Cohabitation Bill [HL]

My Lords, this has been a very interesting, if not over long, debate. I thank the two right reverend Prelates—one still active and one retired—and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler Sloss, for their extremely gentle perception of this Bill. Very acute observations were made by all three of them about the details of the Bill, but one felt the fundamental goodwill behind what they said. I am very pleased, on the behalf of my noble friend in view of the amount of work he has done, that they were able to show their very learned support. My noble friend has already described, with his usual expertise, the purpose of his Bill and the range of its provisions. I will not attempt to follow him down that route. However, I turn to the justification for the Bill, based on the work of researchers, the development of public opinion and the clear disadvantages of the lack of legal framework for the dissolution of such arrangements. I urge the Government to take this matter seriously. In my opinion, the best outcome would be for the Government to take over the Bill, albeit possibly in an amended form—I am not sufficient legally qualified to judge that—and promote it as their own Bill. We are all becoming very conscious of time in Parliament at the moment, and I hope that the Government will have enough time to do that. Whether we like it or not, and quite a lot of people do not like it, cohabitation is an increasingly common form of family life, not just in the UK but generally in the western world. Although marriage is still the most common form of family, the number of people marrying is in decline. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, expressed that view with great clarity. A quarter of all children are born to cohabiting couples, and the majority of people in such couples, together with the public in general, think that they have the same rights as married couples. Yet the current absence of a framework for dealing with the breakdown of cohabiting couples can disadvantage both the children of such a relationship and the financially weaker of the two partners. This is the wrong that my noble friend’s Bill is designed to right. Not everyone approaches this matter in the same way. A friend of mine in this House maintains that it costs so little to acquire the benefits of marriage by visiting the registry office that people should avail themselves of this facility instead of setting up less satisfactory arrangements. Many people might say the same, but the law has to change with the choices that people make, and people are choosing not to marry, although it is perfectly true, as several noble Lords have pointed out, that people may choose not to marry at the beginning of a relationship but marry later on. That is a different situation. Cohabitation is widely accepted as an acceptable way of creating a family, but that family is more vulnerable if it breaks up than other forms of family are. People who live together rather than get married may not even make wills, and if one partner has less financial clout than the other, perhaps because of being the caring parent, that person has no redress when the partnership breaks down. Public opinion also seems to be on the side of change. The 2008 British social attitudes survey found, among other things, that two-thirds of respondents thought that when a couple had been living together for as little as two years, and there is a child of that relationship, the man should pay child support to the woman who will be their child’s chief carer. The poll also showed that the same proportion thought that a childless co-habitant should inherit the home bought by their deceased partner before their relationship began as though they were a married couple. Public opinion seems to support the rights of co-habiting couples almost as though their partnership has the same importance as marriage. Finally, the legal professionals in what used to be known as the Solicitors Family Law Association also support the purposes of the Bill—in fact, they have played a very large part in creating it—including its provisions on separation or the death of a partner, because they feel that co-habiting couples should be able to separate in a sensible way that assists them to end their association without damaging the partners’ future. As my noble friend has explained, however, the Bill’s provisions for cohabiting couples are not the same as those for married couples who divorce. The presumption is that the couple will be financially self-supporting as soon as possible, and that claims on assets will be limited to reasonable needs. The well-being of any children of the partnership will come first. That is an extremely important provision for me, as it is, I think, for all of us. The case for the Government taking on the Bill is considerable. Many people enter into partnership arrangements without advice on what the legal aspects of such a relationship really are. Damage to children or to the economically weaker partner can ensue, and a method of redressing this disadvantage is needed. On the other hand, nothing in my noble friend’s Bill gives cohabiting couples the same rights as married couples. The Bill provides the possibility of making fair provisions in the case of the breakdown of partnerships, which is very much welcomed and supported by the very lawyers who deal with these cases and understand them the best.