This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It will not be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/uk/6923373.stm

The article has changed 8 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 3 Version 4
Law is 'unjust' for unwed couples Cohabiting law changes proposed
(about 1 hour later)
Couples who are living together should have more legal rights, according to a report by the Law Commission.Couples who are living together should have more legal rights, according to a report by the Law Commission.
It says the current law is "unjust", and the 2.2m co-habiting couples in England and Wales should have more protection if they split up. It says the 2.2m co-habiting couples in England and Wales should have more protection if they split up.
It does not suggest cohabiting couples get the same rights as married ones. It does not suggest cohabiting couples get the same rights as married ones, but says they should be able to make a financial claim if they break up.
But it does suggest financial compensation after a break-up, based on the contribution to the relationship, and would allow for couples to opt out.
Couples without children should have lived together for at least two years for this to apply, it suggests.Couples without children should have lived together for at least two years for this to apply, it suggests.
The Law Commission advises the government on legal reform. Any financial compensation would be based on the contribution to the relationship, and the scheme would allow for couples to opt out.
Unlike in divorce, there would be no principle for co-habiting couples that assets should be shared equally, and no ongoing maintenance payments.
Our scheme strikes the right balance between the need to alleviate hardship and the need to protect couples' freedom of choice Stuart BridgeLaw CommissionOur scheme strikes the right balance between the need to alleviate hardship and the need to protect couples' freedom of choice Stuart BridgeLaw Commission
It says the current law is "complex, uncertain, expensive...and often gives rise to outcomes that are unjust". But it would mean that if, for example, a partner has given up a career to bring up children, they should receive compensation if the couple separates.
It wants a financial value put on the contribution each person makes during a cohabiting relationship. The Law Commission advises the government on legal reform.
For example, if a partner has given up a career to bring up children, they should receive compensation if the couple separates, it suggests.
Stuart Bridge, the law commissioner responsible for the reforms, said current law for dealing with property disputes was "unclear and complicated".Stuart Bridge, the law commissioner responsible for the reforms, said current law for dealing with property disputes was "unclear and complicated".
It often caused serious hardship for not only the couple, but their children too, he said.It often caused serious hardship for not only the couple, but their children too, he said.
HAVE YOUR SAY I thought living together was all about not being committed. If you want the benefits of commitment, get married! Heather, West Sussex Send us your commentsHAVE YOUR SAY I thought living together was all about not being committed. If you want the benefits of commitment, get married! Heather, West Sussex Send us your comments
He rejected claims such reforms would undermine marriage.He rejected claims such reforms would undermine marriage.
"We consider our scheme strikes the right balance between the need to alleviate hardship and the need to protect couples' freedom of choice.""We consider our scheme strikes the right balance between the need to alleviate hardship and the need to protect couples' freedom of choice."
The commission says it should be up to ministers to fix a minimum period that a couple should live together for before the scheme applied. But Jill Kirby of the Centre for Policy Studies criticised the plans as introducing a "kind of marriage lite".
Unlike in cases of divorce, cohabiting couples would not be expected to pay continuing maintenance payments and there would be no principle that assets should be split equally. "If a man and a woman want to create a family together, then the most durable contract available to them is marriage," she said.
"If they decide not to marry, then I think consequences must flow from that, and that if we introduce... a kind of substitute version, as the Law Commission proposes, then it does detract from that institution and I think will lead to more confusion."
And Richard Kane, founder of National Marriage Week, said although he personally thought people should marry rather than cohabit, he disagreed with the state "interfering" with cohabiting couples in such a way.
"We think a much stronger way to do this would be for a couple to actually have to make a choice to go and sort of make a registration if you like....
"I am concerned about the state interfering then by default."
'Common-law myth''Common-law myth'
The commission said many believed in the "common law" myth - the idea that partners would be entitled to a share of the assets when a relationship broke down.The commission said many believed in the "common law" myth - the idea that partners would be entitled to a share of the assets when a relationship broke down.
However, at present, co-habiting couples have very little legal protection.However, at present, co-habiting couples have very little legal protection.
The report was two years in the making and builds on a consultation paper published in May 2006.The report was two years in the making and builds on a consultation paper published in May 2006.
A similar rights package was introduced in Scotland in May last year.
The government is now considering the recommendations.The government is now considering the recommendations.