§ Lord Lester of Herne Hillasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether there are legitimate reasons why some opposite-sex cohabiting couples may be unable or unwilling to marry; and if so, how they propose that such couples should be given equal protection under law to that proposed for same-sex couples. [HL4129]
§ Lord FilkinIndividual opposite-sex couples, who are not prevented by law from marriage, are free to determine for themselves whether or not to marry, whether through religious or civil ceremonies. Those opposite-sex couples who choose not to marry cannot 77WA obtain the legal provisions that accrue to those who are married.
However, in recognition of the extent of public misapprehension about the status of "common law" marriage, I intend to explore, on a cross-government basis, how to improve public awareness of the risks and legal position of unmarried, opposite-sex couples.
§ Lord Lester of Herne Hillasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will introduce legislation to reform the law on cohabiting opposite-sex couples along the lines of reforms made in other common law countries such as Canada. [HL4130]
§ Lord FilkinThe Government currently have no plans to introduce legislation to reform the law relating to opposite-sex cohabitees.
§ Lord Lester of Herne Hillasked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to paragraph 4.21 of Civil Partnership: A framework for the legal recognition of same-sex couples, whether they will ensure that same-sex marriages lawfully entered into in Canada and elsewhere, are recognised in England and Wales; and, if not, why not. [HL3823]
§ Baroness CrawleyParagraph 4.21 of the consultation paperCivil Partnership deals with the recognition of civil partnership registration schemes in operation in other countries and the Government have not come to any decisions in this area. As part of the consultation process, the Government invite members of the public to comment on any possible arrangements in this field.
§ Lord Lester of Herne Hillasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether there is evidence from countries, such as the Netherlands, which have civil partnership registration schemes for opposite-sex cohabiting couples, showing that such schemes discourage those couples from marrying each other. [HL4131]
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville)The Government are not aware of any evidence that evaluates whether the introduction of civil partnership registration schemes that are open to opposite-sex couples have affected the rate of heterosexual marriage.
§ Lord Lester of Herne Hillasked Her Majesty's Government:
What would be the relative cost to the public purse of including in the proposed civil partnership registration scheme opposite-sex cohabiting couples and same-sex cohabiting couples respectively. [HL4132]
§ Lord Sainsbury of TurvilleThe Government are proposing a civil partnership registration for those same-sex couples who choose to make a legally78WA recognised commitment to each other through registering a partnership. The costs to the public purse will depend entirely on how many couples choose to register. The Government estimate that by 2050 the annual costs could range between £25 million and £240 million, depending on take-up.
Opposite-sex couples already have the option of making a legally recognised commitment through marriage. The costs of extending the availability of civil partnership registration to opposite-sex couples would depend entirely on the number of couples who currently choose not to get married but would choose to make a similarly formal commitment by registering a civil partnership.
The Government do not propose to extend the rights and responsibilities proposed under the scheme to cohabiting same-sex couples who choose not to register, or to cohabiting opposite-sex couples who choose not to marry. The costs of doing this have therefore not been quantified.
§ Lord Lester of Herne Hillasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether public expenditure implications influenced their decision to exclude opposite-sex cohabiting couples from the proposed civil partnership registration scheme. [HL4133]
§ Lord Sainsbury of TurvilleThe Government's decision to propose a civil partnership registration scheme for same-sex couples only was taken on the basis of policy considerations. The Government developed their proposals on civil partnership registration to address a specific shortcoming in the current treatment of same-sex couples. Opposite-sex couples have the option of gaining legal recognition for their relationships, through getting married. Same-sex couples do not have that option. The Government's proposals would ensure that all same-sex couples, like opposite-sex couples, have the opportunity to make a legally-recognised commitment to each other and to gain rights and responsibilities to reflect that commitment.
The Government do not propose to extend the rights and responsibilities proposed under the scheme to cohabiting opposite-sex couples who choose not to marry (or to cohabiting same-sex couples who choose not to register). The costs of doing so were not calculated during the policy-making process.
§ Lord Lester of Herne Hillasked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the Written Answer by the Baroness Scotland of Asthal on 14 July (WA 77–78), how they justify their refusal to amend the law so far as to provide effective protection for opposite-sex cohabiting couples and their children where such cohabitants are unwilling or unable to marry each other, having regard to the fact that legal protection for unmarried opposite-sex cohabiting couples is provided in other Commonwealth and European countries. [HL4255]
79WA
§ Lord Sainsbury of TurvilleThe law already provides a mechanism through which opposite-sex cohabiting couples can secure legal recognition for their relationships. Same-sex couples currently have no option. The cross-government working group on raising public awareness about the consequences of opposite-sex couples remaining unmarried will be an important step towards improving the current misunderstandings of people's legal protections. It is important that people make informed decisions about how they take responsibility for themselves and their families.