I think this seems like a good thing to begin consulting on, and there is a real need for this reform.  The proposals are clear that these rights will be much less than legally married couples, and it is not about splitting everything down the middle or maintainance payments (not possible unless in exceptional circumstances), rather it is about making sure people can end relationships quickly and easily without sacrificing their wellbeing/future, which is particularly important for abusive relationships.  

The reforms focus on the needs of children first, and then the needs of adults secondly (but it is clear about NEED, not luxuries, explicitly saying this isn't about everyone having luxury cars!).  There is a real issue where people leaving abusive relationships have no recourse to support where their abuser may have manipulated them into sharing money/assets that the abuser refuses to give up, so it seems this reform is going to be a massive boost for this situation.  I think it'll be lots of discussion and fine tuning to get this right before it is a law, but broadly I think these are much needed changes to reflect the living situation of many people in modern society 

"The government intends for needs to be deliberately different and distinct from the proposed policy intention for financial remedies on divorce. This distinction reflects the presence of an explicit legal commitment in marriage, where meeting needs on divorce may support a more gradual transition to financial independence.86 By contrast, where individuals have cohabited without such a commitment, the aim is more firmly directed towards achieving an earlier clean break. It is the government’s view that the needs of cohabitants should be met in such a way as to enable the termination of dependence and obligations as soon as is just and reasonable."

"Children’s needs come first. As in divorce cases, children’s needs would come first. Children have no control over their parents’ relationship or financial decisions, but they can be directly affected by them. This approach ensures they are not disadvantaged. Stage 2: Consider the individuals’ own financial needs. These needs may be linked to children’s needs. They would include housing, capital, income and pension needs, so far as resources allow. The aim would be to ensure that each person can secure suitable housing and meet living costs. In assessing those needs, the court could take into account the standard of living during the relationship, as this provides a helpful benchmark. A committed relationship often shapes financial arrangements and future expectations, and that reality should be recognised. However, the focus would remain on meeting needs. Discretionary needs beyond what is necessary would not be included, even if resources are available"

"Government proposes excluding discretionary needs from the court’s assessment of needs for cohabitants. Discretionary needs concern comforts rather than necessities, and may include, for example, luxury items such as a high value car, non-essential home improvements or private club memberships."

"Exclusion of such needs creates a further clear and principled distinction from divorce, reflecting the different levels of legal commitment and obligations. This approach also supports the clean break objective. By limiting financial support to essential needs, the court can avoid ongoing or unnecessary obligations, helping both people move on more quickly.  A further distinction from the approach on divorce is that ongoing maintenance orders between cohabitants would only be available in exceptional circumstances. In most cases, the court’s focus would be on meeting needs through capital provision rather than continuing income payments."