Pension needs should be given “equal prominence” in family law, the Society of Pension Professionals (SPP) has said, as it called for stronger pension protections when marriages and cohabiting relationships break down.

Responding to the Ministry of Justice consultation, A fairer end to relationships, the SPP argued that pensions were often a household’s largest or second-largest asset but could still be overlooked or undervalued compared with more immediate priorities such as housing.

SPP Legislation Committee chair, Oliver Topping, warned that this is "frequently to the detriment" of the financially weaker party who may have taken career breaks for caregiving.

“Pension needs should be given equal prominence in family law, and vital protections such as pension sharing should be extended to cohabiting couples,” he added.

The consultation considers reforms to financial arrangements following divorce and dissolution, financial provision for cohabitants on separation and inheritance provision for cohabitants on death.

The SPP recommended codifying the distinction between matrimonial and non-matrimonial property and placing pension needs on an equal statutory footing in financial remedy decisions.

It also backed extending pension sharing orders to qualifying cohabitants and automatically widening eligibility for dependants’ pensions to cohabitants, rather than requiring them to satisfy what the industry body described as onerous proof-of-dependency requirements.

Another key recommendation was to make verified pensions dashboards information a standard part of court disclosure.

The SPP noted that, over time, secure court access to dashboard data could help identify pension pots that might otherwise be missed, speed up proceedings and improve transparency around retirement assets.

However, the SPP cautioned that extending pension rights to cohabitants would require clear legal definitions and sufficient time to implement pension schemes.

Topping concluded: “To make these reforms workable in practice, policymakers must provide clear, objective criteria for defining qualifying cohabitants and allow the pensions industry sufficient lead-in time to adapt.”

---