Have read the exec summary of that document, luckymummy, thanks.
A few things sprang out:
"And in many cases relationship breakdown may lead to reliance on the State in the form of claims to welfare benefits and social housing."
I think this line shows the real reason for these proposals. To save money on the benefit bill.
Some other points:
I can't see why these proposals shouldn't apply only to people with children.
If this is to protect poor women from bastard men who will not commit to them, then why provide an opt out facility? Won't the bastard men simply get the women to sign the opt out?
How can the courts tell whether a relationship is as a "couple" or otherwise?
If this aimed at feckless men who don't do the right thing, aren't we simply going to end up with even more men "vanishing" to avoid their responsibilities, and thus even more children not seeing their fathers?
This whole proposal has been dreamt up with an eye on the benefit bills, and lots of lovely work for lawyers, IMO.
Oh and re the stat 2 million cohabiting couples. 1.25 children dependant on a cohabiting couple.
if each couple only has one child that's 750,000 couples affected by this with no children.
Probably more likely an average of 2 kids per couple so you're looking at well over a million couples (1.4 million = 2.8 million people) being affected by this, when they have no children.
There must be a better way of protecting those in need without clobbering all those without need.