Introduction

Following the UK general election in 2024, the Government has gone on record various times since to confirm that a public consultation will be issued later this year to strengthen the rights and protections available to women in cohabiting couples. In this article, I set out why legislating for and implementing reform should be a no brainer in terms of the money it could save for the UK economy. Much of this article is sourced from the House of Commons Women and Equalities Committee 2022 Report on the Rights of Cohabiting Partners.

Demographics

The total number of cohabiting couples has increased from around 1.5m in 1996 to around 3.6m in 2021, an increase of 144%. In 2021, 22% of couples who lived together were cohabiting rather than married or in a civil partnership. This would suggest that the number of cohabiting couples may soon outstrip the Government Actuary's Department's prediction in 2005, where it was estimated that the numbers would reach 3.8m by 2031.

In 2021, in England and Wales, 320,713 children were born to unmarried mothers, which is 51.3% of all live births registered that year. More births now occur outside marriage.

We have reached a critical mass whereby the one in five adult couples who are cohabiting cannot and should not be ignored. The state must therefore ensure that appropriate rights and protections are afforded to all families, regardless of formality.

Reforming cohabitation law could significantly reduce the impact of domestic abuse

A survey conducted by Resolution in 2024, with 526 full responses, confirmed that family justice professionals were most concerned that domestic abuse and specifically economic abuse is not sufficiently taken into account when it comes to unmarried families. 85% said it is not sufficiently taken into account in Schedule 1 awards for parents, and 87% said it is not sufficiently taken into account where the parties have cohabited and not been married.

There was also very significant professional concern that the long-term impact of economic abuse, specifically, was not sufficiently taken into account in proceedings involving cohabiting couples. Of the 341 professionals who responded in respect of Schedule 1 proceedings, 87% said the long-term impact of economic abuse is not sufficiently taken into account. Of the 369 professionals who responded in respect of proceedings between cohabiting couples, 90% said the long-term impact of economic abuse is not sufficiently taken into account.

The Home Office has produced research revealing that the cost to the UK economy from lost output alone arising from time off work and reduced productivity due to domestic abuse is a startling £14 billion a year. Furthermore, in 2019, Women's Aid reported 56.1% of abuse victim-survivors stated that domestic abuse had impacted their ability to work, while over two-fifths felt the abuse had negatively impacted their long-term employment prospects and earnings.

As it is often women in cohabiting couples who are the worst affected by domestic abuse, introducing new legislation to protect them could significantly improve the time they spend in work and productivity thereby reducing these significant losses to the UK economy.

Reducing child poverty

Financially weaker parties, usually women, taking on domestic or care responsibilities are most disadvantaged at present, resulting in discrimination against lower-income households. It cannot be right that in modern society mothers are often left with nothing at the end of a significant relationship, regardless of the length of the relationship and having given up or reduced working hours to raise the couple’s children. This is in stark contrast to the position when a marriage ends, where the law focuses on dividing assets fairly.

Many children, or parents on behalf children, are in practice excluded from the scope of Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989 for financial provision for the benefit of the children during their minority. Applications tend to be the preserve of the very wealthy, for example where the economically stronger party has an income over £156,000 gross per annum and so is outside of the jurisdiction of the Child Maintenance Service, where it is intended a child will be privately educated, or where there are substantial assets. Outright transfers of property are extremely rare even in big money cases. The needs of children in smaller money cases are rarely addressed. This is compounded by the difficulties faced by an economically weaker applicant in securing the means to fund the costs of court proceedings.

A gross annual income of £156,000 over which top up child maintenance can be claimed far exceeds the median gross annual earnings for full time employees of £37,430 in April 2024. Using the Institute of Fiscal Studies online calculator, this excludes around 98% of the UK working population.

This discrimination against lower-income households in particular raises the prospect of greater numbers falling into child poverty until this is addressed by legislation. Cohabitation law reform would assist the Government’s flagship strategy to reduce the hardship of child poverty. In 2025, there is frankly no excuse for the children of unmarried couples to fare worse than other children. Without legislation, child poverty will increase due to the increasing number of children born to unmarried mothers.

Relationship generated disadvantage should be addressed by the wealthier party

In her evidence to the Parliamentary Inquiry (The Rights of Cohabiting Partners), Professor Anne Barlow spoke of uneven couples – typically where one party does not agree to marry, enter a civil partnership or other legal arrangement – as being particularly vulnerable. These relationships may also involve a mismatch of knowledge of financial power and perhaps instances of abuse further enhancing their potential to create relationship-generated disadvantage.

As a result, she claimed that cohabitants are likely, especially if they have children, to experience the same inequality of contributions and disconnect from the labour market as they would if married. However, unlike for marriage and civil partnership, the law does not provide any remedies for a couple if their relationship breaks down in the short-term while cohabiting.

Family justice professionals have long been aware of scenarios where men simply walk away from their responsibilities after 30 years and do not pay their fair share in terms of helping with the family.

It cannot be right for our current laws to permit this, and the only way to ensure this is through improvement of financial remedies for cohabitants. Forty-two years after the Burns decision confirming that legislation would be required, too many people are excluded from the rights and responsibilities that should apply, thereby relying on the state for support instead.

Improved cohabitation rights on death are long overdue

Family provision claims under the I(PFD)A 1975 are less generous than that received by spouses or civil partners and limited to maintenance. Enacting the 2011 draft Inheritance (Cohabitants) Bill would allow surviving partners the right to inherit under intestacy rules without having to go to court thereby reducing pressures on the court system, thereby reducing delay and expense.

Accessing pensions is too complicated

In her evidence to the Parliamentary Inquiry, Lisa Ray, General Secretary of the Civil Service Pensioner’s Alliance, claimed that about 80% of cohabitants rely on trustees’ discretion to secure their partner’s pension. Some cohabitants have to jump through a lot of hoops to prove they are dependent. There should be greater clarity on people’s entitlements, and regarding consistency of evidence, because some schemes ask for more than others. Cohabitation reform could ensure better regulation, including pension sharing which would reduce the burden on the estate otherwise placed by the elderly.

The tax burden on death can create impoverishment

Cohabitants do not benefit from the same exemption from inheritance tax that married couples and civil partners enjoy. Cohabitants who inherit their deceased partner’s share in the family home can face an inheritance tax burden that leaves the retention of the home unaffordable. In the worst-case scenario, Professor Barlow has observed that an individual may have to sell the home and could struggle to rehouse themselves depending on the value of property in their area. This places greater demand on the state for housing.

Reducing private law demand through ADR/NCDR

Reducing the workload in private law family cases can be achieved by encouraging earlier resolution through alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods like mediation and by providing families with more support and information. Improving property rights would ensure that ADR is fair, while improving financial provision for children means that NCDR can work more effectively, as the facilitated outcome is structured on law that is fit for purpose. Bringing the whole of cohabitation rights under the family law umbrella would lead those seeking rights and remedies to the right pathways of family support such as therapeutic and counselling services, which would in turn mean less reliance on the state for support.

Conclusion

Politically, now is the time to grasp the nettle, and move forward legislation focusing on the rights of cohabiting couples. Consensus must surely be possible to achieve a reduction of child poverty and improve protections for women experiencing domestic abuse. Financially, we can ill afford to do otherwise.