Oral answer to question provided on Tuesday, 6 September 2011 in the House of Lords, by Lord McNally (Liberal Democrat).

Cohabiting: Law Commission Report

Answer: My Lords, I think that intervention suggests that it is right for the Government in this case to err on the side of prudence.

This is an answer to the Oral question asked on Tuesday, 6 September 2011 by Baroness Deech (Crossbench).

Question: My Lords, I put these points to the Minister on the basis of the hundreds of letters I have had from members of the public after lecturing on this subject, which go along these lines. First, people live together precisely because they do not want to be married and have that law applied to them, and they would see a cohabitation law as a sort of forced marriage—some of them said that they would fail to commit, or fail to stay, if the law were changed. Secondly, the financial relief law is so bad, so uncertain and so expensive that the assets of the couple would be eaten up and in the end the only beneficiaries, given that there will be no legal aid, might be the lawyers.

Secondary information

Type: Oral answer to question
Reference: 730 c118
Session: 2010-12
Chamber / Committee: House of Lords chamber
Subjects: Cohabitation Family law Law Commission Maintenance Reform Separation
Link: View this Oral answer to question on www.publications.parliament.uk