Andy Burnham is in danger of cutting the number of births in England and Wales by more than 75,000 a year if his Labour Government presses ahead with plans to turbo-charge the rights of cohabiting couples, the Centre for Social Justice (CSJ) has warned. Experts fear a “demographic time bomb” is about to drop with the think tank warning deaths are on track to exceed births. It claims that proposals it dubs “marriage-lite” to give unmarried couples who live together new rights could worsen the crisis.
The CSJ argues that 75,000 fewer babies would have been born in England and Wales per year if the measures now out for consultation had been in place for the last 15 years. Its analysts are concerned that if birth rates slump then living standards will be in danger “because the country will be short of workers to support growing numbers of pensioners”. It warns the proposals would have other “damaging effects” including “a further fall in the historically low marriage rate and more couples breaking up”.
The CSJ’s Sophia Worringer described the impact of similar policies in Finland, saying: “The lesson from Finland is clear: marriage fell, cohabitation declined, and fertility dropped. Andy Burnham should scrap any plans to follow its example.”
Polling by JL Partners found nearly six out of 10 UK adults thought that “couples should choose whether they marry rather than automatically gaining marriage-style rights after a set period of time”. By 56% to 13%, the public did not think that living together should, by itself, confer a legal claim on a partner’s savings, property or pension.
Labour’s pledged in its manifesto to “strengthen the rights and protections available to women in cohabiting couples”. The Government proposes that co-habitees in England and Wales who have continuously lived together for three years or more or who cohabit and share a child should have greater rights if a relationship breaks up. The CSJ claims similar changes in Finland did not result in “an increase in household stability amongst cohabiting couples” and links this to a decline in marriage rates.
Its new report states: “If England and Wales had introduced an equivalent reform to Finland in 2011, the analysis suggests there could have been 111,014 fewer marriages between 2012 and 2023, with 24,855 fewer marriages in 2023 alone.”
It warns the “Finnish fertility rate fell by an estimated 21% by 2018, compared to similar countries where reforms did not happen”.
The Centre for Social Justice’s Sophia Worringer (Image: -)
Shadow Justice Secretary Nick Timothy said: “Conservatives have long understood that strong societies depend on strong families. That does not mean ignoring the realities faced by couples who live together or pretending marriage solves every social problem. But it does mean recognising that law shapes behaviour, institutions matter, and strong families are built on choices people make and keep.”
The CSJ’s Ms Worringer added: “Finland should serve as a warning. Many people in cohabiting relationships do not want to get married, and the Government should not impose marriage-style financial obligations on them by stealth. The public want greater choice over their private lives, and these proposals would impose a marriage ‘auto-enrolment’ to thousands of cohabiting relationships… With birth rates already at historic lows and population ageing piling pressure on the public finances, the potential costs are too great, and the evidence too significant, to ignore.”
A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: “This new framework will offer eligible cohabiting couples, in committed romantic relationships, a distinct and different set of rights from married couples, helping to preserve the sanctity of marriage.
“With more than 3.5 million cohabiting couples and widespread confusion about their rights, it addresses a clear gap in the law. Unlike marriage, there would be no automatic 50:50 split of assets on separation, and people would generally keep what they legally own.
“This is an open consultation and the government will consider the findings of the consultation carefully before finalising policy.”