Cohabitation Bill [HL]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, will not be surprised to hear me say that I will not be able to offer him much support, but he is probably used to that by now. I am not sure that I have been able to support him on many of his Bills in the past. Having said that, I am grateful for his detailed exposition of what Resolution—formerly known as the Solicitors’ Family Law Association, as the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, told us—and the noble Lord’s own Odysseus Trust have put together in forming this Bill. I was interested in the name of the trust. It brought to mind Tennyson, and the noble Lord will remember his poem entitled "Ulysses", in which Odysseus reflects on old age: ""It little profits an idle king, By this still hearth, among these barren crags, Match’d with an aged wife, I mete and dole Unequal laws unto a savage race, That hoard, and sleep, and feed, and know not me"." Perhaps this is another example of the unequal laws that the noble Lord wishes to force on to the savage race which, I suppose, includes the likes of me. I want to explain briefly why I and, I suspect, most of my noble friends cannot support this Bill. First, as the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, made absolutely clear, it removes choice from individuals. I accept, as the noble Lord made clear in his introduction, that there is an opt-out, but it is one that the parties have to find rather than having a new status, as the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, put it, imposed on them. I also fully accept her human rights point that it is possibly a breach of human rights to be put into a position one does not wish to be put into, purely because a certain time has passed or other events have taken place. In my view, it is far better that people make the conscious decision to enter into such arrangement themselves, just as with marriage, rather than drifting into them purely by the passage of time or, as I have put it, other events. The noble Lord and others touched on the point about ignorance of the law, and how so many believe that there is some such thing as a common-law marriage and that they are protected. In the criminal law, ignorance is no defence. I appreciate that it is jolly difficult to know the criminal law now because the Government pass so many new criminal justice Acts. Even so, as the noble and learned Baroness the Attorney-General will assure us, lack of knowledge of changes in the law is still no defence, and the same should apply to the status of marriage, partnerships or whatever. I think that my second point is important. I believe that the Bill would undermine the institution of marriage, at a time when we should all be doing our utmost to support it. We have seen the statistics on many occasions showing the far better outcomes for all children when their parents live in a stable relationship and, as we all know, that stable relationship is much more likely to be marriage than some partnership of whatever form. I would like to see the Government do everything they can to support the institution of marriage. I quote Jill Kirby at the Centre for Policy Studies, when she criticised the plans as introducing a, ""kind of marriage lite. If a man and a woman want to create a family together, then the most durable contract available to them is marriage. If they decide not to marry, then I think consequences must flow from that, and that if we introduce … a kind of substitute version, as the Law Commission proposes"—" she was talking about the proposals from the Law Commission rather than that of the noble Lord— ""then it does detract from that institution and I think will lead to more confusion"." Thirdly, if we are to have a Bill of the sort the noble Lord is talking about, it would fail to deal with other cohabitees who have similar rights. We had this argument in the then Civil Partnership Bill when it passed through the House, and I assure the noble Lord that if he pursues this proposal he will hear the arguments again. It does not deal with a carer looking after an aged parent when that aged parent dies. It does not deal with two sisters who inhabit the same house, and then one dies and the other finds that inheritance tax forces her to sell up and make other arrangements for the rest of her life. However, as I understand it, the Bill gives some inheritance tax protection to people who have been forced into a cohabitation pact, or whatever it might be. Fourthly, and I say this with some trepidation in the presence of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, it creates work for lawyers. We should always remember that Adam Smith said that when two or three people of any profession get together, one can be fairly sure that there will be a conspiracy against the public. On this occasion, we have had some 5,000 members of Resolution, formerly known as the Solicitors’ Family Law Association, getting together. There is ample evidence that there will be extra work for lawyers. We only have to see that to opt out of entering into some partnership, both parties have to take expert legal advice. That is not a cheap option for those parties, wise though it might be, and we can be fairly sure that later on, when these arrangements split up, there will be further calls on the public purse. My fifth point is to ask the noble and learned Baroness the Attorney-General what estimates the Government have made—if they have made any, because I imagine they do not want to support the Bill—about the costs to the Legal Aid Fund. We all know the pressure it is under at present. What further pressure do the Government feel is likely to be put on it by a Bill of this sort?