Cohabiting couples to win legal rights if relations break down
By JAMES CHAPMAN Last updated at 08:22am on 16th October 2006
Britain's two million cohabiting couples are to be given legal rights to claim a share of property and income when the relationship breaks down.
Unmarried couples could be ordered to sell their homes, pay lump sums to each other or share pensions if they split under controversial Government reforms.
Opposition MPs and family campaigners said the sweeping changes - expected to apply to those who have lived together for as little as two years - would further undermine the institution of marriage.
The Tories said a distinction had to be drawn between cohabiting and being married. Critics also branded the proposals a 'lawyers' charter'. They will mean assets of cohabitees being divided along the same lines as married couples by the courts.
But constitutional affairs minister Harriet Harman said the number of people living together outside marriage would double in the next 25 years - and insisted yesterday they needed a new set of legal rights.
Legislation would be brought forward next year, she said. While many people believe living together for two years constitutes 'common law' marriage, it has in fact held no legal force for 300 years.
Financially supporting a cohabiting partner is not a legal duty, while each married partner has a legal duty to support the other, including after a split.
Unmarried fathers also have no automatic rights or duties to their children, unlike in marriage. Labour MPs complain that cohabiting partners can be suddenly cut off with nothing when a relationship fails.
An estimated four million people - or two million couples - in England and Wales cohabit, an increase of 67 per cent in ten years. Forty per cent of those have children.
Miss Harman revealed that Government actuaries forecast that by 2031, 7.6 million people will cohabit and less than 20 million people will be married. 'Cohabiting couples will constitute more than a third of the total,' she said.
'The relentless trend is for an increase in cohabitation and in the number of children who are born in cohabiting relationships rather than married ones. Legislation is required.'
Miss Harman, who harbours hopes of becoming Labour's deputy leader under Gordon Brown, said a fundamental change of policy was needed to safeguard children.
'We have got to get away from this being an argument about morality,' she said.
'It is actually about protecting children, social justice and fairness. People don't realise - the concept of a common law marriage is rooted in people's minds.
'In fact, the woman can be left with nothing, no right to live in the house. If the children are going to be living with her, this is very serious. So the public policy imperative is the effect on children.
'I'm committed to us making progress on it. I don't accept the argument that it is a threat to marriage.'
She claimed there was no evidence that the current lack of any legal rights for unmarried couples was encouraging people to marry. It is unlikely that couples will be given precisely the same rights as marriage, where entitlement to some share of assets is automatic.
Unmarried partners are expected to have to show how they have contributed to a household or that they have given up work to enhance a family's standard of living.
The Law Commission, which has drawn up plans for a change in the law, has suggested marriage-style rights should go to couples after a 'minimum duration' together, expected to be two years. Those who had children earlier than that date are likely to qualify.
Settlements designed to give couples a 'clean break' would be favoured. A girlfriend left on her own with a man's children, for instance, would get a cash sum and be likely to keep their house outright, rather than being awarded regular payments. (AtW: how is she leaving if she actually gets the house??!?!)
Couples are also likely to be given the chance to sign an opt-out from the laws, though these could be overruled by the courts.
Labour has already been attacked for undermining marriage by characterising it as a 'lifestyle option' and stripping away tax incentives to marry.
It abolished the Married Couples Allowance, the last tax break for married couples, and has even removed the word marriage from some official forms and documents.
The moves were last night criticised by Tory women's spokesman Eleanor Laing said: 'I believe that there has to be a distinction between marriage and cohabitation.
'Marriage as an institution is an essential building block of society. Families come in all shapes and sizes and people don't have to be married if they don't want to be.
'But being married must be different to not being married.'
Robert Whelan, of the centre-right think-tank Civitas, said: 'This Government appears determined to go out in a blaze of anti-family pyrotechnics.
'They seem determined to undermine marriage, which all the evidence shows is by far the best environment for bringing up children.
'These reforms will mean people won't be able to live with someone without worrying about whether that means they'll get their hands on their pension.
'The inevitable result will be more people living alone. We already have one of the largest proportions of one-person households.'
By JAMES CHAPMAN Last updated at 08:22am on 16th October 2006
Britain's two million cohabiting couples are to be given legal rights to claim a share of property and income when the relationship breaks down.
Unmarried couples could be ordered to sell their homes, pay lump sums to each other or share pensions if they split under controversial Government reforms.
Opposition MPs and family campaigners said the sweeping changes - expected to apply to those who have lived together for as little as two years - would further undermine the institution of marriage.
The Tories said a distinction had to be drawn between cohabiting and being married. Critics also branded the proposals a 'lawyers' charter'. They will mean assets of cohabitees being divided along the same lines as married couples by the courts.
But constitutional affairs minister Harriet Harman said the number of people living together outside marriage would double in the next 25 years - and insisted yesterday they needed a new set of legal rights.
Legislation would be brought forward next year, she said. While many people believe living together for two years constitutes 'common law' marriage, it has in fact held no legal force for 300 years.
Financially supporting a cohabiting partner is not a legal duty, while each married partner has a legal duty to support the other, including after a split.
Unmarried fathers also have no automatic rights or duties to their children, unlike in marriage. Labour MPs complain that cohabiting partners can be suddenly cut off with nothing when a relationship fails.
An estimated four million people - or two million couples - in England and Wales cohabit, an increase of 67 per cent in ten years. Forty per cent of those have children.
Miss Harman revealed that Government actuaries forecast that by 2031, 7.6 million people will cohabit and less than 20 million people will be married. 'Cohabiting couples will constitute more than a third of the total,' she said.
'The relentless trend is for an increase in cohabitation and in the number of children who are born in cohabiting relationships rather than married ones. Legislation is required.'
Miss Harman, who harbours hopes of becoming Labour's deputy leader under Gordon Brown, said a fundamental change of policy was needed to safeguard children.
'We have got to get away from this being an argument about morality,' she said.
'It is actually about protecting children, social justice and fairness. People don't realise - the concept of a common law marriage is rooted in people's minds.
'In fact, the woman can be left with nothing, no right to live in the house. If the children are going to be living with her, this is very serious. So the public policy imperative is the effect on children.
'I'm committed to us making progress on it. I don't accept the argument that it is a threat to marriage.'
She claimed there was no evidence that the current lack of any legal rights for unmarried couples was encouraging people to marry. It is unlikely that couples will be given precisely the same rights as marriage, where entitlement to some share of assets is automatic.
Unmarried partners are expected to have to show how they have contributed to a household or that they have given up work to enhance a family's standard of living.
The Law Commission, which has drawn up plans for a change in the law, has suggested marriage-style rights should go to couples after a 'minimum duration' together, expected to be two years. Those who had children earlier than that date are likely to qualify.
Settlements designed to give couples a 'clean break' would be favoured. A girlfriend left on her own with a man's children, for instance, would get a cash sum and be likely to keep their house outright, rather than being awarded regular payments. (AtW: how is she leaving if she actually gets the house??!?!)
Couples are also likely to be given the chance to sign an opt-out from the laws, though these could be overruled by the courts.
Labour has already been attacked for undermining marriage by characterising it as a 'lifestyle option' and stripping away tax incentives to marry.
It abolished the Married Couples Allowance, the last tax break for married couples, and has even removed the word marriage from some official forms and documents.
The moves were last night criticised by Tory women's spokesman Eleanor Laing said: 'I believe that there has to be a distinction between marriage and cohabitation.
'Marriage as an institution is an essential building block of society. Families come in all shapes and sizes and people don't have to be married if they don't want to be.
'But being married must be different to not being married.'
Robert Whelan, of the centre-right think-tank Civitas, said: 'This Government appears determined to go out in a blaze of anti-family pyrotechnics.
'They seem determined to undermine marriage, which all the evidence shows is by far the best environment for bringing up children.
'These reforms will mean people won't be able to live with someone without worrying about whether that means they'll get their hands on their pension.
'The inevitable result will be more people living alone. We already have one of the largest proportions of one-person households.'
Comment