The government's proposal to grant automatic marriage-like rights to cohabiting couples after three years has come under fire from Baroness Ruth Deech, who argues it undermines personal choice and could harm women who have deliberately chosen financial independence. The proposal, championed by Justice Secretary David Lammy, would impose legal obligations on couples who live together for three years or have a child, without their explicit consent.
What the proposal entails
Under the Ministry of Justice consultation launched on 5 June, qualifying cohabitants could face court-ordered financial settlements on separation, including property transfers, pension sharing, and lump-sum payments. Maintenance would only be awarded in exceptional circumstances. The plans also extend to inheritance, granting automatic rights to surviving cohabitants if a partner dies without a will, potentially overriding the deceased's intentions.
Lammy's proposal is part of a broader reform package that also aims to simplify divorce and civil partnership dissolution. However, Deech, a cross-bench peer and law lecturer, warns that the cohabitation element goes too far, comparing it to a "ticking political timebomb." She has opposed such automatic rights since 1980 and submitted evidence against similar proposals in 2021.
Impact on women's financial independence
While the government argues the reforms protect vulnerable women who become financially disadvantaged during cohabitation, Deech highlights a neglected group: millions of divorced or widowed women who have consciously chosen financial independence. These women may have secured assets through divorce settlements or inheritance and wish to maintain separate finances in new relationships.
"For these women, some of them vulnerable, cohabitation is a safe space – companionship without financial integration or legal obligations," Deech writes. Under the proposed opt-out scheme, a coercive partner could refuse to opt out, forcing the woman to either accept automatic inclusion or leave the relationship.
Legal and human rights concerns
The consultation proposes criteria for courts to assess relationships, including stability, financial arrangements, and even the presence of a sexual relationship. Deech describes these as "intrusive and potentially unfair," risking complex legal disputes. She also invokes Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right to private and family life, including the freedom to choose relationship forms and legal obligations.
On the same day as the consultation launch, Baroness Jonathan Marks re-introduced a cohabitation rights bill in the House of Lords, mirroring many government proposals. The bill receives its second reading on 17 July, offering parliament its first chance to debate the issue.
Alternatives under current law
Deech argues that existing law already provides options for cohabiting couples: they can enter into cohabitation agreements, choose property ownership, make wills, nominate pension beneficiaries, and arrange child maintenance. The Children Act 1989 also allows courts to make financial provision for children. She suggests strengthening these protections rather than fundamentally altering the legal status of millions.
"In a free society, relationships should be based on choice and consent," Deech concludes. She encourages engagement with the public consultation, which closes on 14 August, and directs readers to yourrelationshipyourchoice.org.uk for opt-in advocacy.
