<<Print>>

Heterosexual couples in England and Wales will be able to enter into civil partnerships, in a move that would give them a raft of financial advantages reserved until now for marriage.

Theresa May said the new reforms would provide greater security for couples who want legal recognition for their relationship without entering full matrimony. There are more than 3.3m unmarried couple families in the UK, out of a total of 19m, living together with shared financial responsibilities. Nearly half of them have children.

At present only same-sex couples can choose to register for a civil partnership, a reform introduced in 2004 by the last Labour government. Heterosexual couples who do not want to marry are not entitled to the inheritance tax exemption or the marriage income tax allowance and do not have an automatic right to inherit their partner’s estate or family home. Likewise many occupational pension schemes do not offer survivor benefits to unmarried couples.

Legislation to allow gay couples to marry was introduced in 2013 under David Cameron, the former Conservative prime minister. Mrs May said she had sponsored that legislation as home secretary: “Now, by extending civil partnerships, we are making sure that all couples, be they same-sex or opposite-sex, are given the same choices in life,” she said.

A campaign group called Equal Civil Partnerships said it was “delighted” with the announcement but called for “a concrete date and action”. Penny Mordaunt, equalities minister, said the change in the law would happen “as swiftly as possible”. The government will now consult on the technical detail of legal issues across pension and family law.

The government’s move follows a high-profile victory in the Supreme Court by an unmarried couple in June. Rebecca Steinfeld and Charles Keidan won an appeal, arguing that the current law was discriminatory because it permitted civil partnerships between same sex couples and not heterosexual couples.

They argued that the law, which allows civil partnerships between same-sex couples only, was in direct contravention of article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The couple claimed that they were unable to formalise their relationship and should be able to enter into a civil partnership but said they did not want to enter into marriage because of what they considered its “historically patriarchal nature”.

The Supreme Court ruled that the current law, in the form of the Civil Partnership Act 2004, was discriminatory and declared it incompatible with the European Convention, leaving it up to the government to decide how best to deal with the issue. The justices made it clear that only Parliament could change or amend the law.

Michael Gouriet, partner in the divorce and family team at Withers, a law firm, said the government had been wrestling with whether to abandon civil partnerships after same-sex marriage was introduced, but has now decided to extend civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples.

“We don’t know what the level of take-up will be but I would expect that couples living together in a longer term relationship who are older may decide to sign up because of issues like inheritance tax,” he said. “A lot of the 3.3m couples who are currently living together do not realise that they have few rights in the event of a break-up, with the exception of where children are involved.”

Scott Halliday, modern families expert at Irwin Mitchell Private Wealth, called it a “significant moment” and said the announcement was “an indication from the government that relationship status, beyond typical marriage, should be recognised in law”.

“The government had suggested previously that it may look to abolish civil partnerships for same-sex couples as opposed to extending the right to heterosexual couples. This would have caused great damage to the LGBT community and would have disregarded the importance of an alternative to marriage for all couples,” he said.

However Sarah Jane Boon, partner and family law adviser at law firm Charles Russell Speechlys, said not everyone would want to make a formal commitment. “The stark reality is that many cohabiting couples simply do not wish to enter into a legal union and would not do so, regardless of the label, whether marriage or civil partnership,” she said.

The decision on civil partnerships is the second significant family law move that the government has announced in the past month. It is currently consulting on changes that would allow no-fault divorce for couples, where neither party is blamed for the marriage breakdown.