Open consultation

Equalities impact assessment: a fairer end to relationships

Published 5 June 2026

Equalities impact assessment: a fairer end to relationships

A consultation on reforming financial remedies on divorce and strengthening protections for cohabitants at the end of their relationship.

Policy Proposals Summary

1. This consultation seeks views on reforms across three connected areas of law that apply when relationships end: reforming the law of financial remedies on divorce and dissolution, reforming the law for cohabitants on separation and reforming the law for cohabitants on intestacy.

2. In relation to reforming the law of financial remedies on divorce and dissolution, the Law Commission’s 2024 scoping report found that the highly discretionary approach under the current law lacks clarity, certainty and accessibility, to the extent that it could be considered inconsistent with the rule of law. To address this, the Government invites views on a “codification-plus” model of reform, which would bring established case law principles, such as those of “needs” and “sharing”, into statutory form. The consultation also seeks views on further targeted reforms, including introducing qualifying nuptial agreements to enable couples to make binding financial arrangements in advance of divorce or dissolution. For simplicity, this document refers to divorcing married couples, but these proposals apply equally to civil partners.

3. For cohabitants, a very limited set of protections under the current law can leave individuals facing significant financial difficulties when relationships end, disproportionately affecting vulnerable groups such as women, children and victim-survivors of domestic abuse, including economic abuse. The Government committed to “strengthen the rights and protections available to women in cohabiting couples”, to tackle these issues as part of a broader aim to tackle violence against women and girls (“VAWG”). In line with this, the Government proposes introducing a statutory framework of rights and protections at the point of separation to cohabitants who meet certain eligibility criteria. This framework would offer narrower protections than those available on divorce, balancing the need to protect the vulnerable, including children, while upholding the distinct nature of marriage.

4. The consultation also explores reforms to the law for cohabitants where a partner dies intestate (without a will). Cohabitants currently have no automatic right to inherit when a partner dies without a will, which can leave surviving cohabitants facing serious financial hardship. The consultation seeks views on proposals to modernise the law affecting cohabitants on intestacy and on access to financial provision from a deceased partner’s estate.

5. These proposals are underpinned by four overarching principles that guide the Government’s approach to reform: prioritising fair outcomes for children, protecting the vulnerable, providing a clear and accessible framework and preserving the distinct status of marriage.

Equality Duties

6. This document records the analysis undertaken by Ministry of Justice to fulfil the requirements of the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) as set out in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. This requires the department to pay due regard to the need to: - Eliminate unlawful discrimination - direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, discrimination arising from disability and harassment, victimisation and any other conduct prohibited by the Equality Act 2010. - Advance equality of opportunity between people who share a relevant protected characteristic and people who do not share it. - Foster good relations between people who share a relevant protected characteristic and those who do not share it.

7. The nine “protected characteristics” under the Equality Act 2010 are age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation.

8. The Ministry of Justice has a legal duty to consider how the proposed policy proposals are likely to affect people with the protected characteristics listed above and to take proportionate steps to mitigate or justify any negative effects.

9. Consideration has been given to the impact of the proposals against the statutory obligations under the Equality Act 2010. These are outlined below:

Direct Discrimination

10. Our initial assessment is that none of the proposals within this consultation would be directly discriminatory within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010.

11. While the proposals distinguish between the frameworks available to cohabitants on separation and those available to married couples on divorce, they do not treat individuals less favourably because they are married or in a civil partnership nor as a result of any other protected characteristic.

Indirect Discrimination

12. Our initial assessment, based on the information available, is that the proposed changes in the law would not be indirectly discriminatory within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 since any resulting changes are unlikely to result in anyone sharing a protected characteristic being put at a particular disadvantage, compared to those who do not share that protected characteristic.

Discrimination arising from disability and duty to make reasonable adjustments

13. Our initial assessment, based on the information available, is that the proposals in the consultation will not result in discrimination arising from disability. Protecting the vulnerable is one of the four key principles underpinning the Government’s approach to reform and this informs all three parts of the consultation.

14. In particular, the proposed reforms for cohabitants are designed to provide greater protection for the economically weaker party on separation or death. The latest data shows that disabled people aged 16-64 were around 2.6 times as likely to be economically inactive as non-disabled people (38.4% vs 14.6%) and twice as likely to be unemployed (7.3% vs 3.7%) in 2024/25.^{[footnote 1]} Given this higher prevalence of economic vulnerability, these reforms are likely to benefit disabled individuals who are separating cohabitants.

15. Proposed reforms to the law of financial remedies on divorce are also intended to make the law clearer and more accessible in practice. Increased clarity around how needs are assessed should particularly benefit disabled parties, who may be more likely to have future needs involving additional care and support costs. Ensuring that needs are assessed consistently is intended to reduce uncertainty and support fairer outcomes for disabled people.

16. We are, therefore, confident that the proposals will not create any particular disadvantage to disabled people and are, on balance, likely to be beneficial.

Harassment and victimisation

17. We do not consider that the proposals will give rise to harassment or victimisation within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010. Proposals to improve clarity and accessibility in the law of financial remedies on divorce are intended to reduce protracted disputes and uncertainty that can intensify conflict at separation. This may be particularly important where there is vulnerability or coercive control. Similarly, the Government’s proposals for cohabitation reform are aimed at supporting victim-survivors of domestic abuse, including economic abuse, by enabling them to leave relationships in which, under the current law, they may be forced to remain due to economic dependence on their perpetrator.

Advancing equality of opportunity

18. Consideration has been given to how these proposals impact the duty to advance equality of opportunity, particularly for groups whose needs differ from those who do not share a protected characteristic. The consultation proposals are intended to improve financial security and reduce disadvantage for those more likely to face economic vulnerability at the end of relationships. Examples of those with protected characteristics who we expect will particularly benefit from proposals in the consultation include women, LGBTQ+ individuals and the disabled. Benefits in respect of these protected characteristics are explored in this Equalities Impact Assessment below.

19. Reforms to the law of financial remedies on divorce aim to make the framework clearer and more accessible. This is expected to support those who may be disproportionately affected by the complexity and unpredictability of the current system, including those with lower incomes or greater support needs.

20. In relation to cohabitation reform, the proposals seek to provide greater financial protection to the economically weaker party in the relationship than under the current law. Offering stronger protections will improve financial security for vulnerable groups following separation or the death of a cohabiting partner.

Fostering good relations

21. We have considered the objective to foster good relations between people who share certain protected characteristics and those who do not. For example, a woman with the protected characteristic of disability who has applied for financial orders following separation from a cohabiting partner who does not have the same protected characteristic.

22. We anticipate that the consultation proposals are unlikely to negatively affect good relations and will in fact support positive outcomes. We anticipate reforms will support positive outcomes because they will provide clarity and accessibility in the law and help divorcing and separating cohabiting couples (where one or both individuals may have protected characteristics) to better understand likely outcomes and settle cases earlier, reducing avoidable conflict.

Data and Analysis

23. We have explored available data to consider the impact of consultation proposals on each of the protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010, as set out below:

Age

24. Limited financial protections for cohabitants are likely to affect age groups where one partner is economically inactive and financially dependent on the other. Over half of women aged 25-49 are economically inactive because they are looking after a family member and cohabitation is increasingly common within this age group, with the proportion of 25-29 year olds cohabiting rising from 56.5% in 2011 to 71.6% in 2021.^{[footnote 2]} Cohabitation reform is, therefore, likely to benefit primary caregivers within this age group by providing stronger financial protections where, under the current law, non-financial contributions to the relationship are not effectively recognised.

25. Older parties also face distinct risks, particularly due to economic inactivity associated with early retirement or long-term sickness. Between October 2024 and September 2025, 25.4% of people aged 50-64 were economically inactive.^{[footnote 3]} The average age of divorce, 38.9 for men and 37.6 for women, also means many couples at this life stage will have accumulated complex financial arrangements, including pensions, property and responsibilities for children.^{[footnote 4]} Making the law of financial remedies more accessible will help these couples navigate these issues more easily. Additionally, introducing binding qualifying nuptial agreements will help couples entering second or subsequent marriages make clear arrangements about their division of assets and protect assets intended for children from previous relationships.

26. As younger couples are more likely to cohabit than older couples, strengthening the rights of cohabitants is likely to have a particularly positive impact on them. The proportion of couples aged between 25 and 29 who are cohabiting increased from 56% in 2011 to 72% in 2021.^{[footnote 5]}

27. Children of the relationship will also benefit from cohabitation reform. Research from 2024 highlights the link between partnership context and poverty risk: families with previously married lone mothers were less likely to be in poverty than their previously cohabiting contemporaries (52% compared with 67%).^{[footnote 6]} As the research notes “the chances of a young child living in poor economic circumstances are associated with both the partnership context into which they are born and the subsequent partnership histories of their parents”.

28. The association of poor economic circumstance with parent’s partnership context is reflected in wider data. For example, 84.2% of cohabitating households with children during 2023/2024 received state support, compared with 63.7% of married or civil partnered households.^{[footnote 7]} Similarly, in 2023/24, 82.8% of cohabitating households with children received child benefit, compared to 59.6% of married or civil partnered with children.^{[footnote 8]} Strengthening rights and protections for cohabitants may therefore help improve financial stability for formerly cohabiting families with children of the relationship.

29. Where financial vulnerability turns to poverty, the effects on children’s life chances can be severe. A 2020 ONS study found that childhood poverty reduced adult earnings by between 15% and 28% and reduced the likelihood of being in employment at age 34 by between 4% and 7%.^{[footnote 9]} 2019 UCL research similarly found that persistent childhood poverty is associated with a three times higher risk of mental ill health, a 1.5 times greater risk of obesity and nearly double the risk of longstanding illness.^{[footnote 10]} By strengthening financial protections for cohabitants, the reforms may therefore support better long‑term outcomes for children.

30. Reflecting these findings, the Government is proposing that children’s welfare should be the first consideration of the court when determining financial provision for eligible cohabitants on separation. In doing so, it recognises that a child’s wellbeing is closely connected to the financial stability of their primary carer and the security of their home environment.

31. Intestacy reforms are also likely to have a positive impact across age groups by providing automatic inheritance rights where financial dependence is common. Younger adults, who are now more likely to cohabit, would see clearer protections where a partner dies without a will, reducing sudden financial insecurity. Older cohabitants may also benefit, particularly where one partner has reduced economic activity due to retirement, caring responsibilities, or long‑term illness. The reforms may help prevent hardship for surviving partners and mitigate disputes involving adult children from previous relationships.

Disability

32. Disabled parties face compounded risks due to significantly higher levels of economic inactivity (38.4% vs 14.6% for the general population) and unemployment (7.3% vs 3.7%). This financial vulnerability is reinforced by the disability pay gap, which stood at 12.7% in 2023.^{[footnote 11]}

33. These structural disadvantages are exacerbated by disproportionate exposure to economic abuse. Research from Surviving Economic Abuse found that 23% of disabled women experienced at least one form of economic abuse in the past year, compared to 13% of non-disabled women.^{[footnote 12]} This included 23% of disabled women being refused child support or child maintenance compared to 7% of non-disabled women.

34. Cohabitation reform would help reduce these compounded disadvantages by providing stronger protections for the economically weaker party on separation. Disabled individuals are particularly likely to benefit from a needs-based framework that considers future needs arising from disability, even where financial disadvantage might not be caused by the relationship itself. The same approach to assessing “needs” is proposed for financial remedies on divorce in this respect. Increased clarity around how needs are assessed should particularly benefit disabled parties, who may be more likely to have future needs involving additional care and support costs.

35. Extending intestacy rights to cohabitants may particularly benefit disabled individuals, who are more likely to be economically dependent on a partner or vulnerable to financial exploitation. Automatic inheritance rights could reduce the need for stressful litigation under the 1975 Act and provide greater stability during bereavement. Reforms may therefore reduce the compounded disadvantage disabled cohabitants can face under the current system, without introducing differential treatment on the basis of disability.

Gender Reassignment and Sexual Orientation

36. Reforms would apply equally to both opposite‑sex and same‑sex couples, ensuring that all cohabitants are treated on the same basis regardless of sexual orientation.

37. LGBTQ+ parties may be disproportionately affected by the limited financial protections available to cohabitants under current law. Almost three quarters (73%) of people who identify as lesbian, bisexual or gay have never married or formed a civil partnership, compared to 37.3% who identify as heterosexual.^{[footnote 13]} Part of this difference may reflect historic barriers, with same-sex couples having no option to legally formalise their relationship until the introduction of civil partnerships in 2004 and the ability to marry only since 2013.

38. Financial vulnerability compounds this risk. A 2019 YouGov survey found that LGTBQ+ employees earn £6,700 less per year than heterosexual employees; equivalent to a 16% pay gap.^{[footnote 14]} Economic abuse is also more prevalent: LGBTQ+ individuals are almost twice as likely to experience economic abuse (27% vs 16% for heterosexual peers).^{[footnote 15]} ONS data shows that individuals who do not identify as heterosexual are around twice as likely to experience domestic abuse by a partner than heterosexual individuals.^{[footnote 16]}

39. Those in the trans community can face particularly acute risks. Safe Lives reported 80% of trans victim-survivors had experienced jealous and controlling behaviour with 72% experiencing multiple types of abuse.^{[footnote 17]} Trans victim-survivors also face high levels of economic vulnerability, with 30% having needs surrounding finance, benefits and debt and 21% either having significant financial problems or being dependent on others.

40. Cohabitation reform would provide a stronger safety net on separation for LGBTQ+ cohabitants, who are less likely to marry and more likely to experience economic abuse.

41. Reforms to the law of financial remedies on divorce may also benefit LGBTQ+ individuals. While divorce law already applies equally to same‑sex and opposite‑sex couples, greater clarity and accessibility in how needs are assessed may particularly assist those who have lower incomes or face economic vulnerability, including LGBTQ+ people who experience pay gaps or employment disadvantage.

Marriage and Civil Partnership

42. The consultation proposals on reform to financial remedies on divorce will have a positive impact on individuals who hold this protected characteristic. This is because the proposals would make the law clearer and more accessible, making it easier for individuals to negotiate financial outcomes and reducing conflict.

43. The consultation proposals on cohabitation reform will have no impact on marriage or civil partnership or any individuals who hold this protected characteristic, as cohabitation reform would operate under a separate and distinct scheme

Pregnancy and Maternity

44. While data is limited, we expect the proposals would indirectly benefit those with the protected characteristic of pregnancy and maternity. This is because pregnant women and mothers are often financially vulnerable due to lower incomes and periods of economic inactivity as a result of taking on childcare responsibilities. A clear statutory framework for cohabitants would help ensure that needs are more consistently met at a time when earnings may be lower or interrupted.

45. Changes to the law of intestacy for cohabitants may also indirectly support pregnant women and new mothers by providing financial security at periods of heightened vulnerability. A surviving cohabiting parent would have clearer access to property or resources previously relied upon during pregnancy or early childcare. Where the deceased was the primary earner, reform may prevent significant financial shock to the surviving parent and child.

Race

46. Data shows notable disparities in economic activities across ethnic groups. Between October 2024 and September 2025, 20.7% of white people were economically inactive, compared with 29.3% of people from all other ethnic groups combined. The gap between men and women was biggest in the combined Pakistani and Bangladeshi ethnic group, where 46.7% of women and 18.7% of men were economically inactive and narrowest in the Black ethnic group, where 22.9% of women and 21.9% of men were economically inactive.^{[footnote 18]}

47. Women from an ethnic minority background also face higher exposure to economic and domestic abuse. Research from Surviving Economic Abuse found that 29% of Black, Asian and women from an ethnic minority background in the UK experienced at least one form of economic abuse from a partner in the past year, compared to 13% of White women.^{[footnote 19]} These groups were three times more likely to have a partner or ex-partner control access to a bank account and twice as likely to experience deliberate damage to property or belongings. ONS data similarly shows that in FY 2024/25, 9.8% of Black or Black British women and 8.6% of Mixed women experienced domestic abuse by their partner, compared to 7.3% of White women.^{[footnote 20]}

48. The reforms may therefore particularly assist racially minoritised women who are statistically more likely to experience economic abuse, lower incomes, or economic inactivity. In communities where cohabitation or religious‑only marriages are more common, intestacy protections would reduce the risk of sudden financial exclusion when a partner dies without a civilly recognised marriage.

Religion or Belief

49. A lack of protections under the current law disproportionately affects individuals who undergo religious-only, non-legally binding weddings, as these couples are treated as unmarried in law. This means they do not benefit from the financial remedies available on divorce or civil partnership dissolution.

50. The 2018 Independent Review into the application of Sharia Law in England and Wales found that a significant number of Muslim couples do not register their religious marriage as a civil marriage and that, therefore, some Muslim women have no option of obtaining a civil divorce. A 2017 survey found over 60% of Muslim women over 25 years old were in a religious-only marriage.^{[footnote 21]} Whilst this is often done intentionally, for example to have community approval to cohabit, the same 2017 survey found of those who were in religious-only marriages, 28% did not realise they did not have accompanying legal protections.

51. As the 2021 Nuffield-funded paper ‘When is a wedding not a marriage? Exploring non-legally binding ceremonies’ demonstrated, religious-only weddings are also entered into by a number of other different faith groups including Hindus and Sikhs and some Christian denominations. ^{[footnote 22]}

52. Cohabitation reform would safeguard the more financially vulnerable partner in religious-only marriages who currently have no legal recourse on separation. It would also safeguard those who are non-religious, who are the group most likely to cohabit (16.5% compared to 9.3% for Buddhists, the next highest group) and the least likely to choose to marry, with only 26.1% married or in civil partnerships compared to 41.4% of religious individuals on average.^{[footnote 23]}

53. Intestacy reform may have a positive effect for individuals in religious‑only marriages which are not legally recognised. These couples are treated in law as unmarried cohabitants, leaving partners without automatic inheritance rights. Extending intestacy rights would reduce this vulnerability, while respecting religious freedom. The reforms may also aid non‑religious groups, who are statistically more likely to cohabit.

Sex

54. Several factors suggest that women may be more vulnerable on separation than men, increasing susceptibility to abuse and financial hardship. This vulnerability stems from structural inequalities in earnings, pensions and unpaid care work which accumulate over a lifetime and are felt acutely at the end of a relationship. These are set out below:

Lower Earnings and Employability Prospects

55. Women on average are paid less than men. The gender pay gap for full time employees widens significantly with age, rising from 3.9% among 30-39 to 9.1% among those aged 40-49, to over 12% for aged 50-59 years (12.5%) and over 60 (12.6%).^{[footnote 24]} The average age of women at childbirth was 31 in 2023, suggesting that many women may take time out of the labour market and thereby limiting earning capacity and career progression as well as facing significant barriers when seeking to re-enter employment.^{[footnote 25]} This trend is set to continue with the largest increase in birthing age in the 35 to 39 age group.^{[footnote 26]}

56. According to TUC analysis, in 2023 nearly 1.5 million women were out of the labour market due to caring responsibilities; around seven times more than men.^{[footnote 27]} 54.7% of 25 to 49 year old women (vs.13.2% of men) who were economically inactive in the UK in the 12 months to September 2025 were economically inactive because they were looking after their home or family.^{[footnote 28]} 2016 PWC research also found 65% of women returning from a career break do so below their potential level.^{[footnote 29]}

Pensions and Long-Term Security

57. Lower lifetime earnings also translate into a significant pensions gap. Between 2018-20, the average value of private pension wealth not yet making payments was £94,000 for women aged 55-59 compared to £145,000 compared to men of the same age, a 54% gap relative to women.^{[footnote 30]} The gap was particularly stark in defined contribution (DC) pensions, where women’s pots were 75% smaller than men’s. The IFS has also shown that, six years after childbirth, mothers contribute half as much to pensions as fathers, despite making similar contributions prior to becoming parents.^{[footnote 31]}

58. Findings from the Fair Shares Project reinforce the scale of this imbalance. In particular, they highlighted that pension assets were frequently overlooked during financial negotiations on divorce, with only 11% of divorcees making a pension-sharing arrangement, despite pensions being among the most valuable assets couples own.^{[footnote 32]}

59. The Law Commission’s 2024 scoping report on financial remedies on divorce similarly highlighted gendered financial outcomes on divorce. Research commissioned by Legal & General showing that a woman’s household income fell by 41% in the year following divorce, compared to 21% for men.^{[footnote 33]} The Fair Shares project also identified marked differences in post-divorce living standards between men and women in the over‑50 age group, illustrating the long-term financial disadvantage women may experience.^{[footnote 34]}

60. The proposed reforms to the law of financial remedies on divorce directly address these issues. By making the framework clearer and more accessible and by requiring the court to specifically consider pension needs, the reforms should reduce the risk that pensions are overlooked. Clearer guidance on needs assessment should also help ensure that women’s housing, income and retirement needs are appropriately recognised, mitigating long‑standing gendered inequalities in financial outcomes.

Unpaid Work and Economic Activity

61. Globally, women spend two to ten times more time on unpaid care work than men.^{[footnote 35]} In the UK, women spent an average of 3 hours and 37 minutes per day doing unpaid work activities, nearly an hour more than men.^{[footnote 36]}

62. Women are also more likely to be more economically inactive or working part time compared to men, with the latest data showing that 24.2% of women were inactive compared to 17.5% of men.^{[footnote 37]} This is often due to being the primary caregiver within a relationship to a child. Of working families, 3% of women (compared to 44% of men) were employed full-time with their partner employed part-time.^{[footnote 38]} And, among 25 to 49 year olds (when people are most likely to have dependent children), 54.7% of women and just 13.2% of men were economically inactive because they were looking after their home or family.^{[footnote 39]}

Economic Abuse and Financial Barriers

63. 72% of victim-survivors of economic abuse reported serious harm to their health, finances, safety, or livelihoods, rising to 93% for those who also experienced other forms of domestic abuse.^{[footnote 40]} Nearly one in four (23%) victim-survivors said economic abuse prevented them from leaving, equivalent to 940,000 women and 38% reported living in fear.^{[footnote 41]}

64. Victim-survivors faced average debts of £27,000 in 2023 and, according to a Women’s Aid Survey, almost three quarters (73%) of women living with and having financial links with the abuser said that the cost of living crisis had either prevented them from leaving or made it harder for them to leave.^{[footnote 42]} They also found that two-thirds (66%) said perpetrators used the cost of living increase and concerns about financial hardship as a tool for coercive control, including to justify further restricting their access to money.

65. Cohabitation and financial remedies reform would help protect the economically weaker party, most often women, by offering stronger protections and clearer routes to meeting needs, in turn reducing the influence of coercive control on decision-making. A predictable, needs-based framework offers a more secure route out of abuse.

Intestacy

66. Women are likely to benefit significantly from intestacy reform, given higher rates of economic inactivity due to childcare, longer life expectancy and higher exposure to economic abuse. Automatic inheritance rights may protect surviving female partners from sudden financial hardship or homelessness following a partner’s death. The reforms will therefore help reduce the impact of structural inequalities in earnings, pensions and unpaid care burdens by ensuring that long-term cohabitants do not lose the financial security expected from a shared life.

67. Women cohabitants are expected to face the problem of inheritance more often than male cohabitants since women tend to be predeceased by their male partners. This is due to differential life expectancy. Between 2021 and 2023, life expectancy in the UK was 78.8 years for men and 82.8 years for women, a difference of four years.^{[footnote 43]} Hence, male cohabitants are expected to die just over four years before their female partners, which means that it is female cohabitants who will more often face the problem of having no entitlement on intestacy.

Views from the Data

68. Based on the data above, the current law on financial remedies for divorce and the limited existing financial protections available to cohabitants may disproportionately affect certain groups, including those with protected characteristics. Reform offers an opportunity to reduce these disparities and advance equality of opportunity.

Monitoring and Evaluation

69. In line with our ongoing Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) obligations we will continue to consider the relevant equalities data and evidence during the consultation. We also continue to pay due regard to the PSED as we take proposals forward and will consider the most effective ways of monitoring equality impacts.

Your views are important

70. We would welcome views, experiences and other evidence from and about separating cohabitants with protected characteristics as set out in the Equality Act 2010.

1. Nomis (Office for National Statistics), Query Tool – Annual Population Survey (Nomis). ↩

2. Women’s Budget Group, Women and the Labour Market: Briefing I – Introduction and Headline Measures (February 2024); Office for National Statistics, People’s living arrangements in England and Wales: Census 2021 (9 February 2023). ↩

3. Nomis (Office for National Statistics), Query Tool – Annual Population Survey (Nomis). ↩

4. Office for National Statistics, Divorces in England and Wales: 2018 (29 November 2019) . ↩

5. Office for National Statistics, People’s living arrangements in England and Wales: Census 2021 (9 February 2023). ↩

6. Kathleen Kiernan, Sam Crossman and Angus Phimister, ‘Families and inequalities’ (2024) 3 Oxford Open Economics (Supplement 1) i645. ↩

7. Department for Work and Pensions, DWP benefit statistics tools (GOV.UK, 15 February 2017; updated 15 July 2024) . ↩

8. Department for Work and Pensions, Stat‑Xplore (DWP statistics query tool). ↩

9. Office for National Statistics, Child poverty and education outcomes by ethnicity (25 February 2020) . ↩

10. University College London, Persistent poverty affects one in five UK children (12 June 2019). ↩

11. Nomis (Office for National Statistics), Query Tool – Annual Population Survey (Nomis); Office for National Statistics, Disability pay gaps in the UK: 2014 to 2023 (17 October 2024). ↩

12. Surviving Economic Abuse, Economic abuse at “national emergency” levels yet more than half of UK women don’t know anything about it (21 July 2025)  ↩

13. Office for National Statistics, Sexual orientation, UK: 2024 (9 December 2025) Table 4a ↩

14. Natalie MacDonald, ‘The UK has an LGBTQ pay gap’ (LinkedIn News, 2 July 2019). . ↩

15. Surviving Economic Abuse, Economic abuse: stats and facts sheet (June 2024). ↩

16. Office for National Statistics, Domestic abuse prevalence and victim characteristics: Appendix tables (26 November 2025) Table 4. ↩

17. SafeLives, Transgender victims’ and survivors’ experiences of domestic abuse: Briefing. ↩

18. Nomis (Office for National Statistics), Query Tool – Annual Population Survey (Nomis). ↩

19. Surviving Economic Abuse, Measuring economic abuse: Preliminary findings on the prevalence and impact of economic abuse on women in the UK (November 2024). ↩

20. Office for National Statistics, Domestic abuse prevalence and victim characteristics: Appendix tables (26 November 2025). ↩

21. Aina Khan OBE, Register Our Marriage (ROM) campaign (1 December 2019). ↩

22. Rebecca Probert, Rajnaara Akhtar and Sharon Blake, When is a wedding not a marriage? A briefing paper for the Law Commission (Nuffield Foundation 2020). ↩

23. Office for National Statistics, Create a dataset (ONS API/Data Explorer). ↩

24. Office for National Statistics, Gender pay gap in the UK: 2025 (23 October 2025). ↩

25. Office for National Statistics, Childbearing for women born in different years, England and Wales: 2023 (2 April 2025) ↩

26. Office for National Statistics, Birth summary tables, England and Wales: 2024 (24 October 2024) ↩

27. Trades Union Congress (TUC), ‘Women 7 times more likely than men to be out of work due to caring commitments’ (8 March 2023). ↩

28. Nomis (Office for National Statistics), Annual Population Survey – regional – economic inactivity by reasons (Query Tool, APS181) ↩

29. PwC, Women returners: The £1 billion career break penalty for professional women (30% Club and Women Returners, November 2016); Monica Costa Dias, William Elming and Robert Joyce, The gender wage gap (Institute for Fiscal Studies, 23 August 2016) ↩

30. Department for Work and Pensions, Gender Pensions Gap in Private Pensions (22 July 2025). ↩

31. Institute for Fiscal Studies, ‘First time – men and women reaching state pension age now have similar state pension incomes’. ↩

32. Emma Hitchings, Caroline Bryson, Gillian Douglas, Susan Purdon and Jenny Birchall, Fair Shares? Sorting out money and property on divorce: Executive summary (Nuffield Foundation 2021). ↩

33. Law Commission, Financial remedies on divorce and dissolution: A scoping report (Law Com No 417, HC 460, 17 December 2024) ;Opinium Research conducted research among 2750 divorced UK adults between 20 November to 4 December 2023 on behalf of Legal & General. ↩

34. Emma Hitchings, Caroline Bryson, Gillian Douglas, Susan Purdon and Jenny Birchall, Fair Shares? Sorting out money and property on divorce: Report (University of Bristol/Nuffield Foundation 2023). ↩

35. Gaëlle Ferrant, Luca Maria Pesando and Keiko Nowacka, Unpaid Care Work: The Missing Link in the Analysis of Gender Gaps in Labour Outcomes (OECD Development Centre, December 2014).. ↩

36. Curtis Jessop, Marta Mezzanzanica and Chujan Sivathasan, Time Use in the UK: Autumn 2023 (National Centre for Social Research, 9 November 2023). ↩

37. Emma Thackray, Women and the Labour Market: Briefing I – Introduction and Headline Measures (Women’s Budget Group, 9 February 2024). ↩

38. Office for National Statistics, ‘Families and the labour market, England: 2021’ (22 July 2022). ↩

39. Nomis (Office for National Statistics), Annual Population Survey – regional – economic inactivity by reasons (Query Tool, APS181). ↩

40. Rosa Wilson‑Garwood, Counting the Cost: The Scale and Impact of Economic Abuse in the UK (Surviving Economic Abuse and Ipsos UK, July 2025). ↩

41. Rosa Wilson‑Garwood, Counting the Cost: The Scale and Impact of Economic Abuse in the UK (Surviving Economic Abuse and Ipsos UK, July 2025). ↩

42. Surviving Economic Abuse, Written Evidence Submission 126411 to the Women and Equalities Committee (UK Parliament Committees); Women’s Aid, The cost of living (1 August 2022) https://womensaid.org.uk/the-cost-of-living/>. ↩

43. Office for National Statistics, National life tables – life expectancy in the UK: 2021 to 2023 (additional data) (18 March 2025) accessible here: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/lifeexpectancies/bulletins/nationallifetablesunitedkingdom/2021to2023additionaldata ↩