Ministers are facing huge pressure – both economic and from restless backbenchers – which has led to delays and U-turns on planned reforms. But the government must not take the easy option by delaying cohabitation reform, despite the recent Leveson report that highlighted the chaos in the crown courts and MPs on the justice committee who pointed to similar troubles in the county courts.

The latest figures from the Office for National Statistics show that 6.8 million people are in cohabiting relationships, a significant proportion of the adult population.

In February the family justice minister, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, committed the government to issuing a consultation on cohabitation reform this year. While the pressure will be on to respond to the Leveson report and to be seen to be doing something about court delays, cohabitation reform affects a large number of people.

Day after day family lawyers see clients who cannot make claims for asset division or spouse maintenance on cohabitation breakdown. That undoubtedly leads to more welfare benefit claims.

The common law marriage myth lulls many people into a false sense of security when in fact they have no rights on cohabitation breakdown. In many cases the person with the money actively does not want to get married in order to avoid financial claims on divorce. The vulnerable need to be protected.

The present position creates long and complex claims for a share in a property under archaic and complex trust law, by way of “resulting or constructive trust” claims, which is itself unclear and the subject of conflicting Supreme Court decisions.

The solution is obvious, quick and simple. Adapt existing divorce law to enable someone who has a child and lives with the other parent to make financial claims as on divorce. That simple solution will be quick to introduce — and will be understood by the judiciary and family law practitioners alike.

Where a couple live together but do not have children, claims could be more limited. As with married couples, cohabitants should have the right to opt out or reduce those claims, as with prenuptial agreements on divorce, subject to existing safeguards.

The limited claims for unmarried mothers in the Children Act 1989 should remain where a woman does not live with the father – including so-called broom-cupboard conceptions.

Such a model for reform will avoid the errors and complexities of cohabitation laws in Ireland and Scotland, which do not give marriage-like rights. That has led to uncertainty, complexity and further litigation, as well as proposals to reform cohabitation law in Scotland.

This government should follow the example of Theresa May when she was prime minister. In the middle of the Brexit mayhem she endorsed and made happen no-fault divorce, which led to the draft legislation being published in 2019. Ministers should follow her example to give rights on cohabitation breakdown to millions of people living together.

Media attacks in the mid-1990s on the judiciary for allegedly undermining marriage by giving rights to unmarried victims of domestic violence is history and public attitudes have changed. Cohabitation reform is obvious and natural for a Labour government. It will also be popular with the party’s backbenchers – and Sir Keir Starmer needs their support.

Mark’s article was originally published in The Times, here.