UK MP Iqbal Mohamed Opposes Cousin-Marriage Ban, Citing Culture, Health Screening and Individual Freedom

A debate over whether first-cousin marriage should be prohibited in the United Kingdom has reignited questions about culture, personal freedom, public health and the role of government in regulating marriage.

Independent MP Iqbal Mohamed, who represents Dewsbury and Batley, spoke in the House of Commons against proposals to outlaw marriage between first cousins, arguing that a blanket ban would be ineffective and difficult to enforce. Mohamed has served as the independent MP for Dewsbury and Batley since July 2024.

The controversy followed a proposal introduced by Conservative MP Richard Holden, former MP for Basildon and Billericay, seeking to extend the prohibited degrees of relationship in English marriage law to include first cousins. Holden argued that children born to first-cousin couples face increased health risks and that legislation should be considered as a public-health measure.

During a Commons debate on 10 December 2024, Mohamed acknowledged that there are documented health risks associated with first-cousin marriage. He also stressed the importance of preventing forced marriage and so-called virginity testing and protecting women's freedom. However, he rejected the idea that banning consenting adults from marrying each other was the appropriate solution.

Instead, Mohamed argued for greater health awareness, genetic screening and education in communities where cousin marriage is common. He also urged MPs to understand the cultural reasons why the practice continues, pointing out that some communities regard marriage within extended families as a way of strengthening family relationships and maintaining economic and social ties.

Importantly, Mohamed did not, in the parliamentary remarks that have been verified, describe a proposed ban as “Islamophobia.” That characterization appears to be an interpretation or social-media framing rather than a direct quotation from his Commons speech.

His argument was instead that legislation could stigmatise people involved in cousin marriages and potentially push the issue away from constructive public-health interventions. He proposed advanced genetic testing for prospective couples, alongside targeted health-education programmes.

The health question itself is not imaginary. Research has consistently found that children of closely related parents have a higher risk of certain recessive genetic conditions because relatives are more likely to carry the same recessive gene variant. Research associated with the Born in Bradford programme has also demonstrated an increased risk of congenital anomalies among babies born to closely related couples.

At the same time, being first cousins does not mean that a couple will necessarily have an unhealthy child. Bradford's public-health guidance explains that most children born to cousin couples are healthy, although the genetic risk is higher than for unrelated couples.

The issue remains politically relevant. In 2026, the UK Government said it was considering options for addressing first-cousin marriage and acknowledged evidence of increased congenital-birth-defect risks, while also noting that rates of consanguineous relationships have fallen substantially over time.

First-cousin marriage remains legal in England and Wales. The Office for National Statistics says it does not currently collect specific statistics on marriages between first cousins.

The debate therefore goes far beyond religion. It raises difficult questions about where individual freedom ends, how governments should respond to measurable health risks, and whether education and genetic counselling are more effective than criminal or civil restrictions.

For Mohamed, the answer is clear: rather than banning consenting adults from marrying, policymakers should focus on education, voluntary genetic screening and protecting individuals from forced marriage.

Whether Parliament ultimately chooses regulation, prohibition or a public-health approach, the controversy is unlikely to disappear soon. The issue sits at the intersection of personal liberty, cultural traditions, medical evidence and the responsibilities of the modern state.