Mr Richard Holden
MP for Basildon and Billericay · Conservative · United Kingdom
“Having spoken to Mr Speaker earlier today, it was my understanding that urgent questions requested by my party and by the Liberal Democrats were not accepted because the Government gave assurances that a statement will be made in the House tomorrow.”
“I also agree with the Secretary of State’s observation in her letter to colleagues on 1 September, in which she said that the contributions of the Lords have helped strengthen the legislation before the House today. At its core, this is broadly an administrative Bill.”
“If the Minister would like to speak, he can stand at the Dispatch Box. No, he does not want to do that—fine. We will have him here tomorrow, then, as we were told today that our urgent question would not be accepted because the Minister would be making a statement. We will have to see whether that actually happens.”
“I know that the Secretary of State is incredibly busy selling out taxpayers in her latest meetings with union barons who have her over a barrel; she was apparently too busy to join me and many of the shadow ministerial team at the Farnborough air show.”
“I genuinely find it difficult to believe that the Secretary of State does not herself believe that there is a simple link between Gatwick having a minimum target of more than half of passengers getting to and from the airport by public transport and the soaring drop-off charges.”
“The Government have talked a lot about growth, yet have refused to set tangible targets to deliver it—whether in this aviation Bill, or indeed for passenger growth in the Railways Bill.”
The complete record
Every one of 600 lines we hold for Mr Richard Holden, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 9 of 12.
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“If that is correct, we are talking about tens of thousands of young people, of whom perhaps hundreds or even thousands might not be receiving any proper support. I say to the Government that there does not need to be a lengthy consultation. Children Heard and Seen has a readymade solution. In collaboration with Thames Valley police, it has created, in Operation Paramount, the first mechanism ever to identify and support children with a parent in prison. Operation Paramount cross-references data from His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service with existing police data to identify children who have been left behind, right from the point that an individual enters the prison system.”
“As I have said, a commitment to identify and support children with a parent in prison was included in Labour’s manifesto, and Lord Timpson has stated that it is one of his top priorities as the Minister with responsibility for prisons. The Ministry of Justice was recently asked what steps it is taking “to ensure that the children of those imprisoned are (a) identified and (b) offered support”. The response was that it is “working closely with the Department for Education to determine how to effectively identify these children and provide support”. I really hope that, as the MOJ does that, there is no need for a lengthy consultation, because there are children out there today who need such support. It has been suggested that half of prisoners have children under the age of 18.”
“The Government recently brought forward the first published estimate of the number of children of prisoners, which is definitely a welcome step. However, what we really need is a system to identify the children involved, not just an estimate of how many there are. An estimate is useful for helping to determine some of the broader policy changes that may be required, and possibly to help the Government to calculate some of the costs involved and where measures need to be targeted. But what we are interested in—on both sides of the House, I think—is identifying the individuals who need support and ensuring that support is provided, because an estimate does not do anything to identify those most in need.”
“I cannot agree more with the hon. Member. He raises an important point—yes, in many circumstances, help for families and children of prisoners can help the prisoners—but he is also right to say that that would be a side benefit. As a country, we should be concentrating on helping the children of prisoners wherever possible—we also want wider family support and networks to be involved where possible. As in the case studies I have spoken about, there may be situations, particularly if people are somewhat estranged, where the extended family do not know that their child has gone to prison and that their grandchild is therefore trying to care for themselves at home. Some of those family relationships may have broken down. That is another area where the hon. Member makes an important point about what more we can do.”
“I thank the Minister for recognising the work of charities across the country, and I thank Members of both Houses for pushing the issue. Does she also welcome the work of BBC Radio 4’s “Woman’s Hour” a couple of weeks ago? It devoted an entire week to the subject, and had the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards) and myself on to talk about it. In doing so, it brought to life some of the stories that we are debating today.”
“The hon. Lady is talking about the direct impact on farmers, but in her opening comments she mentioned the broader agricultural, business and food sectors across the UK economy. Does she share my concern that, whether it is the tractor manufacturers or those who work in the farm shops in my constituency, the knock-on consequences will be huge if the Government’s proposed tax changes get through? They will impact not just the individual family farms themselves, which are the backbone of our economy, but all aspects of our rural and urban economy.”
“I welcome the Government’s commitments, in response to my written parliamentary questions, to a consultation on ending fleecehold. However, my constituents in Markhams Close and across Basildon and Billericay just want to know when that will take place.”
“I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. What she is saying is absolutely right. Does she agree that changes in law made in this place can help lead to broader cultural change in society? We need to be at the forefront of these changes. Sometimes it can be quite difficult, but we must pick up that challenge, particularly when it comes to tackling violence against women and girls.”
“Is there any possibility that some of those measures could be looked at again, as they are having an impact on the demand for such vehicles in the UK?”
“In his statement, the Secretary of State mentioned the job losses at Ford in Dunton in my constituency, and I thank the Minister for Industry for speaking to me on the phone earlier this week about that. I welcome the fast track of the review that the Secretary of State is putting forward. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) and the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, and I have spoken to manufacturers about potential Chinese electric car dumping in the UK. Will the Secretary of State comment on that? Concerns have also been raised with me by local car manufacturers about the increase in vehicle excise duty on some models in the Budget.”
“Since coming into office, the Government have suspended arms export licences to Israel; rolled over on the International Criminal Court, with nothing new against Hamas terrorists; and poured cash into the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, despite concerns over a significant number of its staff double-hatting with Hamas. Many of those things have been published in Arabic on the UK Government’s website. Who decides what should be published in Arabic? Why are they being published in Arabic? As they relate to Israel, why is nothing being published in Hebrew?”
“I want the Secretary of State to succeed, and I want her to be part of the first Labour majority Government ever to leave office with employment higher than when they started. I had hoped to hear a little more about reform, rather than just about a review, but this is a welcome step in the right direction. Businesses in Basildon and Billericay have been telling me that although they welcome some of the schemes—I am sure that some of them will do good things—they are absolutely terrified by both the taxes coming through national insurance and the hit on them through business rates. The Office for Budget Responsibility says that at least 50,000 jobs a year will go because of those changes, so where will the people who she is hoping to get off benefits and into work find that employment?”
“Yesterday, Ford announced that 4,000 jobs are going across Europe, including 800 here, many of which are in my constituency of Basildon and Billericay. There are real concerns about the lack of take-up of electric vehicles because the Government are not providing clear enough long-term support, and about the extra taxes imposed on both ICE—internal combustion engine—vehicles and electric vehicles through vehicle excise duty at the Budget. Would the Minister meet me and other affected MPs to see what can be done to address these important issues affecting workers in our constituencies?”
“We know that one thing the Prime Minister was discussing with President Xi in August was the planning application for the Chinese embassy. He said to the President: “You raised the Chinese Embassy building…when we spoke on the telephone, and we have since taken action by calling in that application.” What discussions did Downing Street have with the Department about that call-in prior to the Deputy Prime Minister’s formal decision to call in the Chinese embassy planning application?”
“Yesterday, Ford announced that it is pulling 4,000 jobs across Europe, including 800 in the UK, mostly in Essex. On top of that, Nissan has announced big job cuts in the UK, and workers at the New Holland tractor plant in Basildon are concerned about the impact of the family farm tax. With vehicle excise duty now going up on both internal combustion engine vehicles and electric vehicles, with the lack of demand and infrastructure for EVs and with the national insurance hit on UK business, can we have a debate in Government time on the impact of Government policy on the UK automotive and vehicle manufacturing sectors?”
“South Green surgery in my constituency has been given notice by its landlord that it has to move by the end of March next year. Will the Secretary of State meet me to see what we can do to ensure that other facilities can be provided if available, or to do the best for those local patients?”
“Members who have spoken today, the victims and their families, and all those who have played their part by doing what they can to ensure that something like this never happens again.”
“I express my support for the cause of those who continue to fight. I assure the infected and affected who are still fighting, and Members of this House, that I and my colleagues on the Conservative Benches will do all we can to continue our cross-party work, which we know still has to be done. In the relatively non-political spirit of this debate, I ask the Minister, as he continues to work with Opposition Members to address the outstanding issues for the victims and their families, to be open about making adaptations and changes to address those issues, and to ensure that in the process of undertaking compensation, we do not end up alienating segments of those involved and ignoring the suffering of those who have been affected. I thank hon.”
“Of course, many who have been affected are no longer around to see the small benefits of compensation. I offer a small amount of hope to those affected: I am confident that hon. Members in this House, from all parties, have heard them and trust them. We know the suffering that has been brought upon them. They have fought valiantly and relentlessly, and I hope that they can take some comfort from knowing that their fight led to the recognition of the scale of the scandal and to the action that Governments of both colours have taken to ensure such a scandal never happens again. I hope history will show that further such suffering is avoided because the victims of this scandal exposed the wrongs of the past. In closing, I once again express my deep regret for the continuous failure of Governments over the years on this issue.”
“Whatever our party affiliation, we can all agree that we should continue to progress the good work that has happened since that time and to support the fantastic organisations that continue to take on that important activism. I put on record my thanks to the brave victims of this scandal and their families. They have stepped forward bravely and steadfastly to fight for their dignity, against the wrongs committed upon them and for proper recognition. I thank the former right hon. Member for Maidenhead for introducing the inquiry back in 2017. I also thank the inquiry leaders for the essential work they conducted, without which we would have made much less progress at an even slower pace. No amount of compensation will ever make up for the wrongs committed and the tragedies suffered.”
“Friend the Member for Salisbury noted. As numerous speakers have said, the inquiry shed clear light on the continuous failure on the part of institutions to properly address the issue as it came up. In far too many cases, infected patients were distrusted, disbelieved and, at points, treated with outright disrespect. Although it is important to acknowledge the significant changes that have happened across our health systems to tackle that, we should never become complacent. We must remain vigilant about the need for medical staff in the NHS to approach patients with trust, dignity and empathy. We must ensure that our communications frameworks and staff training properly reflect those issues. The inquiry made it clear that the victims of the scandal were victims not only of institutions, but of widespread stigmatisation and prejudice.”
“I look forward to working in opposition, alongside hon. Friends in other shadow roles, and undertaking cross-party work to ensure that the regulations around the sourcing of blood products and virus detection are strengthened. As with the other measures mentioned, I want to ensure that that is done robustly and ahead of time, and not as a reactive measure, as has sadly been the case in the past. One of the most difficult elements of such an inquiry process is to acknowledge that, too often, we make the changes that are needed to prevent a problem only when the consequences of that problem have reached intolerable levels. We need to resist boxing the issues raised today into direct consequences for our health and care practices, when a much more fundamental interrogation of our governance and practice framework is needed, as my right hon.”
“I am sure that there is still work to be done in the Department of Health and Social Care, in the Cabinet Office and across Government to ensure that informed consent and patient communication are working properly at all times, and to ensure that Government frameworks in our health and care system are being properly and continually evaluated so that the need for holistic informed consent does not fall victim to a complex and often disjointed system. That requires not only work on the health and care front, but on broader governance frameworks and improved cross-Government collaboration. That speaks to the core issue raised today, with which I agree: the Government must continue to ensure that global standards for blood safety are met and regularly updated, as hon. Members have mentioned.”
“I will hold the Government to account to ensure that we do all we can, across all areas of Government, to implement the strongest possible risk assessment, mitigation and response procedures. It is important to have considered communication with affected groups, too. The inquiry acknowledged that there was a failure within the NHS to properly implement informed consent and to ensure that patients, at all stages of the healthcare system, understood how their personal care related to the larger risks. While I appreciate the good work being done to make progress on this issue, we must not take our eye off the ball on any aspect of the Government’s work.”
“It is obviously important to get to the truth, but the Cabinet Office might want to reflect on the speed at which we do that, as well as on who can achieve it and how. We have heard about the need for stronger medical screening protocols and safety measures to ensure that such a scandal can never happen again. It is also important to acknowledge the need to continue interrogating our risk assessment and mitigation measures more broadly across our health services and the Government. While I settle into my new role as shadow Paymaster General, I look forward to working with the Government to see what assistance I can offer, as well as fulfilling the Opposition’s job of holding them to account. I will do so in the same spirit shown by Labour Members on this issue.”
“Perhaps that is one way that patients and those affected could continue to be involved. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) mentioned the obvious impact of the cases in his constituency, as well as the need for a memorial to those affected. I hope the Minister will touch on that, too. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury touched on broader issues not just for the Cabinet Office but for Ministers in all Departments. It is important that we encourage curiosity rather than group-think. We all have a duty of candour and, thinking of those who work for us, it can sometimes be difficult in a political environment. The Minister should also reflect on my right hon. Friend’s point about public inquiries.”