The Government has announced that it intends to reform weddings law when parliamentary time allows.

The reforms are intended to make weddings law fairer, simpler and more modern, whilst protecting the dignity and significance of marriage. The aim is to launch a consultation before summer recess, which begins on 16 July 2026. It will focus on how people get married, rather than who is legally permitted to marry.

As set out in the answer of 11 November 2024, the Sexual Offences Act 2003 makes sexual activity with certain family members a criminal offence, but this does not include first cousins. Placing restrictions on first cousin marriage would require changes to the Marriage Act 1949 and could potentially require changes to the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

While the evidence is limited, it does suggest that there may be an increased risk of congenital birth defects to children whose parents are first cousins. We welcome evidence suggesting that the number of first cousins choosing to marry in England is declining.

The Government has announced that it intends to reform weddings law when parliamentary time allows.

The reforms are intended to make weddings law fairer, simpler and more modern, whilst protecting the dignity and significance of marriage. The aim is to launch a consultation before summer recess, which begins on 16 July 2026. It will focus on how people get married, rather than who is legally permitted to marry.

As set out in the answer of 11 November 2024, the Sexual Offences Act 2003 makes sexual activity with certain family members a criminal offence, but this does not include first cousins. Placing restrictions on first cousin marriage would require changes to the Marriage Act 1949 and could potentially require changes to the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

While the evidence is limited, it does suggest that there may be an increased risk of congenital birth defects to children whose parents are first cousins. We welcome evidence suggesting that the number of first cousins choosing to marry in England is declining.

A marriage between an uncle and niece falls within the prohibited degrees of relationship set out in Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Marriage Act 1949 and, by virtue of section 1(1) of that Act, is void for all purposes in England and Wales. There is similar legislation in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

I refer the Hon member to the answer on 9th June 2026 (PQ 5474).

The Department of Health and Social Care has indicated that it will not be possible to answer this question within the usual time period. An answer is being prepared and will be provided as soon as it is available.

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.

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.

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.

The Government published its consultation, “A Fairer End to Relationships”, on 5 June. A central objective of the proposals is to preserve the distinct status of marriage. The consultation therefore proposes a separate and narrower set of financial rights for eligible cohabitants on separation, which will be available only to those in committed romantic relationships who meet defined criteria.

Under the consultation’s proposals, legal rights and remedies associated with marriage and divorce would remain exclusive to married couples. For instance, married couples would retain access to the full financial remedy framework on divorce, including the two-year limitation period for claims and the court’s broad discretion to divide matrimonial property. The principle of equal sharing, which exists for married couples on divorce would not apply to cohabitants.

By contrast, cohabitants would need to bring any claim within two years of separation. The starting point would be that each party retains what they legally own and the court could depart from that position only where necessary to meet specifically defined financial needs. Those needs would be assessed more narrowly than on divorce. Maintenance for cohabitants would be available only in exceptional circumstances and would have to be time-limited. Overall, the proposed scheme for cohabitants is more designed so that financial dependence will cease as early as possible. These differences reflect the explicit legal commitment of entering into marriage.

When preparing its consultation, the Government considered the merits of an opt-in framework but rejected it on the basis that it would fail to provide adequate protection for the vulnerable, including children. This is because 47% of people believe in the “common law marriage” myth, namely that by living together couples have the same rights as those who are married. Evidence shows that public awareness campaigns have not been effective in raising awareness of financial rights. An opt-in model would also fail to protect the vulnerable in relationships such as where there is an unequal balance of power, including where one partner is abusive or coercive, because a perpetrator of abuse would be unlikely to agree to an opt-in agreement.

The Government published its consultation, “A Fairer End to Relationships”, on 5 June. A central objective of the proposals is to preserve the distinct status of marriage. The consultation therefore proposes a separate and narrower set of financial rights for eligible cohabitants on separation, which will be available only to those in committed romantic relationships who meet defined criteria.

Under the consultation’s proposals, legal rights and remedies associated with marriage and divorce would remain exclusive to married couples. For instance, married couples would retain access to the full financial remedy framework on divorce, including the two-year limitation period for claims and the court’s broad discretion to divide matrimonial property. The principle of equal sharing, which exists for married couples on divorce would not apply to cohabitants.

By contrast, cohabitants would need to bring any claim within two years of separation. The starting point would be that each party retains what they legally own and the court could depart from that position only where necessary to meet specifically defined financial needs. Those needs would be assessed more narrowly than on divorce. Maintenance for cohabitants would be available only in exceptional circumstances and would have to be time-limited. Overall, the proposed scheme for cohabitants is more designed so that financial dependence will cease as early as possible. These differences reflect the explicit legal commitment of entering into marriage.

When preparing its consultation, the Government considered the merits of an opt-in framework but rejected it on the basis that it would fail to provide adequate protection for the vulnerable, including children. This is because 47% of people believe in the “common law marriage” myth, namely that by living together couples have the same rights as those who are married. Evidence shows that public awareness campaigns have not been effective in raising awareness of financial rights. An opt-in model would also fail to protect the vulnerable in relationships such as where there is an unequal balance of power, including where one partner is abusive or coercive, because a perpetrator of abuse would be unlikely to agree to an opt-in agreement.

The Government published its consultation, “A Fairer End to Relationships”, on 5 June. A central objective of the proposals is to preserve the distinct status of marriage. The consultation therefore proposes a separate and narrower set of financial rights for eligible cohabitants on separation, which will be available only to those in committed romantic relationships who meet defined criteria.

Under the consultation’s proposals, legal rights and remedies associated with marriage and divorce would remain exclusive to married couples. For instance, married couples would retain access to the full financial remedy framework on divorce, including the two-year limitation period for claims and the court’s broad discretion to divide matrimonial property. The principle of equal sharing, which exists for married couples on divorce would not apply to cohabitants.

By contrast, cohabitants would need to bring any claim within two years of separation. The starting point would be that each party retains what they legally own and the court could depart from that position only where necessary to meet specifically defined financial needs. Those needs would be assessed more narrowly than on divorce. Maintenance for cohabitants would be available only in exceptional circumstances and would have to be time-limited. Overall, the proposed scheme for cohabitants is more designed so that financial dependence will cease as early as possible. These differences reflect the explicit legal commitment of entering into marriage.

When preparing its consultation, the Government considered the merits of an opt-in framework but rejected it on the basis that it would fail to provide adequate protection for the vulnerable, including children. This is because 47% of people believe in the “common law marriage” myth, namely that by living together couples have the same rights as those who are married. Evidence shows that public awareness campaigns have not been effective in raising awareness of financial rights. An opt-in model would also fail to protect the vulnerable in relationships such as where there is an unequal balance of power, including where one partner is abusive or coercive, because a perpetrator of abuse would be unlikely to agree to an opt-in agreement.

The amended training materials are available at the following link:

https://learninghub.nhs.uk/Catalogue/close-relative-marriage

These materials are available to view; however, a log-in is required to access these, and anyone can register for an account.