Logo

Not universally welcomed: cohabitation reforms, the law and the economy

Whilst many groups welcomed the proposed reform to cohabitation rights recently set out by the government, the Centre for Social Justice (CJS) sounded alarm bells.

They challenged the government view that the proposed rights would not affect how people living in England and Wales would view relationships or cohabiting. The government also considered that the proposals would also not affect people’s decision to marry or have children.

 

The Finnish experience

Drawing on data from Finland which introduced similar changes in 2011, and from other countries, the CSJ was confident to:

“Project what Finland’s family and birth rates could have been if the reforms had not been introduced". (1)

The CSJ estimated that:

    • The first marriage rate for women in Finland was 23 per cent lower within seven years of the reform.
    • The change was not followed by an increase in household stability amongst cohabiting couples
    • The reform reduced marriage rates without achieving a requisite increase in household stability.

 

Lower fertility rates

This was a surprising figure to emerge concerning the fertility rate (i.e. the number of babies born.)

"The Finnish fertility rate also fell by 21 per cent by 2018. In Finland, 42 per cent of the decline in first births has been attributed to the decline in fertility in cohabiting couples." (2)

The CSJ estimate that if England and Wales had introduced the reforms at the same time as Finland, it would have resulted in:

    • 111,014 fewer marriages between 2012 and 2023
    • 24,855 fewer marriages in 2023 alone.
    • The Total Fertility Rate (TFR) in 2023 (6) would have been 1.26, rather than 1.44.
    • Approx 75,000 fewer babies born per year since 2021

(Our own note of caution here: whilst based on robust national population data, this is still a 'what if' projection.)

The CSJ concludes that:

"At a time when birth rates are already at historic lows and population ageing is placing growing pressure on public finances, policymakers cannot assume these reforms will be behaviourally neutral. The potential costs are too great, and the evidence too significant, to ignore."

 

 

Eroding the legal status of marriage

In their full-length report, the CSJ raise the issue of how the reforms could create:

"A quasi-marriage status without the clarity, consent or safeguards that marriage provides. Marriage is the mechanism through which family law recognises commitment and allocates rights and responsibilities. Creating parallel automatic rights for cohabiting couples would raise difficult questions of jurisdiction, evidence, litigation and fairness."

It is certainly an issue if almost all the rights afforded by marriage are allocated automatically to any couple fulfilling the proposed cohabitation criteria, namely:

    • They have lived together for three years (and can prove it)

or

    • They have a child together

 

Is this just marriage lite?

The CSJ is therefore concerned that the proposals would effectively create a status of marriage-lite.

"Government plans to give cohabiting couples many of the rights conferred by marriage risk worsening the demographic time-bomb facing the country ... (Their analysis) concludes that England and Wales would have seen over 75,000 fewer babies born."

The CSJ's view is in stark contrast to the government viewpoint as outlined by the Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy:

"We’re launching this consultation to make sure our new family law builds a fair system that offers the most vulnerable protection in the event of a breakup, and at a time where the country is facing cost of living pressures ... These reforms strike an important balance between tradition and modernity. I’m determined that our justice system should work for everyone who needs it." (4)

 

Less choice for cohabiting couples

At present couples in England and Wales have a choice, either to:

    • Get married or enter a civil partnership

or

    • Cohabitate

The decision to cohabit carries no legal obligations as such, which is one reason we encourage those planning to live together to draw up a cohabitation agreement to outline their financial position, if nothing else.

It is worth noting that some couples choose to live together but do not wish to have rights to each other’s assets, wealth, or pensions. They wish to remain independent and separate in financial terms whilst still being in a relationship.

A key concern with the proposed reforms is that the automatic rights they create can't simply be “switched off.” A cohabitation agreement and a deed of trust offers a way around this, allowing couples to set out their own terms for separation and opt out of the legislation by mutual agreement.

 

Agreeing on marriage

The choice to marry or to cohabitate should ideally be an 'active' decision that both partners agree on. The CSJ are concerned that "marriage auto-enrolment" will erode the need to marry.

In reality, becoming part of a couple is often a lot more messy than this. Couples may find themselves cohabiting earlier than expected to share costs or before their sometimes unexpected first child. They may want to live together, but actually can't. They may have blended families that do not get along. Equally, once under the same roof, one partner may subject the other to domestic abuse, or exert coercive control.

It is a very difficult task to form legislation that covers all circumstances. It is also confusing if that legislation does not differentiate in some way between an active agreed choice and a set of circumstances.

 

How can cohabitation affect the economy

As living together confirms similar rights to marriage by default, if people choose not to marry, this might have an impact on the nation as a whole. In an introduction to the CSJ report, Nick Timothy CBE MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Justice and Shadow Lord Chancellor wrote:

"If we are serious about economic growth, stronger communities and sustainable public finances, we cannot be careless about the institutions that support long-term commitment. The evidence in this report shows that similar reforms in Finland were associated with fewer marriages, lower rates of couple formation and significantly lower fertility. When the state blurs the distinction between marrying and not marrying, fewer people may choose the institution that has historically supported family stability."

 

What is ”automatic entitlement”?

The proposals would automatically grant a set of rights to anyone living together as a couple (whether they want them or not). A survey of over 1,500 UK adults conducted by JL Partners on behalf of the Centre for Social Justice asked specifically about the issue of auto-entitlement:

- "Nearly 60% of respondents agreed that couples should choose whether they marry rather than automatically gaining marriage-style rights after a set period of time.

- 56% of those surveyed did not think that living together should, by itself, confer a legal claim on a partner’s savings, property or pension." (3)

 

Why did I not hear about these proposals?

One of the other concerns is that the public simply do not know about the proposed changes (despite our own best efforts and those of others!).

In a submission to Justice Secretary Alex Norris, Baroness Ruth Deech (a Crossbench peer in the House of Lords) cited a poll of 2,060 UK adults conducted by Survation, which found that:

- 72% had heard little or nothing about the proposals

- Only 37% supported them after they were explained

- 76% believe divorced and widowed people should be able to protect assets

- 42% say the current law is broadly adequate

- 41% believe new rights are needed (5)

 

How might the proposals affect the courts?

Previously, Judge Edward Hess, Deputy National Lead Judge of the Financial Remedies Court, had estimated that the government’s proposed changes could create 10,000 additional Family Court cases every year. With UK courts already under strain, this is a major concern for family law firms like ourselves that currently experience extended timescales for divorce and separation cases under the current system.

 

TLDR: what’s the summary?

Even after the consultation period has closed, the government’s cohabitation proposals remain a bone of contention. As family lawyers, our expertise involves seeing both sides of an argument, and also rigorous and comprehensive research to ensure we have the full picture. So, on this matter, we will wait and see what the results of the consultation are.

 

Cohabiting and help with separating

Contact us at LGFL to discuss your options in an initial reduce fee consultation.

 

About the author

Rita Gupta is Co-founder and Managing Director of family law firm LGFL Ltd, serving family law for clients in the Reading and Thames Valley area, across the UK and for international clients involved in UK divorce cases. She has featured as a family law expert on national TV and radio, including BBC Radio 5 Live with Nicky Campbell, LBC, GB News with Darren McCaffrey and local TV and radio.

    • Legal 500 Recommended Lawyer
    • Listed in Chambers and Partners
    • Listed Leading Lawyer at Wiselaw
    • Member of Resolution

 

REFERENCES:

    1. Centre for Social Justice. (2026). Finnishing marriage? https://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/library/finnishing-marriage
    2. Centre for Social Justice. (2026). Finnishing marriage? [Report]. https://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/CSJ-Finnishing_Marriage.pdf
    3. Family Law Week. (2026). Centre for Social Justice says cohabitation reforms risk decreasing the population and lack public support. https://www.familylawweek.co.uk/centre-for-social-justice-says-cohabitation-reforms-risk-decreasing-the-population-and-lack-public-support/
    4. Flanders, J. (2026, June 5). Over 3million unmarried couples to get automatic right to partner’s cash and house sales under huge family law shake-up. The Sun. https://www.thesun.co.uk/money/39316601/unmarried-couples-get-rights-partners-cash-house/
    5. Your Relationship. Your Choice. (2026, August 12). Baroness Deech tells Justice Secretary: No public mandate for automatic cohabitation rights. https://yourrelationshipyourchoice.org.uk/press-release
    6. “The average number of children a hypothetical cohort of women would have at the end of their reproductive period if they were subject during their whole lives to the fertility rates of a given period and if they were not subject to mortality. It is expressed as children per woman.” World Health Organization. (n.d.). Total fertility rate (per woman). https://www.who.int/data/gho/indicator-metadata-registry/imr-details/123