Recent proposals to extend financial and property rights to cohabiting couples in England and Wales are sparking debate, with concerns that such changes could deter marriage and reduce birth rates, drawing parallels with Finland’s past reforms.
The Centre for Social Justice (CSJ) has raised alarms in its report titled ‘Finnishing Marriage? Lessons from Finland’s cohabitation reforms’, arguing that the proposed legal changes could unintentionally affect marriage rates and family structures.
Under the proposed reforms, couples who have cohabited for at least three years or share a child could gain new legal rights similar to those of married couples. The government maintains these changes are unlikely to influence personal decisions on marriage or family planning.
Contrary to the government’s stance, the CSJ report analyzes Finland’s experience post-2011 when it introduced legal protections for cohabiting couples. Finland’s reforms, although less extensive than those considered in the UK, led to notable societal shifts.
Finland’s legislation granted rights to couples living together for five years or with children, but property rights were limited, and inheritance rights were not automatic. The CSJ’s analysis uses Finland’s neighboring countries as a benchmark, revealing a 23% decline in Finland’s female first-marriage rate within seven years of the reforms.
Despite the legislative changes, cohabiting households in Finland did not exhibit increased stability. By 2020, the prevalence of two-adult working-age households was 16% lower than anticipated without the reform, diverging significantly post-2014.
Additionally, Finland experienced a notable drop in fertility rates, with a 21% decrease in birth rates by 2018. Finland’s total fertility rate fell from 1.86 in 2010 to 1.37 in 2020. Academic research cited by the CSJ attributes 42% of the decline in first births to cohabiting couples having fewer children.
The CSJ extrapolated these findings to predict potential impacts on England and Wales, estimating a reduction of approximately 111,000 marriages from 2012 to 2023 and projecting 86,000 fewer births annually starting from 2012, based on higher past fertility rates.
Given that the UK’s proposals are more comprehensive than Finland’s, the CSJ questions the government’s assumption of “behavioural neutrality,” urging ministers to carefully consider the possible behavioral implications before altering the legal distinctions between marriage and cohabitation.
Shadow Justice Secretary Nick Timothy MP expressed concerns in the report’s foreword about the weakening distinction between marriage and cohabitation, emphasizing the societal importance of strong families built on conscious choices.
“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,” he stated.
Sophia Worringer, Deputy Research Director at the CSJ, called Finland’s experience a cautionary tale, warning against imposing marriage-like obligations on those in cohabiting relationships. She stated, “The lesson from Finland is clear: marriage fell, cohabitation declined, and fertility dropped.”
The debate emerges amid broader concerns about the UK’s declining birth rate and an ageing population, which could strain the working-age population’s capacity to support public spending.
Public sentiment on the proposed changes appears skeptical. A JL Partners poll of 1,515 UK adults in June revealed that 59.3% support marriage remaining a personal choice rather than acquiring rights through prolonged cohabitation, with only 10% dissenting.
Furthermore, only 24.3% viewed altering cohabitation laws as a government priority, while 56.2% opposed cohabitation alone as a basis for financial or property claims, compared to 13% who disagreed.
Dr. Tony Rucinski from the Coalition for Marriage (C4M) welcomed the CSJ’s report, underscoring marriage as a clear delineation where legal rights and responsibilities are knowingly acquired. He criticized the proposed scheme, arguing it creates ambiguity rather than clarity in legal rights.
“Marriage is a bright line, everyone knows who crossed it and when, including the couple themselves – one public day, chosen, witnessed and dated,” he said. “This scheme would replace the line with a fog.”
He further contended that the government did not adequately assess the potential impact on marriage, asserting that public opinion does not favor these changes. “A government that paused this now would be siding with the public and with the evidence at the same time,” he added.
This article was originally written by www.christiantoday.com
