“My father was a toolmaker”; “My father was a GP” – The election politics of families

Both Sir Kier Starmer and Rishi Sunak have spoken much (arguably too much!) about their own families in the course of this election campaign. But as polling day approaches, what do they each – and the other parties – offer in their manifestos for families and family law?

The Scottish Family Party have some rather self-professed “unique policy areas” in this area, the core driver of their policies being to provide support “for family, marriage and life”. Indeed, many a newlywed would no doubt welcome the idea of a state-endorsed celebration of their nuptials in the form of a “wedding box” offering vouchers for meals, holidays and picture frames.  Beyond that they oppose abortion (save where a woman’s life is in danger) and assisted suicide and have a wish to “end trans ideology” and “identity politics”. They would also repeal the smacking ban in Scotland.

But what of the bigger political parties and their various manifesto pledges as they relate to family law? 

In broad terms, one of the only common themes (presumably because it is relatively uncontroversial) is an expressed wish to tackle an overburdened justice system, particularly to make improvements to assist survivors of domestic abuse, albeit the specifics of the parties’ various proposals differ.  There is, almost inevitably, shared concern about the backlogs and delays in the family courts, a concern all family law practitioners would share. In February 2024 a Ministry of Justice consultation to support the earlier resolution of private family law arrangements reported that the average time to complete cases was just over 26 weeks in 2015 but by June 2023 this had nearly doubled to 47 weeks. It is clear something needs to be done.

In the context of tackling domestic abuse, each of the political parties would also be well advised to look to SafeLives (SafeLives - Ending domestic abuse) for guidance. SafeLives, a charitable partner of our firm, is a nationwide charity dedicated to ending domestic abuse and working with organisations across the UK to tackle it.  They have produced their own manifesto laying out 6 priorities for the next government that they consider would transform the response to domestic abuse. I highly commend it to any reader: Our Manifesto for the 2024 General Election - SafeLives  At its heart is a systemic response for the whole family, across healthcare, education and local government, rather than just looking at it more narrowly as a criminal justice issue and with greater investment in systems and services designed to prevent domestic abuse from happening in the first place and to address it sensitively when it does. 

Beyond that, political reform of family law arrangements has perhaps traditionally been seen as something of a hot-potato and therefore there has been reluctance to grapple with issues over the years. The Law Commission library is littered with consultation reports gathering dust (see final paragraph: The end is nigh for London as the "divorce capital of the world" - major reform of the law of finances on divorce after 50 years? (charlesrussellspeechlys.com)). Perhaps the most notable of these is the recommendations it made in 2007 for reform of the law for cohabitants (Cohabitation - Law Commission). Such reform is long overdue. The coalition government made clear in 2011 that it would not progress the Law Commission’s recommendations and so cohabitants are left relying on a complex and often unfair patchwork of legal remedies. Since then the situation has become even more pressing as the proportion of cohabiting couples (not in a marriage or civil partnership) increased from 20.6% in 2011 to 24.3% in 2021 according to the last two censuses; it is the fastest growing type of family unit (although see also my colleague Sarah Jane Boon’s comment in The Times on 21.6.24 about the sharp rise in the number of marriages following the pandemic: Marriages up 12% after post-Covid rush down the aisle (thetimes.com)) 

It is only the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats who pledge, in rather vague terms, to “strengthen the rights and protections available to women in cohabiting couples” and to “extend limited legal rights to cohabiting couples, to give them greater protection in the event of separation or bereavement” respectively. Labour’s reference is under the heading “Tackling violence against women and girls” and conspicuously only refers to women, not men, so it is unclear quite what is being referred to. To what extent the changes planned by either party would therefore improve the frequent injustice that arises when cohabiting relationships breakdown remains to be seen, but any step in that direction is to be warmly welcomed.

And now for a whistlestop tour of some of the other manifesto claims made by the various political parties as they relate to families….

For all of his rhetoric on immigration, Nigel Farage and his Reform Party also have much to say about families. They believe that “strong families are the bedrock of a thriving society” but assert in their manifesto that “Britain has one of the highest family breakdown rates in the western world”. They propose potentially quite significant changes in family law including a bold and, many would say much needed, reform of the child maintenance service by setting up a special division of the family court to deal with child maintenance payments and defaults as well as tax benefits for married couples. They propose greater “rights of access” for grandparents and a 50/50 share of parental care “where appropriate”.  Arguably equal time will always be “appropriate” if such an arrangement is in the children’s best interests, the latter being the current driver behind any decision about how children spend their time with each parent, but one imagines this signals a stronger presumption in favour of equality than we have at present.

The Liberal Democrats hope to support domestic abuse survivors by increased training and support services both within the police and otherwise and by improving the speed and process of bringing perpetrators to justice as well as making improvements to the Legal Aid system and its funding. They too promise a review and reform of the child maintenance service, particularly to ensure it is not used as form of coercive control over domestic abuse survivors. The Liberal Democrats also commit to implementing the Law Commission’s proposals to reform the laws relating to marriages, giving more choice to couples over how and where they may marry (Weddings - Law Commission). 

The Conservative Party manifesto also focusses specifically on support for survivors of domestic abuse and tackling backlogs in the court system. The party pledges to keep open “Nightingale courts” (introduced during the pandemic and aimed reducing the backlog of civil and criminal cases which resulted from the pandemic), to expand the Pathfinder Court pilot in family proceedings (promoting a less adversarial, more joined up and streamlined approach with a child-centred focus, particularly in domestic abuse cases) as well as continuing to support the mediation voucher scheme to help families resolve private law children arrangements without litigation. 

So too are the Labour Party keen to shine a light on their pledge to improve the working of the justice system as it relates to violence against women and girls, using “every government tool available” to target perpetrators and address the causes of abuse and violence, including, for example, domestic abuse experts in 999 control rooms and legal advocates in every police force area to advise victims from report to trial.

What will also be of keen interest to family law practitioners is the approach the next government takes following the anticipated Law Commission consideration of financial remedies on divorce. There is no current expectation of a full consultation process and recommendations, but rather a scoping paper is expected in November this year. It will be interesting to see if a full review and recommendation for financial remedies reform follows and, if so, how the various political parties might respond to that particular hot potato.