Marriage between First Cousins

Debate between Jim Shannon and Richard Holden

Wednesday 18th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government policy on marriage between first cousins.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I rise to speak on a topic that many in our country assume is already settled. People assume that the marriage of first cousins is prohibited, as it was for 1,000 years in England. Yet that is not the case today. Despite deep cultural, medical and societal reasons to avoid such unions, our laws have remained unchanged since the era of Henry VIII. To many, that is a source of bewilderment and bafflement—as it was to me, until I dug deeper and realised some of the real dangers that widescale first cousin marriage can bring.

The Church banned first cousin marriage in the fifth century. By the 11th century it had prohibited marriage up to sixth cousins. That ban was reversed by a Tudor monarch with a perhaps chequered marital record and we have remained broadly silent on the issue ever since. However, the rights and freedoms of individual citizens, society and our broader understanding have moved on, and our laws must do the same.

This is not a call for a legislative knee-jerk reaction. Silence, as Matthew Syed has powerfully written in The Times, does not constitute neutrality. Silence is a fundamental choice with serious consequences, both for children born with preventable disorders, and even more so for men and women denied basic freedoms and for communities fragmented from wider society. I urge the House and the Minister to recognise the scale of the issue and—I hope—the moral imperative to act. My argument rests on three key tenets: freedom, social cohesion and health.

During the last Parliament I worked with campaigners to end virginity testing and hymenoplasty. In doing so I stood on the shoulders of giants: brave women from many organisations who support young women trapped in oppressive familial and extended family tribal systems. I pushed for a private Member’s Bill, and then via amendments to the Health and Care Act 2022, with Baroness Sugg in the House of Lords helping as well; the Government accepted the argument by tabling their own amendments. When I picked up that campaign, via a chance encounter with an item on BBC Radio 1’s “Newsbeat”, there was no politician of any party leading the charge in this House. Some of the activists involved might have been a bit miffed that a new, unknown Back-Bench Tory MP was leading their cause—but they got me, and we managed to push through some of the changes that they had been fighting for so bravely and with such strength for such a long time.

What was the reason behind women being forced to undergo procedures that are at best pseudo-scientific, and at worst deeply harmful? It was unscientific concepts of virginity linked to gender-oppressive ideas of purity in an oppressive patriarchal culture. Often those were linked to forced marriages. Some of their stories will never leave me: young women who had had their education and ambitions cut short being sent to marry men they had never met—men chosen not for compatibility or affection, but to preserve family alliances, assets or bastardised notions of honour.

Such arrangements are not just about culture; they are also about control. The system is upheld by pressure and enforced through silence, and people attempt to justify it through tradition. When marriage is confined within families, the cost of refusal rises astronomically: it is not simply turning down a partner, but rejecting grandparents, parents, uncles, aunts and the entire network of family and friends—and that has a price. Choice under those circumstances is no choice at all. That is why I see the legislation that I put forward in my private Member’s Bill, the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees of Relationship) Bill, and the debate we are having today as an extension of the work I did in the last Parliament.

We have heard, rightly, about patriarchal systems that rob women of autonomy, but in cousin marriage those systems are particularly resilient. Why? Because the families are not just connected, but fused—inextricably joined. The pressure is not just external, from legal systems; it is intimate and wholly inescapable, especially when it is generation after generation.

Men are trapped too; I have been told of British Pakistani men forced into such arrangements by community and familial obligations, terrified to defy expectations and cut ties with cousins whom they often consider, because of the closeness of their relationship, almost as siblings. There are even cases of gay men and women who have been forced to marry out of familial obligation. That is not hypothetical: since raising this issue, I have been contacted by scores of youth workers, healthcare professionals and ordinary members of the community who have thanked me for raising it and asked me to keep going. They need politicians to speak up, because they feel that they cannot.

Beneath the surface and behind closed doors, there is support and a real hunger for change in these communities. Sadly, what is lacking is the political courage to match that quiet majority—and it is a quiet majority in all parts of our community: polls show that support for reform is not linked to the black, white or other populations, and a YouGov poll just a few weeks ago showed that a majority of British Bangladeshi and Pakistani communities back a ban on first cousin marriage. The vain virtue signallers who said that moves in this direction would be racist must take a look at themselves; they are the ones opposing a majority of the communities that they play-act at representing.

For people in the communities I am speaking up for—most of the British Pakistani community, where this is a big issue, and to a lesser extent the Traveller community—cousin marriage is entangled with status, tradition and expectations, and speaking out can be very dangerous. As with forced marriage and female genital mutilation, silence only enables the system. Only sunlight breaks the cycle, and that means naming the issue, debating it and legislating against it.

Some critics say a ban would infringe upon people’s freedom—but what freedom are we protecting? The reality for so many is a life predetermined by bloodline and birth order. We are not protecting a freedom; we are perpetuating oppression. Whose freedom, if any, are we protecting? Purely the freedom of the oppressor to oppress and keep down—not the freedom of the individual. The state already intervenes where power dynamics distort consent. We rightly outlaw relationships between teachers and pupils or therapists and clients, because of the imbalance. The same must apply here.

Let us not forget that most cousin marriages are not one-offs. In some cases, they are multi-generational. With each generation, the chance to choose diminishes further. The net tightens and lives are lost in the gaps.

I move now beyond individual freedom to the broader issue of social cohesion. Patrick Nash, an Oxford theologian, argues that cousin marriage undermines trust in public institutions; when communities marry inward, loyalty is channelled inward to extended families and clan structures, rather than to the important shared civic values of the nation state and wider society.

At Harvard, Joseph Henrich has documented how the decline of cousin marriage helped to build western liberal democracies. When families are forced to look beyond their kin networks for marriage partners, new alliances form. Societies move beyond tribal loyalty to a broader civic trust. Studies show that, where cousin marriage continues, there is reduced integration, lower social mobility and higher incidence of corruption. Why? Because when job, marriage, dispute resolution and identity all sit within the same extended family structure, wider society fades from relevance.

If we want a society that functions on the basis of fairness, where the rule of law prevails and where people engage beyond their own, we cannot allow closed family systems to continue to flourish unchallenged. So-called community leaders—often unelected and unaccountable—who derive their authority from familial networks become gatekeepers for those people and communities. They decide who speaks, who marries whom and who gets heard. This system is self-perpetuating. These are not British values, and those who perpetuate such systems should be exposed. In many cases, those leaders are the ones resisting reform, not because the arguments for change are weak, but because their own power depends on those structures being preserved. Reform threatens their influence. That is why this issue matters so much.

We must remember that cousin marriage is not a religious obligation, but a cultural tradition, and traditions can and must change. Other nations have already exhibited powerful leadership in this area; we should look towards countries such as Norway, Sweden and Denmark for a steer. Those countries are liberal democracies with incredibly strong human rights records. They are not reactionary or anachronistic, but fundamentally progressive. Why, then, are we allowing Britain to lag behind? We hear concerns about cultural insensitivity—I have been accused of it myself—but is it not far more insensitive to ignore the pleas of those trapped within those structures? Is it not condescending to assume that communities cannot adapt or reform?

We should be empowering individuals, not entrenching power in extended family hierarchies. The state’s job is not to ratify patriarchal bargains, but to protect liberty, health and the chance of every citizen to live a full and independent life. When cousin marriage is prevalent, society and integration suffer, and shared spaces become fewer; school catchments, neighbourhoods and even workplaces can fracture along the lines of extended kin. That is not diversity at its best, but division at its worst. It is not about faith or race. It is about what sort of country we want to live in: one ruled by fear masquerading as family loyalty, or one where each citizen stands equal, with rights and responsibilities to each other deeper than those of family and clan. Those fundamentals are the foundation of a modern nation state and ones I believe this Parliament, this Government and this House should uphold.

Finally, I come to science and the health issue, because the best understood point against cousin marriage, though it is not core to my argument, is health. The Born in Bradford study, one of the UK’s most comprehensive birth cohort analyses, has followed 11,000 children.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the right hon. Gentleman for bringing this issue forward. It is a difficult subject, and one that can be hard to listen to and respond to in a balanced way. I thank him for doing that well. Does he not agree that the science showing that the prevalence of birth defects doubling in cases of cousin marriage is reason enough to consider drastic legal action? While education is an enviable end-goal pathway, the stats show that it is not effective enough at present. In the interim, for the sake of children and communities, does he agree that action should be taken?

[Mr Holden]

The hon. Member contributes so often to our debates in such a thoughtful way. He raises an important point about health, which I will develop. The health issues are of fundamental importance but, as I have said in my speech, there are broader societal concerns that mean this issue should be higher up the Government’s agenda more generally as well.

For unrelated parents, the Born in Bradford study found that around one in 40 children are born with serious birth defects. Among first cousins, that rises to roughly one in 15, even when controlling for poverty, education and maternal age. That is more than double the risk. It cannot be stressed enough that this is not an isolated issue. In some communities, cousin marriage remains par for the course—the typical, not the atypical. In parts of Bradford, for instance, over half of all mothers of Pakistani heritage are married to first or second cousins.

That is hardly new information; as far back as the 19th century, the British Medical Journal documented inherited risks from unions between first cousins. Charles Darwin himself was married to his first cousin, and he suspected a link between his marriage and the poor health of his children, three of whom died young and five of whom suffered from chronic illnesses or disability.

The genetic risks run from the well-known Tay-Sachs, thalassaemia and cystic fibrosis to the under-recognised microcephaly, heart defects and intellectual disabilities. Those disorders are often lifelong, and the toll is felt not just by families, but by wider society—by the NHS, by our special educational needs system and across communities.

Alison Shaw, professor of social anthropology at Oxford, has written extensively on cousin marriage in British-Pakistani communities. Drawing on public health data, she highlights that children born to first cousins face roughly double the risk of serious genetic disorders compared with those of unrelated parents. Some have suggested that genetic testing could solve the problem but, while certain conditions can be screened for, many cannot. More importantly, testing does nothing to address the broader issues I have already spoken of around coercion and lack of real choice.

Moreover, as UK Biobank studies demonstrate, multi-generational first cousin marriages exponentially compound risk. The DNA profiles in such families begin almost to mirror those of siblings, or certainly uncle-niece relationships, which often carry much higher risks of severe birth defects, when first cousin marriage occurs generation after generation. In broader culture, people often think of the Habsburgs as a reference point, but this issue is more than mere historical curiosity; it is sadly representative of a contemporary crisis that continues to affect families today.

Behind every statistic lie families, clinicians and patients struggling to manage lifelong consequences. What makes this more painful is that so many of these conditions are entirely preventable. When the science is clear, it beggars belief that we still choose not to do anything. We must stop pretending that this is a marginal issue. The data is clear: it is not anecdotal, but systematic. The status quo is not neutral; it is a form of abandonment, and sustaining it is indefensible.

If we were to design a system that throttled personal freedom, threw in major health issues and undermined national cohesion, we could hardly do better than the widespread practice of first cousin marriage. We ban incest for good reasons. We recognise the power imbalances inherent to sexual relationships between teachers and pupils, doctors and patients, uncles and aunts and their nieces and nephews, and parents and their children. We legislate to protect the vulnerable, so why are we silent here? Sadly, I fear that it is because we fear being called intolerant and it is sometimes easier not to look. The truth is that inaction is not neutrality; it is complicity. We must do better.

We need only to look at what has happened in recent days with the release of the report on grooming gangs. I think back to the Labour MPs who raised that issue at a much earlier stage, such as Ann Cryer, who spoke passionately about it almost two decades ago. There is a lot to learn from people who have gone before us.

My Bill currently sits before the House. I thank the Members who have already put their names to it, including the hon. Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden), my right hon. Friends the Members for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) and for Newark (Robert Jenrick), the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith), my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien), the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson), my hon. Friends the Members for Fylde (Mr Snowden), for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) and for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott).

I urge the Government to take this matter seriously and to listen to the survivors, to professionals and to the silent majorities in the affected communities. We must stop treating such issues as a taboo. If the so-called community leaders had got their way, we would have kept marriage under 16 and we would not have banned hymenoplasty and virginity testing or people being taken abroad for forced marriage. This should not be a taboo issue; it is a public health issue. It is about liberty and integration.

The aim is not to condemn, but to liberate, in order to ensure that our country is one where freedom does not end at the edge of tradition, where cohesion is built on our common citizenship, not inherited constraint, and where children are not born into suffering that we have the power to prevent. We have a chance to take a lead and make a statement that in 21st century Britain, freedom, health and integration matter. I hope the Minister will hear that call.

Children of Prisoners

Debate between Jim Shannon and Richard Holden

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered support for and identification of the children of prisoners.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I am delighted to have secured this Westminster Hall debate. First, I want to thank the Government for their manifesto commitment, which states:

“The children of those who are imprisoned are at far greater risk of being drawn into crime than their peers. We will ensure that…young people are identified and offered support to break the cycle.”

That is an important commitment that I know the Minister feels strongly about. Some important work backs that up. Around half of prisoners are parents of children aged 17 or younger, according to a report by the London School of Economics. Often, they and their care givers will both be in need of assistance and support, to provide a stable and nurturing environment, when a partner or former partner is in prison. In some cases, both parents might be in prison and relying on grandparents, and that support is also often required when a mother is in prison.

Children with an imprisoned parent are 25% more likely to suffer from mental health issues, including depression, anxiety, insomnia and eating disorders. Negative school experiences can also come from that—they are common. Many children and families impacted by parental imprisonment also face severe economic hardship—something that can also be worsened by parental imprisonment. Recent data from Oxfordshire county council found that, at the point of a parent’s first imprisonment, half of identified children were receiving free school meals. Following parental imprisonment, that figure rose by at least 20%, if not more. Alarmingly, those children are also more likely to engage in criminal behaviour, with an estimated 65% of young boys of imprisoned parents—two thirds—eventually going on to offend themselves.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the right hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. I always do quick research on these matters. Does he not agree that we must also consider the vulnerable adult children of prisoners and the difficulties they can face in trying to understand the massive shift that can take place in their life? Support is not always readily available for that vulnerable group, and changes need to be made.

[Mr Holden]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. He touches on the important point behind a lot of this. When parents are imprisoned, caring responsibilities are often the last thing that the state or anybody else thinks about. We are at the crux of what I am trying to get to today.

I would like to thank Sarah Burrows and everyone at Children Heard and Seen, including my friend Ed, who drew me towards the research in this area. I thank them for what they have raised, because this is all about ensuring a child-focused approach. Too often, the children of prisoners are mentioned only in the context of maintaining relationships with the person imprisoned and ensuring that the person imprisoned has a good opportunity—this is a worthwhile thing to do—to reduce their reoffending and recidivism. One thing that has been lost to some degree in this debate is the support required for those children and young people. As the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, in some cases vulnerable adult children might also need support. That is what I am trying to highlight in this debate today: it is the children affected who are at the centre of this.

Sixty seven per cent of children do not visit a parent in prison, while 37% go further and have no contact with their parent at all. We need to focus on what is best for the child, taking into account the often incredibly difficult family relationships and the issues caused by crimes such as domestic violence—which the Minister is working on at the moment—sexual abuse, in some tragic cases, and parental homicide.

The current system is leaving some children living on their own—I will move on to some case studies in a moment, but that is one of the things that has really hit me about this issue. Children Heard and Seen has heard of multiple cases where a child has been discovered living on their own, and not in just one part of the country. If I may turn to the steps we are pressing the Government to take, that is one of the reasons it is so important that those children are individually identified, to ensure that support is there. If we do not have a national register or a system to ensure that the data is fed in, we will not understand the depth of the issues involved.

I want to pick up on a couple of case studies brought forward by Children Heard and Seen. In one case, a man went to prison for sexual offences, and it was only after the house was targeted by vigilantes that a victim support caseworker found his 15-year-old daughter living there on her own. In another case, a criminologist conducting research in a women’s prison was told by a prisoner that her two daughters were living on their own without any money for food. In another, a 16-year-old boy arrested at the same time as his parents was released shortly afterwards and became the sole carer of his eight-year-old brother. In another, an employer requested a welfare check after a woman had not shown up to work for some time. The employer reached out even though they may well have thought that she had decided to no longer be in employment. When the police went to her address, they found a 15-year-old boy living in his own with no gas or electricity. He had been getting up and going to school every day without anyone knowing that his mum was in prison.

Those are just a few of the cases that have been brought forward. They are particularly important because often in these families the children themselves will have had a difficult relationship with the state over many years. Sometimes, especially if those children are into their teenage years, they may feel able to in some way look after themselves. They could have been in and out of state care or support in some ways over many years, and might not have positive relationships—they might not have positive relationships with wider family, either. That is one reason it is so important that we get this right.

Pie and Mash: Traditional Speciality Guaranteed Status

Debate between Jim Shannon and Richard Holden

Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of providing traditional speciality guaranteed status to pie and mash.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark, in this debate. What is this debate all about? Well, there is a big picture and a little picture, and I will start off small. In my constituency of Basildon and Billericay, there are two fantastic pie and mash shops: Robins Pie & Mash in the town square; and Stacey’s pie and mash shop on Timberlog Lane. Both of them provide fantastic local produce and they are absolute hubs of the local community. And it has been really interesting to see the feedback that I have already received from local people about this campaign to give protected status to this traditional British product.

What is pie and mash and why is it a traditional British product? It is a staple of cockney cuisine, moving out to places such as the east of England and Kent as the cockney diaspora moved post-war. That is why there are pie and mash shops in Basildon today. We seek recognition to safeguard the heritage of pie and mash, and to promote pie and mash, both here in the UK and internationally.

Back in the 1840s, pie and mash became an iconic food, closely associated with cockney culture and the social identity of non-posh Londoners. Over the years, more than a hundred pie and mash shops, typically family-owned, spread out from the inner London heartlands of Southwark and Tower Hamlets right across the areas across the country where the cockney diaspora had spread to.

Traditional pie and mash is an artisan food. The pie and mash and liquors are freshly made, using authentic family-owned recipes that have been passed down through generations like precious heirlooms. They are something that in Italy or France, let us say, would be instantly recognised as being worth celebrating and preserving, and I will say more on that broader point a little later.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the right hon. Gentleman for bringing this matter forward. I was speaking to him beforehand and told him about what I have been able to do in the past. The Comber Early is a special potato back home. I applied to the EU for special designation status for it, which the EU granted. Does he hope to pursue something outside the EU—now that the United Kingdom is out of it—for pie and mash that is similar to what we have done in the past?