Mr Richard Holden
MP for Basildon and Billericay · Conservative · United Kingdom
“I associate myself with the comments of the Secretary of State about the Spanish rail crash. On 18 June, the Secretary of State said in a statement that the Heathrow expansion is “critical to national growth”. On 27 September the Prime Minister said, however: “Principally, it’s a matter for London and Londoners”.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I really welcome the Government’s U-turn on adopting Conservative policy and deciding to review airport drop-off charges, but in response to my written question, the Minister did not confirm that the Government’s anti-car surface access targets, the more than 100% increase in business rates that many airports have faced, or the crippling…”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the Secretary of State for that clarification. Last week, Chancellor Merz set out his plans to scrap the ban on petrol and diesel cars across the EU, saying, “We stand by drivers. We stand with our industry.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Whenever the moment arrives to top up a budget or dish out another handout, those Members are there. I hope that the Bill will stir a new feeling in those Members, and that the blinkers will fall from their eyes.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. Just after the second world war, in May ’46, the first commercial flights departed Heathrow, marking the beginning of an 80-year journey that has seen over 3 billion passengers move through the airport and take 22 million flights.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Time and again, I meet constituents in Basildon and Billericay who need support, or those on the other side, who are being squeezed more and more by higher taxes—people who work long hours, but who see their bills rise as they try to support their family. Why are my constituents not more deserving of our attention?”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
2,334 held · 2,322 searchable for Mr Richard Holden. The searchable lines are below in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 10.
This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.
“Frankly, it is increasingly obvious that Labour sold the country and sold the people a false promise, so it is no surprise that the petition has received so many signatures. Sadly, the Government have dismissed the petition, just as Government Members have done today. They have dismissed the voices of the public. This Labour Government are giving the impression that they just do not care and that they feel they are above the sentiments of the public. I am sure it would be easier for the Government if the public just shut up and went away for a few years to let them get on with the job, but I have to tell the Government that on every day of this Parliament, the Opposition will hold them to account for their manifesto. The public are not stupid. They can see exactly what is happening and what this Government are doing in office.”
House of Commons6 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“When we came into office, £1 in every £4 that the Government spent was borrowed. That is what a really tough inheritance looks like. This Labour Government came in when we had the fastest growth in the G7, with no deficit of 11.1% of GDP. Look at the inheritance that the last Labour Government left. My greatest fear, which I think the petitioners share, is what legacy this Labour Government will leave for our families and our country. That is what the petitioners fear: that we might see the exact same legacy. Labour promised honesty, but instead it dished out broken promises, a Chancellor accused of lying about her experience and a Transport Secretary who was revealed to have had a criminal conviction.”
House of Commons6 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“They said that they would kick-start the economy. In fact, their missions have failed and have changed. The goalposts have been so frequently moved that it is hard to keep track. We can probably all agree that economic growth lay at the heart of what Labour was talking about in the run-up to the general election. Where is it now? It has ended: there is no economic growth. As Opposition Members have pointed out, in the six months before the general election we had the fastest growing economy in the G7. What has happened since then? Absolutely nothing. It has flatlined. [ Interruption. ] The hon. Member for Swansea West is right to point downwards: that is exactly what his Government have done to the country. It was interesting to hear from the hon. Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mr Sewards), who asked about the inheritance.”
House of Commons6 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That does not sound like consultation with local people; it sounds like a failing Labour Mayor in London having to be bailed out by the people of Essex and the other home counties. It is understandable that people wanted change, and fast. The petition expresses the wish of a public who want to see a Government based on honesty. That is the change they want to see: a Government who are prepared to be honest. [ Interruption. ] If the Minister’s Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell), wants to speak in this debate, he should resign and take a seat on the Back Benches so he can do that. The Government’s response has consistently been, “No, no, no—don’t worry. This is about a broader mandate. This is actually about general principles. Let’s move on from the manifesto.” Let us examine what they said.”
House of Commons6 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The cash is already there—it even has its own separate area of policy and spending. Drivers are worse off. What else have the Government done on transport? For bus passengers, they scrapped the “get around for £2” scheme a few days ago, which will mean people paying an extra £10 a week at least. It will be scrapped in total in a few months’ time. Essex colleagues have mentioned the huge hammering on housing. It was promised that local people would be consulted, yet my constituents are facing 27,000 extra homes in Basildon and Billericay. We have seen London’s housing targets slashed by 17,000, yet across the home counties there has been an increase of 18,000 a year.”
House of Commons6 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“They are taking opportunity away from young people up and down the country. It does not stop at the school gates: under this Government, tuition fees have increased for the first time in more than a decade, despite the Prime Minister having said that he wanted to scrap them. Illegal migration is another example. The Government have literally removed any deterrents we had left. They have replaced our deterrent not with a policy, but with a slogan: that they would smash the gangs. Who knows how on earth they even plan to do it? The hon. Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) mentioned the lower Thames crossing. I cannot believe that the decision has been put off twice already under this Government. Hundreds of millions of pounds were invested under the last Government and the decision is waiting to go.”
House of Commons6 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“They break a promise and cover it up, time after time. Energy bills are the same. What is the first duty of Government? To protect the country. What have we seen? The promise of spending 2.5% of GDP on defence has been pushed back and pushed back. The Government have been warned repeatedly that they are seriously hurting our nation’s ability to defend itself, leaving us less safe. Is it any surprise that the public lose faith in a Government who leave them less safe? Labour promised to give more opportunity to young people. All it has done is take a class war to independent schools while trying to reverse the positive reforms of the last Government, and indeed of the previous Labour Government, that helped to provide great new schools right up and down the country.”
House of Commons6 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Labour promised to deliver “better outcomes” for pensioners: those are the exact words in the manifesto. Government Members stood, in the general election, on better outcomes for pensioners. I wonder how many pensioners out there think that today. The Labour party threw the pensioners out into the cold. The Government knew that the decision to cut winter fuel allowance for millions would lead to hundreds of thousands more in fuel poverty, in absolute poverty and in pensioner poverty. What did they do? They concealed their own analysis, which showed what would actually happen—the devastating effect that cutting the winter fuel allowance would have. The Government slipped that analysis out months after the policy had been announced, hoping that no one would notice it. What do the Government do?”
House of Commons6 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Only months before being elected, the now Environment Secretary said that the Labour Government would not make changes to agricultural property relief. The now Prime Minister said that farmers deserved better. What did Labour then do? It risked thousands of small family farms up and down the country by reducing agricultural property relief and imposing a new and fundamentally unsustainable tax on our farming community. What was the Government’s response? No honesty there: I quote from the Environment Secretary, who said that farmers would have to “learn to do more with less”. In its manifesto, Labour promised to protect the victims of crime. What has its record been so far? Thousands of early releases were massively extended, some of which were of prisoners who went on to commit violent crimes.”
House of Commons6 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Government’s own Chancellor had previously described this tax that was hiked as “a tax purely on people who go to work”. That is what it is, and that is what this Government have done, in direct contravention of their own manifesto. The politically independent Institute for Fiscal Studies clearly stated that the tax that Labour was imposing was a clear breach of the manifesto. The Government response was to flail around about the definition of a working person. Rather than stepping up and being honest with the public—the essence of the petition that Mr Westwood initiated—this Government have failed on that very basic test of clarity and honesty. Labour promised to stick by farmers. We all know what they did: in truth, they stuck two fingers up at farmers right across the country.”
House of Commons6 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Members will have already sensed, from their inboxes, surgeries and conversations, an immense feeling of disappointment and perhaps increasingly anger about what the public see as the Government’s broken promises. Those are no longer just about direction or integrity; they are also about specific policies, as Members across the House have said. We know how frustrated the public are. Labour clearly promised not to raise taxes, but on its entry into government that was one of the first things it did. In the Government’s very first Budget, they announced an increase in employer national insurance contributions, which their own Chief Secretary to the Treasury admitted was in effect a tax hike for workers and working people, because it is a direct tax on their jobs.”
House of Commons6 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“From the off, it has been clear that the promises of integrity, accountability and transparency from this Government have been broken. From the literal first day of the Labour Government, the public could not help feeling that Labour was selling out and selling them short. Soon afterwards, it came to light that the Labour Government were using exceptional civil service appointment procedures to put Labour donors and activists into positions that, fundamentally, are meant to be politically neutral. The sense was that this Government, even in their first few weeks, were systematically destroying the mechanisms that hold an elected Government to account in the interests of the whole public. That sits difficultly with people in this House, but it also sits badly with the public at large.”
House of Commons6 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is an understandable perspective, given that the Government’s primary method of governing so far has been consistently to break their biggest promises and then to blame everyone else, as my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) said. It can reasonably be argued that those promises have been broken in a manner that implies contempt for the public and has been highly damaging for trust in this Government. The Government’s failures and broken promises started early. On the morning of 5 July, the new Prime Minister walked up to the door of Downing Street and talked about a Government of service. Looking on, with a new pass and new access, was the major Labour donor Lord Alli.”
House of Commons6 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Although no one should be in any doubt that the Government elected six months ago are unlikely to face a general election any time soon, we should all acknowledge the massive public support that the petition has gained, with 3 million signatures. Government Members should also realise that we are now over 10% of the way into their time in office. If they do not start listening to the public, that might be 10% of their entire time in this place. With more than 6,000 signatories to the petition in my constituency of Basildon and Billericay, and even more in the nearby constituencies of my right hon. Friends the Members for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) and for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), it is clear that the public feeling behind the petition is based on the Government’s significant early failures.”
House of Commons6 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Member for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson) wants to move on from talking about whether Labour has fulfilled its manifesto commitments, but instead let us try to get away from this idea of a blame game, because there is real concern among the public that people were misled ahead of the general election. The Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), put it really well when he said that the Government should listen to people’s frustrations, because there are real frustrations up and down the country among small businesses, family farms, ordinary working people and pensioners. Thousands of them in my constituency have written to me about their concerns.”
House of Commons6 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Harris. I extend my thanks, as many others have done, to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for the way he kicked off the debate. I also thank Michael Westwood, who is sitting in the Gallery, for putting the topic forward for debate. I know I should not be referring to him, Mrs Harris, but with 3 million people having signed his petition, he has clearly caught the public mood. I would just caution some Government Members. One of them said that this was a debate on a pointless motion, but over 3 million people have signed the petition because they are really concerned about what the Government are doing. I can understand why the hon.”
House of Commons6 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As the Secretary of State knows, under the defence equipment plan about half of MOD expenditure is on equipment, with around 40% of that going overseas. What impact does the Secretary of State think that the Government’s abolition of business property relief and the massive increase in national insurance will have on UK SMEs’ ability to compete in the defence sector with our AUKUS allies following the previous Government’s signing of that agreement?”
House of Commons6 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My hon. Friend is making an excellent point about something that is currently affecting my own constituency. South Green surgery in Billericay has recently been told that it is to be closed down, and the integrated care board is not ensuring that we retain what is essentially competition, so a single surgery will be serving one of the towns in my constituency. Does he agree that the Department of Health and Social Care should be leaning in to ensure that we maintain that competition between GPs’ surgeries, so that standards can be driven up wherever possible?”
House of Commons6 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“When further bishops retire, the Bill will give more opportunities for even more women to progress, depending on the situation in each eligible diocese. I think it is good for our Parliament to continue pushing this forward. Does the Minister foresee another five-year extension? When the measure was first introduced, it was to last for 10 years. How many appointments does she feel are needed before the 2015 Act becomes redundant in and of itself?”
House of Commons18 December 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a privilege to speak again on this Bill. As the Minister outlined, by extending the Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015 by five years, this Bill does exactly what it says on the tin. It is very quick and straightforward. I note that the Church of England introduced its own legislation in 2014 to allow for the ordination of women bishops, and this Bill stems from that. The 2015 Act was introduced by the last Government, and we look forward to seeing its quick progress today. Overall, the 2015 Act has been successful in ensuring that women have a fair chance of sitting alongside their male counterparts in the other place as one of the Lords Spiritual. Five of the six women bishops were appointed under the Act’s provisions, showing that we have progressed since then.”
House of Commons18 December 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the Paymaster General for the spirit in which he has spoken today, as well as the entire Bill team behind this. We should let matters rest there and let the Bill proceed as quickly as possible.”
House of Commons18 December 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Before the last general election, the Labour party suggested that removal of the winter fuel payment would mean an extra 4,000 pensioners a year dying, freezing in poverty. How many will die under the Government’s policy this year?”
House of Commons16 December 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. Does he acknowledge, though, that under the previous Labour Government we saw none of the massive capital investment that we are seeing now with the Thames tideway tunnel, which was started under the Conservative Government in 2016? It will be completed next year and is one of the biggest changes to removing sewage from our waterways in history.”
House of Commons16 December 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“On a fairly small technical point, the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) made the point that 12.5% of Conservative Members are here. Perhaps he should look at the statistics, because only 11% of Labour Members are here. I know that the last Labour Government were not interested in monitoring the outflows, but they could at least monitor their own Members.”
House of Commons16 December 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State had the opportunity today to make a declaration of interest, in having had football tickets worth £1,800 donated to him by Hutchison 3G UK Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of Hong Kong-based CK Hutchison Holdings, which also owns three quarters of Northumbrian Water. I just wonder whether he would like to make a quick declaration on the record.”
House of Commons16 December 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The lower Thames crossing is a vital link between our channel ports and Holyhead port. I know Labour is against new road building in Wales, but a north Wales corridor connecting our ports would be a vital piece of transport infrastructure for our whole country. Will the Minister lobby the Welsh Government on that, for Wales and for our entire United Kingdom?”
House of Commons11 December 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons10 December 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons10 December 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons10 December 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons10 December 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons10 December 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons10 December 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons10 December 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“However, this does not carry forward into modern living conditions in our post-industrial age, where genetic and degenerative diseases are among the most severe threats to public health. That brings us to the issue today. Certain diaspora communities have extremely high rates of first-cousin marriage, with a rate of 20% to 40% among Irish Travellers and higher rates still among the British Pakistani community. There is a worrying trend, as this rate has increased significantly from that of their grandparents’ age group. Although there have been some reports of the rate falling within the last decade as young people push back against the system, there remains an extraordinarily strong link.”
House of Commons10 December 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“However, the practice varies enormously within countries and by regional culture, reaching at its highest over 80% in parts of rural Pakistan. By contrast, in China and western countries it is less than 1%. Patrick Nash, a visiting fellow at Oxford University’s faculty of theology and religion, describes how a region’s history of harsh conditions, such as resource-scarce rurality, proximity to conflict zones and industrial poverty, plays a major role in developing the cultures that practise first-cousin marriage. He argues that cousin marriage was at one time biologically beneficial for the survival of mankind, when times were especially hard and inhospitable.”
House of Commons10 December 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Throughout the centuries that followed, this canon law forbidding first-cousin marriage remained the norm, and by the 11th century it extended to sixth cousins. This 1,000-year tradition of first-cousin marriage being illegal was continued until 1540, when King Henry VIII broke with Rome and legalised marriage between first cousins so that he could marry Catherine Howard, his fifth wife and a cousin of his second wife, Anne Boleyn. Sadly, both Catherine and Anne ended up facing a swift end at the block. However, the law pertaining to first-cousin marriage has been more enduring, remaining unchanged ever since. Today, according to the Oxford Journal of Law and Religion , cousin marriage is practised by about 10% of the world and is most prevalent in the middle east, west Asia and north Africa.”
House of Commons10 December 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the marriage of first cousins; and for connected purposes. Members across the House may wonder why first-cousin marriage is not already illegal. In fact, many in this House and in the country may already believe that it is. That is understandable, because as early as the middle of the fifth century in England, the Church practised the Roman doctrine on first-cousin marriage, which was clarified by the first Archbishop of Canterbury in the early eighth century, after he received a letter from Pope Gregory I. The letter cited Leviticus 18:6, which states that sacred law forbids a man to uncover the nakedness of his near kin.”
House of Commons10 December 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am delighted to meet the Minister across the Dispatch Box. I have also been meeting many SMEs in the aftermath of the Budget. The impact of the Government’s decision to raise national insurance on many indirect providers of public services, such as GPs and hospices, appears not to have been fully factored into the Government’s workings at the time of the Budget. Now that the Government have had over a month to do the figures, what will be the impact of the national insurance job tax on the cost of public procurement, to the nearest, say, £1 billion?”
House of Commons5 December 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In this day and age, we should not punish children for the crimes of their fathers or mothers.”
House of Commons4 December 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons4 December 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons4 December 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons4 December 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons4 December 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons4 December 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons4 December 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons4 December 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons4 December 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That might be worth considering given reoffending rates, because if we can get some of them down, that would be a very good long-term investment. Although I am obviously speaking as a Back Bencher today, this is something that might receive cross-party support in the future. Fourthly, we need to ensure that children with a parent in prison are not left to live on their own. If we could identify them and provide the necessary support at the earliest stage, we could help to mitigate some of the impacts I talked about in my opening remarks—children living in absolute poverty, going on to become offenders themselves or being left vulnerable to crime in their homes and communities. We could ensure that, at the earliest possible stage, they are supported to mitigate the impact of their parents’ imprisonment and wrongdoing.”
House of Commons4 December 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I do not think that is too much to ask for, because all that data already exists. Secondly, a designated safeguarding lead at the child’s school should be notified before the start of the next working day. Registered nurseries, pre-school settings and childminders could also be informed. I am also particularly interested in the point that the hon. Member for Strangford made about considering other cases, too, perhaps where there is a special need. Within the education setting, the DSL should then be able to liaise with other members of staff and external agencies, if necessary, to deliver the appropriate support for the child in question. Thirdly, I would ask the Government to consider whether children with a parent in prison should be made eligible for pupil premium funding, as we do in other circumstances.”
House of Commons4 December 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Data that previously had been used only to track a prisoner’s movements through prison to their eventual release can now be used to identify vulnerable family members who were left behind when an individual was imprisoned. If this system was rolled out nationally and schools were involved, it could essentially act as the national identification system that I hope hon. Members from across the House want to see. There would be two parts. The system would be used first of all to identify these children and young people, and secondly to provide support for them. When an adult is sentenced or remanded in custody, a combination of the existing data from the Prison Service, the police and the relevant local authority should be used to identify the home address of a child linked to that offender.”
House of Commons4 December 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗