forward, and they remain proposals. As I said in my opening remarks, I do not have a closed mind on it, but I believe that it would require carefully thought out policy, and it could have unintended consequences if we removed our law on profit and gain. I do not want to delay the progress of the Bill to do that, and there was a mixed message from stakeholders on the issue in the consultation. Timothy Gaston raised a number of points that I will deal with in turn. First was the disparity between the age of voting and marriage age — why should children be able to vote at 16 but not be able to marry at that age? That is not comparing like with like. It is not unreasonable that different types of decisions have different minimum ages. There is talk of lowering the voting age, but no formal policy proposals or draft legislation have been introduced, as far as I am aware. Deciding to marry is a different type of decision from deciding who to vote for in an election. It is much easier to change who you vote for than it is to change who you are married to, although both have lasting repercussions. The next issue was whether the rationale for raising the age of marriage was linked to cultural practices and the issue of forced marriage. There is very little evidence that forced marriages are an issue here, and the Bill is not being driven by that. It is a much broader issue. I refer to my opening remarks on the potential for a 16- or 17-year-old who marries to miss out on such opportunities as education, training and the final years of childhood. Of course, forced marriages in any culture or capacity are wrong, in my opinion. There was also the question of why the Bill is not raising the age of consent from 16 to 18. There is no necessary connection between the age of consent, which is a criminal law matter, and the minimum age for marriage, which is a civil law matter. There was a time in the past when the age of consent was 17 and the minimum age for marriage was 16. The age of consent is 16 because it is the age at which a person is deemed sufficiently mature to consent to sex. There is no requirement to seek parental consent to that decision as there would be if they wanted to marry. In any case, the age of consent is a matter for the Justice Minister. The final issue relates to marriage not being for profit or gain. That is already covered in the Marriage Order 2003, and there is a power in the Bill to bring in qualifying requirements, which we may introduce. I welcome the comments that have been made today by Members, including the Chair of the Finance Committee and Committee members. I commend the Bill to the Assembly.

891 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:26 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.

Challenge this classification