1-20 of 2,217 results for subject:Cohabitation
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.412 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.007 seconds
- Search query
- subject:Cohabitation
- We searched for
- subject_t:Cohabitation OR subject_t:"Unmarried couples" OR subject_ses:90574
Type
House
Session
More
Year
More
Department
More
Member
More
Primary member
More
Answering member
More
Legislative stage
Legislation
More
Subject
More
Publisher
Lords second reading. Agreed to on question. Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Lords second reading. Agreed to on question. Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
My Lords, this is not the first time I have introduced a Bill in this form that closely follows the Law Commission recommendations for financial relief for cohabitants in 2007, and for improving a cohabitant’s position on the death of an intestate partner in 2011.
However, we now have a real...
My Lords, this is not the first time I have introduced a Bill in this form that closely follows the Law Commission recommendations for financial relief for cohabitants in 2007, and for improving a cohabitant’s position on the death of an intestate partner in 2011.
However, we now have a real...
My Lords, I am delighted to be able to support the noble Lord, Lord Marks, in introducing his Second Reading of this Cohabitation Rights Bill. In lay man’s language, I suppose one could
call it the “unmarried couples divorce Bill”. The Bill reflects modern societal habits and ways of living,...
My Lords, I am delighted to be able to support the noble Lord, Lord Marks, in introducing his Second Reading of this Cohabitation Rights Bill. In lay man’s language, I suppose one could
call it the “unmarried couples divorce Bill”. The Bill reflects modern societal habits and ways of living,...
My Lords, I am very happy often to bow to the expertise of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier. It is unnecessary for him to be quite so polite about me, although I am grateful to him for it.
I supported the earlier Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Marks,...
My Lords, I am very happy often to bow to the expertise of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier. It is unnecessary for him to be quite so polite about me, although I am grateful to him for it.
I supported the earlier Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Marks,...
My Lords, listening to the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Marks, has entirely ruined the speech I had prepared. I was about to come heavily down against the Bill, because I come from a very poor community where marriage is almost non-existent and many of our poor social outcomes...
My Lords, listening to the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Marks, has entirely ruined the speech I had prepared. I was about to come heavily down against the Bill, because I come from a very poor community where marriage is almost non-existent and many of our poor social outcomes...
My Lords, I welcome this Bill and thank the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for introducing it. The Bill would provide important legal protections for many financially vulnerable people in cohabiting relationships. It would benefit women in religious-only marriages, so I am going to focus my comments on Muslim women.
Around 25%...
My Lords, I welcome this Bill and thank the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for introducing it. The Bill would provide important legal protections for many financially vulnerable people in cohabiting relationships. It would benefit women in religious-only marriages, so I am going to focus my comments on Muslim women.
Around 25%...
My Lords, this Bill would impose a far-reaching legal regime on millions of adults who have expressly chosen not to marry or enter a civil partnership. The fact that some may think they have rights is no justification for taking away the liberty of others. Some may not know the...
My Lords, this Bill would impose a far-reaching legal regime on millions of adults who have expressly chosen not to marry or enter a civil partnership. The fact that some may think they have rights is no justification for taking away the liberty of others. Some may not know the...
My Lords, this may have been one of those occasions when noble Lords felt that they should have started their speeches with, “As I was saying”. I do not think I have spoken on this subject before, although I have listened to a number of debates. My noble friend has...
My Lords, this may have been one of those occasions when noble Lords felt that they should have started their speeches with, “As I was saying”. I do not think I have spoken on this subject before, although I have listened to a number of debates. My noble friend has...
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, who has pursued this issue with—if I may say so—characteristic persistence and conviction over many years, introducing substantially similar Bills on a number of occasions. These Bills undoubtedly raise important questions of law, policy and fairness.
I do...
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, who has pursued this issue with—if I may say so—characteristic persistence and conviction over many years, introducing substantially similar Bills on a number of occasions. These Bills undoubtedly raise important questions of law, policy and fairness.
I do...
The noble Lord called me “the noble Lord”.
The noble Lord called me “the noble Lord”.
I am sorry. I did slip into that. I know that sometimes people say “the noble Lord”; I was not trying to be rude or forget that the Minister is in fact a noble Baroness. I hope she will forgive me; it was entirely accidental and unintended.
My Lords, and the...
I am sorry. I did slip into that. I know that sometimes people say “the noble Lord”; I was not trying to be rude or forget that the Minister is in fact a noble Baroness. I hope she will forgive me; it was entirely accidental and unintended.
My Lords, and the...
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson. Of course I accept his apology for what was obviously a slip of the tongue. Before I turn to the points he made, which are interesting and valid as always, I start with the noble...
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson. Of course I accept his apology for what was obviously a slip of the tongue. Before I turn to the points he made, which are interesting and valid as always, I start with the noble...
My Lords, I am very grateful to everyone who has contributed to this debate on a Private Member’s Bill. It is an unusual position that we find ourselves in, with my Private Member’s Bill, which was introduced just after the
King’s Speech, and the consultation, which was announced on 5...
My Lords, I am very grateful to everyone who has contributed to this debate on a Private Member’s Bill. It is an unusual position that we find ourselves in, with my Private Member’s Bill, which was introduced just after the
King’s Speech, and the consultation, which was announced on 5...
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what assessment his Department has made of the adequacy of current pension regulations in allowing individuals to nominate (a) cohabiting siblings and (b) other non-spousal family members as beneficiaries of survivor pension benefits; and whether his Department has made an...
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what assessment his Department has made of the adequacy of current pension regulations in allowing individuals to nominate (a) cohabiting siblings and (b) other non-spousal family members as beneficiaries of survivor pension benefits; and whether his Department has made an...
The rules vary from scheme to scheme, but the majority of schemes will provide some form of survivor benefit for dependants in the event of a member's death. These may be payable to surviving spouses, civil partners or unmarried partners (often with a financial dependency or inter-dependency requirement for the latter), and dependent children, depending on the scheme rules. Some scheme rules also allow for trustee discretion to be used on individual cases.
The rules governing what surviving spouses, or partners might receive following the death of a member are set out in individual scheme rules and in any overriding legislation.
There are no current plans to change current legislation.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many survivor pensions under the Police Pension Scheme 1987 have ceased as a result of remarriage or cohabitation in each of the last ten years.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many survivor pensions under the Police Pension Scheme 1987 have ceased as a result of remarriage or cohabitation in each of the last ten years.
The most recent actuarial valuation of the police pension schemes in England and Wales as at 31 March 2020, shows that there are approximately 27,000 dependants in receipt of a pension. This figure includes dependants other than surviving partners and is for all schemes, not just the 1987 scheme.
The Government Actuary’s Department has estimated that removing the provision on ceasing pensions for current or future spouses, civil partners and partners who remarry or cohabit could increase overall scheme liabilities by around £190 million and reinstating previously ceased pensions by a further £70 million, using the data as at 31 March 2020.
It is not possible to estimate accurately the number who will lose their pension if they remarry or cohabit. However, cost assumptions have been made by the Government Actuary’s Department based on historic data of survivor pension cessations as a result of remarriage or cohabitation showing an average of 25 remarriages a year from 2008 – 2020. The breakdown of data is not held by the Home Office.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what estimate she has made of the number of surviving spouses, civil partners and partners who may be affected by the remarriage and cohabitation provisions of the Police Pension Scheme 1987.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what estimate she has made of the number of surviving spouses, civil partners and partners who may be affected by the remarriage and cohabitation provisions of the Police Pension Scheme 1987.
The most recent actuarial valuation of the police pension schemes in England and Wales as at 31 March 2020, shows that there are approximately 27,000 dependants in receipt of a pension. This figure includes dependants other than surviving partners and is for all schemes, not just the 1987 scheme.
The Government Actuary’s Department has estimated that removing the provision on ceasing pensions for current or future spouses, civil partners and partners who remarry or cohabit could increase overall scheme liabilities by around £190 million and reinstating previously ceased pensions by a further £70 million, using the data as at 31 March 2020.
It is not possible to estimate accurately the number who will lose their pension if they remarry or cohabit. However, cost assumptions have been made by the Government Actuary’s Department based on historic data of survivor pension cessations as a result of remarriage or cohabitation showing an average of 25 remarriages a year from 2008 – 2020. The breakdown of data is not held by the Home Office.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what estimate her Department has made of the annual cost of allowing all surviving spouses, civil partners and partners receiving benefits under the Police Pension Scheme 1987 to retain those benefits following remarriage or cohabitation.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what estimate her Department has made of the annual cost of allowing all surviving spouses, civil partners and partners receiving benefits under the Police Pension Scheme 1987 to retain those benefits following remarriage or cohabitation.
The most recent actuarial valuation of the police pension schemes in England and Wales as at 31 March 2020, shows that there are approximately 27,000 dependants in receipt of a pension. This figure includes dependants other than surviving partners and is for all schemes, not just the 1987 scheme.
The Government Actuary’s Department has estimated that removing the provision on ceasing pensions for current or future spouses, civil partners and partners who remarry or cohabit could increase overall scheme liabilities by around £190 million and reinstating previously ceased pensions by a further £70 million, using the data as at 31 March 2020.
It is not possible to estimate accurately the number who will lose their pension if they remarry or cohabit. However, cost assumptions have been made by the Government Actuary’s Department based on historic data of survivor pension cessations as a result of remarriage or cohabitation showing an average of 25 remarriages a year from 2008 – 2020. The breakdown of data is not held by the Home Office.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessment she has made of the reasons for the continued difference in survivor pension entitlements between the Police Pension Scheme 1987 and the 2006 and 2015 Police Pension Schemes in relation to remarriage and cohabitation.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessment she has made of the reasons for the continued difference in survivor pension entitlements between the Police Pension Scheme 1987 and the 2006 and 2015 Police Pension Schemes in relation to remarriage and cohabitation.
Serving police officers have access to the 2015 police pension scheme, which provides life-long survivor benefits for spouses, civil partners and unmarried partners, including those who remarry or cohabit after losing a spouse. All eligible police officers have had an opportunity to join a pension scheme with life-long survivor benefits, since the introduction of the 2006 police pension scheme.
For officers who joined policing prior to 2006, the 1987 police pension scheme provides a pension for the widow, widower or civil partner of a police officer who dies. In common with most other public service pension schemes of that time, these benefits cease to be payable where the widow, widower or civil partner remarries or cohabits with another partner.
The 1987 scheme was not costed to provide these extended benefits, and retrospectively changing the scheme would create significant additional costs for current officers and taxpayers. The 1987 police pension scheme is now a closed scheme, superseded by the 2015 scheme, and there are no plans to make further improvements to the benefits accrued under it.
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to his Department's press release entitled Millions of unmarried couples to get stronger rights, published on 5 June 2026, what assessment he has made of the potential impact of the proposed reforms on incentives for couples to marry.
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to his Department's press release entitled Millions of unmarried couples to get stronger rights, published on 5 June 2026, what assessment he has made of the potential impact of the proposed reforms on incentives for couples to marry.
The Government published its consultation, “A Fairer End to Relationships”, on 5 June. Alongside the consultation, the Government published a Family Test, which considers the impact of the proposals on families, including on family formation. The Family Test is available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/a-fairer-end-to-relationships/the-family-test-a-fairer-end-to-relationships
The Family Test sets out that the Government does not anticipate that cohabitation reform will deter couples from marrying or otherwise negatively affect overall patterns of family formation.
The Family Test also notes that studies indicate that introducing legal protections for cohabitants does not reduce marriage rates, even where reforms grant rights equivalent to those of married couples. The Government therefore does not anticipate that these proposals will affect the proportion of couples who get married or reduce incentives to marry, particularly given that the Government is proposing to create distinct and narrower rights for cohabitants than those that are available on divorce.
The Government has not made a separate assessment of the potential impact of the proposals on marriage rates among younger adults. However, for the reasons set out in the Family Test, the Government does not anticipate that the proposals will have a negative impact on marriage rates, including among younger adults.
Marriage is one of our most important institutions and the bedrock of many families. That is why a key principle underlying the Government’s proposals within the consultation is to preserve the distinct status of marriage. The Government is committed to supporting marriage and we have announced that we will be reforming weddings law in order to encourage more people to get married.
The Government recognises that marriage has distinct benefits, including higher life satisfaction, together with greater emotional and financial stability. However, the fact that marriage brings benefits does not mean that cohabitants (and their children) should be financially vulnerable if the relationship breaks down. Reform will mean that the children of cohabitants are better protected, by giving proportionate financial support to primary caregivers in order to help to ensure their financial needs are met.
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to his Department's press release entitled Millions of unmarried couples to get stronger rights, published on 5 June 2026, what comparative assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of marriage on family stability with long-term cohabitation.
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to his Department's press release entitled Millions of unmarried couples to get stronger rights, published on 5 June 2026, what comparative assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of marriage on family stability with long-term cohabitation.
The Government published its consultation, “A Fairer End to Relationships”, on 5 June. Alongside the consultation, the Government published a Family Test, which considers the impact of the proposals on families, including on family formation. The Family Test is available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/a-fairer-end-to-relationships/the-family-test-a-fairer-end-to-relationships
The Family Test sets out that the Government does not anticipate that cohabitation reform will deter couples from marrying or otherwise negatively affect overall patterns of family formation.
The Family Test also notes that studies indicate that introducing legal protections for cohabitants does not reduce marriage rates, even where reforms grant rights equivalent to those of married couples. The Government therefore does not anticipate that these proposals will affect the proportion of couples who get married or reduce incentives to marry, particularly given that the Government is proposing to create distinct and narrower rights for cohabitants than those that are available on divorce.
The Government has not made a separate assessment of the potential impact of the proposals on marriage rates among younger adults. However, for the reasons set out in the Family Test, the Government does not anticipate that the proposals will have a negative impact on marriage rates, including among younger adults.
Marriage is one of our most important institutions and the bedrock of many families. That is why a key principle underlying the Government’s proposals within the consultation is to preserve the distinct status of marriage. The Government is committed to supporting marriage and we have announced that we will be reforming weddings law in order to encourage more people to get married.
The Government recognises that marriage has distinct benefits, including higher life satisfaction, together with greater emotional and financial stability. However, the fact that marriage brings benefits does not mean that cohabitants (and their children) should be financially vulnerable if the relationship breaks down. Reform will mean that the children of cohabitants are better protected, by giving proportionate financial support to primary caregivers in order to help to ensure their financial needs are met.