Marriage (Prohibited Degrees of Relationship) Bill

I have already touched on why first-cousin marriage is problematic, but I will expand further, as there are three real issues at stake: health, freedom and our national values. The dangers of consanguineous relations have been appreciated throughout history. The consequences of extreme intergenerational cousin marriage within the Habsburg monarchy of Spain eventually led to the demise of the house itself and the war of the Spanish succession. That is very well documented. By the 19th century, the British Medical Journal had published many papers on ill health transmitted to children through first-cousin marriage. Indeed, Charles Darwin himself publicly expressed concerns based on his own experience of marrying his first cousin, with three of their 10 children sadly dying in childhood.

Today, the health risks are explicable in granular scientific detail. According to Alison Shaw, professor of social anthropology at Oxford University, the child of first cousins carries approximately double the risk of inheriting a serious disorder than the child of unrelated people. Health consequences can include: recessive disorders such as Tay-Sachs, cerebral palsy and cystic fibrosis, which require lifelong treatment and can lead to premature death; an increased susceptibility to cancer and infectious pathogens such as hepatitis; birth defects including facial clefts and cardiovascular conditions; an increased risk of many illnesses, including schizophrenia and Alzheimer’s; and higher infant mortality. Moreover, where the parents come from multigenerational cousin parents of their own, this risk is compounded and intensified with every subsequent generation. The science is clear. First-cousin marriages should be banned on the basis of health risk alone.

The second issue at stake relates to freedom, and particularly the freedom of women. In my work in the last Parliament to ban so-called virginity testing and hymenoplasty, I saw at first hand through speaking to people how reproductive mechanisms are used to coerce and control women and girls where actions and freedoms are heavily controlled. Women and girls living under a clan mentality often know the scientific risks of first-cousin marriage but make considered social and cultural calculations. Strict honour codes—where expressions of individuality can be subject to social isolation, violence and even death—dominate thinking. Notions of dishonour can also significantly hinder a family’s standing among clan institutions, risking the family’s standing in the social hierarchy and materially affecting issues such as shared access to clan wealth. It is vital that we ensure that freedoms that have been hard fought for by women over centuries are protected.

Finally, alongside the impact on women’s rights, cousin marriage has a broader societal impact. Joseph Henrich, professor of human evolutionary biology at Harvard University, has found that cousin marriage does not just affect individual rights, but reshapes society. His research shows that cousin marriage declined in medieval Europe as individualism grew. The weakening of blind family ties led to the growth of individualism, natured trust of outsiders and, in turn, helped to develop a deeper civic responsibility beyond clan to country, allowing people to break free from the chains of clan, class and caste in their society.

Anthropologist Sir Jack Goody attributes the Church’s ban on cousin marriage as the driving force behind the breakdown of barriers between Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Vikings in early English society. As people were enabled to marry outside their clan, sectarian affiliations were gradually dissolved, which paved the way for the modern nation state.

Britain is not unique in having had immigration in recent decades from some regions where first-cousin marriage is prevalent, and therefore there has been a revival in the practice that we moved away from centuries ago. Norway has already banned the practice, and Sweden and Denmark are looking to do the same. Much like so-called virginity testing and hymenoplasty, it is clear that the practice is not really conducive to modern British society.

As MPs, we are more than mere delegates but rather legislators for the mother of all Parliaments—our country. As MPs, we should be more than glorified social workers seeking to help constituents through the bureaucracy and the system. We have a role in changing things for the better too. Henry VIII changed the law on cousin marriage to suit his own personal interests and pursuits, but we should act in the national interest.

Of course, we should find a balance. I have outlined the risks to health, freedom—especially for women—and the cohesion of our society. For me, those risks tip the balance against personal freedoms. While there will be details to work through, I hope right hon. and hon. Members give me the chance to take the Bill forward to Second Reading, and that Government Front Benchers will look at the measures as a vehicle for positive change in our country. In the end, the legislation is about more than individual marriages; it is about the values and foundations of our society and our democracy.

I therefore urge the House to vote against the motion and to find a more positive approach to addressing the issues that are caused by first-cousin marriage, including the health risks, and the consequences of modern conflicts and displacement of populations around the world.

That Mr Richard Holden, Robert Jenrick, Dan Carden, Claire Coutinho, David Smith, Neil O’Brien, Lee Anderson, Mr Andrew Snowden, John Lamont, Nick Timothy, Katie Lam and Laura Trott present the Bill.

Mr Richard Holden accordingly presented the Bill.