Mark Sewards
MP for Leeds South West and Morley · Labour · United Kingdom
“I am reminded—especially today of all days, after the Prime Minister’s final Question Time—that it was the Prime Minister who went to the Jewish community in April and made two promises: first, that the legislation would be brought forward in the King’s Speech and prioritised; and secondly, that he would use it to designate the IRGC.”
“I have 60 minutes to make 60 points—no, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will speak very briefly, as I feel I have already taken enough of the House’s time on this issue. I commend the Government for bringing forward the National Security (State Threats) Act 2026 and for designating the IRGC almost as soon as it received Royal Assent.”
“The right hon. Gentleman tempts me, but I am not going to take the offer. The IRGC is a direct threat to the safety of the British-Jewish community. We have known that for a long time, and unfortunately the evidence has stacked up as the years have rolled on.”
“As I make the short journey over to the parliamentary Labour party office to nominate my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), in the spirit of unifying behind out next leader, to succeed the Prime Minister—assuming this debate is done by 6 pm— I place on record my thanks to the person who delivered this historic Lab…”
“The hon. Member is making a good speech on the risks associated with extreme heat. I had the good fortune of being a maths teacher in a brand-new school building in 2023 in Leeds. Just before the building opened, the builders showed us around the place, and I asked how the building would be kept cool.”
“I had the pleasure of watching England versus DR Congo with some of the good folks at the Campaign to Ban Trophy Hunting. Thankfully, the England men’s team have not taken the title of the campaign too literally, and are still on the hunt to bring at least one trophy home this summer.”
The complete record
Every one of 477 lines we hold for Mark Sewards, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 10.
“The people of Iran are courageously fighting for their freedom against an oppressive regime, and we all stand with them. The brutal response from Tehran highlights the need to take action against the IRGC. I know it has been addressed multiple times during this session, but when do the Government plan to bring forward the legislative framework proposed by Jonathan Hall that will give proscription-like powers to the Government to deal with the IRGC and its malign influence in the UK?”
“I recently met the Morley Indian community, who raised concerns with me about the proposed changes to the indefinite leave to remain rules. Many of these people are highly skilled and highly qualified, work in key sectors and claim no benefits, but they are seriously worried that their families will not qualify for ILR under the new rules, despite they themselves meeting the new higher eligibility requirements. I want to recognise that this community have enriched life in Leeds South West and Morley, and make a significant contribution to the UK. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time on the urgent need to clarify the new ILR rules for those that work hard and make a significant contribution to our country?”
“I commend the Minister on this strategy; I know how much tireless work she has put into it. I represent residents on Stonebridge Lane in Farnley, Dixon Lane in Wortley, Green Lane in Lofthouse and Westerton Road in Tingley. They all tell me that the speeds on their roads are far too high, but they are repeatedly told by the highways department that the mean average speed is too low to do anything about it, despite the fact that the mean average speed is often slightly higher than the speed limits on those roads. As a former maths teacher, I know the value of data, but I also know the limitations of the mean. What will the road safety strategy do to alleviate my residents’ genuine concerns?”
“With British interests in mind, although I fully appreciate the answer the Defence Secretary gave on troop numbers—I understand his reasoning for not wanting to share those—can he reassure the House that this country has the soldiers, the resources and the equipment to ensure that we can provide an effective deterrent in Ukraine without compromising and undermining the other commitments we have made to allies around the world?”
“I welcome this evening’s statement. I say, primarily to those outside this Chamber, that any deployment of British forces in Ukraine is not going to be a tripwire to a wider conflict. If we do not deploy those forces, put that deterrent in place and back Ukraine—if we allow Putin to take Ukraine either now or at some point in the future—there will be devastating consequences for British interests and global stability.”
“I am working on this case, but in the meantime will the Leader of the House grant an urgent debate on the need to ensure that those who step up to be kinship carers get the support they deserve?”
“Merry Christmas to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to all the House staff, everybody here and everybody who is not. When asked to become a kinship carer for seven children, in addition to already having two of her own, my constituent and her partner stepped up because those seven children were being neglected. She was then told by social services, who had asked her to take the children on, that she was not entitled to kinship carer allowance, a decision it then changed months later but which left the family in dire financial straits. They are still waiting for back payments even now. They have used all their savings and now they are reliant on food banks.”
“I welcome the strategy that the Minister has set out, and commend her and everyone around her for their tireless, often lifelong, work that has got us to this point. When I speak with the charitable sector and with third-sector organisations, such as Leeds Women’s Aid in my constituency, which has worked in this space for years, they keep telling me that the funding period for grants is often far too short, and grants come up for review far too frequently. They tell me that when the cost of applying for those grants and the time that staff spend applying are factored in, long-term strategic decision making in their organisations becomes really difficult. Can the Minister assure them that the strategy will address this common challenge?”
“T5. Following a string of shocking cases in which funeral directors did not treat the bodies of the deceased with the care and respect that they deserved, will the Minister update the House on the cross-departmental work being done to regulate the funeral industry?”
“Taking into account the Minister’s previous answers about the source of weapons, and given that civilians are being deliberately targeted, with murder, rape and starvation being used as weapons of war, what steps can the UK Government realistically take to disrupt the flow of weapons, drones and military support to the violent actors who are committing such hideous crimes?”
“Given that the Chinese Communist party has clearly broken its promise in the joint declaration to protect freedom and the rule of law in Hong Kong, and that this judgment was handed down by a politically appointed judge in a sham or show trial, does the Foreign Secretary agree that those Members of the House of Lords who still serve on the Court of Final Appeal in Hong Kong should step down from that role, so as not to lend their credibility to a system that has clearly abandoned the rule of law?”
“I will be brief. I proudly refer members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a proud member of several trade unions, and have indeed received money from trade unions to remove the Conservatives from power. Speaking of removing the Conservatives from power, on 4 September I proudly voted, along with the vast majority of people in this House, to remove hereditary peers from the other place. I did so because I do not believe that individuals should be able to shape our laws purely because of the families they were born into. Whatever the arguments put forward on the Bill’s amendments, we are here today because hereditary peers stopped the progress of the Bill through the other place. The simple fact is that if we were to remove the hereditary peers who voted—”
“Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The votes in the other place serve only to strengthen my resolve that we must get the Bill through Parliament and strengthen the rights of workers.”
“Day one rights for parental and bereavement leave must be rolled out, and sick pay must be improved. Whichever way the House votes on these amendments today, I implore the hereditary peers in the other place to do the right thing, get out of the way, let this Bill pass and make work pay.”
“We will always pay attention to the arguments made in the other place, but I place more credence on the arguments made by life peers—people who have been appointed because of their expertise and not because of the family they were born into. However, I appreciate that that point has been well made, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I will move on. Along with the fact that the Government have already compromised in good faith on the Bill with trade unions and businesses, and that those businesses and their representative organisations have welcomed what we have put in the Bill and called on us to pass it today, we were elected on a promise to get this Bill passed into law. Fire and rehire must be banned. Exploitative zero-hours contracts must be ruled out.”
“My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) did earlier. May I pursue the question asked earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell)? Defibrillators can be incredibly useful when they are rolled out to communities, for all the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack). It is hard to find an area in my constituency without a defibrillator that has been fundraised for and installed by volunteers, but I must admit that I do not know how to use one. Following this debate, I will go away and make sure that I do know how to use one, but how can we roll out defibrillator training nationally to ensure that as many people as possible know how to use them in an emergency?”
“After a string of burglaries across Morley, Gildersome and Drighlington, in which the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals shop has been targeted more than any other, I am so pleased to report that four people are serving time in prison for these crimes. Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to Inspector Mark Lund and his excellent police team for working so closely with me on this issue and a number of others, and will he grant a debate in Government time on the ever-growing need to get the police the resources they need to do their job properly?”
“I thank the Minister for the strategy and I agree with its stated aims. I especially welcome the ending of the unlawful use of B&Bs for families. We have already heard the case powerfully made by my hon. Friends the Members for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) and for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) as to why that is so important. In Morley, my team and I are supporting a particularly complex case of an individual who is homeless. Although the details are complex, the outcome is simple: they are sleeping in shop doors across Morley. Would the Minister consider meeting me to discuss this case to ensure that the strategy will cover them so that we can get them off the streets and into a home?”
“The replica was impressive, although I did sound a bit too posh and angry when I did not know the answer. AI Mark not only had my voice—we also fed it my policy stances and typical casework answers. I saw it as a clever voicemail system designed to handle common casework queries when my office was closed; it was never going to be a replacement for me or for my excellent casework team. However, how does it relate to safety? We have all seen AI models that break, say outrageous things or hallucinate. We created what I called the “guardrails”, and these were the limits on what AI Mark could say. That created a problem: when the guardrails were lower, AI Mark was very interesting to talk to. He would create Tinder dating profiles on demand; he did write incorrect haikus about the hon.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) for securing this timely debate. In August, I created the first AI prototype of a British MP. It was made by my constituent, Jeremy Smith, who ran an AI start-up in my constituency. I will go to almost any lengths to support a local business in Leeds South West and Morley. This was an online MP that anyone could talk to at any time. Jeremy said my constituents would benefit from two versions of me, including one that never sleeps—although, with children aged four and one, I am not sure that is a useful distinction. Questions were converted into text and an answer generated quickly, and then it was turned into my voice for the users.”
“There is space for a business to take up the baton and take this forward, because the technology is incredible and the potential is real, but that is all it is for now—potential. I will just finish with this: one person from Ukraine, or at least a Ukrainian IP address, tried to get AI Mark to declare support for repressive regimes. Because of the guardrails that we put in place, he did hold firm in his love for democracy, just as I am sure that everyone else here would.”
“If we want systems that are both safe and useful, businesses need the space to experiment, and I ask the Minister in his summing-up to confirm the Government’s current approach to this. Now, I am not arguing for a free-for-all; to be clear, we need proportionate regulation and effective oversight. That much is obvious. I will just say that AI Mark did not actually save me any time. I read the thousands of transcripts that came through—I read them all myself; I did not delegate that to anyone else, and it created far more work for me. I could have refined this model to operate well within the guardrails I had set for him, but I was not willing to ask my team to put aside time to refine it when we had real casework to deal with immediately. That is why I took the decision this month to shut AI Mark down.”
“My hon. Friend tempts me to say something I am not allowed to in this place, so I will say that they absolutely would prefer me—of course they would. AI Mark could also be exploited to say things that just were not true. So I lifted the guardrails to reduce the risk before I released him to the public, but this made him significantly less useful. He only responded to key phrases and he stuck to the content that I had fed him, but that made it so much harder to distinguish him from a normal chatbot. Usefulness and safety will clearly be a balancing act as this technology develops. We know AI can be dangerous—we have heard the arguments today—but we have also seen its potential. I have seen its potential.”
“My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech and a powerful argument. I have been dealing with an advanced manufacturer of metal and steel wires in my constituency that has been put off by the very thing he describes. That company stands ready to support the Government’s mission on clean and green energy—it wants to supply its steel wires to wind farms—but things like this deter it from getting involved in the first place. Does he agree that that needs to change?”
“Like my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh (David Burton-Sampson), who is no longer in his place, my inbox is full to the brim with emails about fireworks. When they are enjoyed as part of professional displays on national holidays, they can be magnificent, but my constituents are concerned that they are being deployed well outside of normal hours and holiday times. On behalf of my constituents—those with post-traumatic stress disorder or autism, veterans and families with pets, who have all contacted me—may I press the Leader of the House for an urgent debate on the need to update firework regulations for the modern era?”
“I am delighted to hear the Home Secretary announce that we will keep our promise to British national overseas visa holders from Hong Kong. That is something that I have worked with my constituents to lobby the Government on over the past few months, and I am delighted that the Government have listened. As well as transnational repression, Hongkongers bring other issues to me. Many of them in Leeds South West and Morley are highly skilled and have excellent qualifications, but employers in this country do not necessarily recognise those qualifications, which makes it much harder for them to get their first job. Will the Home Secretary work with other Departments to help employers in this country recognise the amazing contribution that Hongkongers can make to the UK economy?”
“My hon. Friend is making an excellent argument for more support for children and families in this position. A family in my constituency wrote to me about their granddaughter who has Huntington’s disease. She is 10, and she desperately needs an education, health and care plan so that she can get to the right special educational needs and disabilities school next year. However, the family found that there are not enough educational psychologists to give referrals, and time is running out. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to prioritise support for people in that position to get them the education and support they deserve as quickly as possible?”
“The hon. Member is making an incredibly powerful speech. One of my constituents, an NHS nurse, suffers with ME. He cannot play with his children, walk his dog or undertake basic activities. When he went to the NHS, he got a referral, but was told that it would be nine months before he got an appointment, which forced him to consider private options. An NHS nurse is having to use private healthcare to get results—this situation is untenable, is it not?”
“A decades-old printer no longer receives updates from the company that made it, but it still prints documents. What we are seeing with games is different. It is as if someone bought that printer, and then one day the manufacturer sent out a signal that deliberately stopped it from working at all, claiming it had reached the end of support. That is not support ending; it is obsolescence, which has an entirely different meaning.”
“We are not asking companies to keep pouring resources into a game that they have finished with. What we are asking is fairly simple: that publishers should not be able to deliberately disable every copy of a game that consumers have already purchased, leaving them with nothing. I will talk first about the end of support, and what that means in this context. Normally, end of support means that if something goes wrong, the customer is on their own. That is fair enough—it is perfectly reasonable depending on the context. An iPhone that someone bought 14 years ago no longer receives updates from Apple, but can still be unlocked and take calls. An old toaster can still toast bread, even if it does not have smart sensors and a touchscreen.”
“It is also worth saying that video games in their own right have been part of the public discourse many times since their widespread adoption as an entertainment medium. Like everyone, I have heard the common questions about their merits, their impact on young people and whether they cause brain rot or inspire violence. Although I would argue that they do not do those things—certainly not the last two—this debate is not about whether video games are good or bad. It is about something much more fundamental. It is about whether, when someone buys something, they should have the right to keep it. I will be clear about my ask here. I am not demanding that publishers keep servers running forever. Campaigners are not asking for indefinite technical support.”
“It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) on opening the debate so aptly. When I was elected last July, I did not imagine that one of my contributions in Westminster Hall would be on the subject of video games. It was not on my bingo card—or, more aptly, it was not in my inventory—but here we are. I am glad we are here, because although video games may not often feature in parliamentary debate, the issues raised affect far more than the gaming industry, juggernaut though it is. They go to the heart of consumer law, ownership rights and the path we are on in a digital age. It is worth noting that I speak as the vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on consumer protection, so my arguments will primarily focus on that dimension.”
“Although I respect the Government’s position, I cannot help but observe that what is happening in this space could be perceived as a breach of consumer protection under unfair trading regulations. Those regulations prohibit traders from hiding information that consumers need in order to make an informed choice, yet when consumers buy a game today, they are almost never told how long it will remain functional. Consumers are sold a one-time purchase, but the publisher reserves the right to terminate it at any time for any reason.”
“Just this summer, it was announced that “Anthem” will no longer be playable from January next year—only a few months away. As of December 2023, it had sold 5 million copies and made more than $100 million in digital revenue. An additional $3.5 million had been spent on in-game purchases. All that money is now gone. Meanwhile, other games, such as “Guild Wars”, have been running for more than 20 years and are still going strong. The point is clear, even though the industry is not. There is no standard, no transparency, and no certainty for consumers. In response to the petition, the Government have said that they have “no plans to amend…consumer law”.”
“The game was released in 2014 and on average cost consumers between 40 and 60 quid. It sold about 12 million copies, but in 2024 it was shut down, with no way for people to play it. To its credit, Ubisoft offered refunds to recent purchasers, but certainly not to the original ones. Although largely an online game, it had a single-player component that was unplayable when the servers went down. Another example, which Ross gave me, is “LawBreakers” —a game that I imagine would have been popular with certain Members of the previous Parliament. It survived for a year before it was shut down in 2018. In the case of “Babylon’s Fall”, there were no refunds, despite the game being unplayable less than a year after launch. It may not have been the best game, but the principle still stands. It was made, sold and then pulled, with no refunds.”
“We are here today because nearly 200,000 people in the UK signed a petition demanding action on this specific issue. The Stop Killing Games campaign, a consumer movement started by YouTuber Ross Scott, has shone a light on this issue, not just here in the UK but across Europe and beyond. The European citizens’ initiative on the issue received more than 1.4 million signatures. This is not a niche concern among a few people; a growing movement of consumers feel that their rights are being undermined. My office has corresponded with Ross, and I am very grateful for the information he gave me ahead of the debate. He really is a champion of these issues. I have also done my own research, and would like to go through some examples, the first of which is “The Crew”.”
“It is about ensuring that publishers do not have the right deliberately to disable products that people have already paid for. I suspect that if we were talking about mobile phones or any of the other things I listed earlier, this debate would resonate even more strongly, but the principle is the same. If we do not act now, the use of this model and the erosion of ownership rights may spread to other areas. History is littered with examples of Governments acting too late and finding out that what could have been fixed early, with minimal effort, has grown into a much larger problem. The warning signs are there in this industry and to act now would be far less painful than to wait until the practice has become entrenched. As we know, consumers are noticing. Campaigns have started.”
“When the boundary review took place a few years ago, I was very disappointed that Rockstar Leeds was not drawn into my constituency, so I am very jealous of that. However, I do have constituents who work there and I agree entirely with my hon. Friend’s point—it is as though he has read on a few pages in my speech. People absolutely can have private servers that take care of the issue. It does not require the developer to keep things running or to put their own resources endlessly into a game to keep it alive. Consumers can do that themselves. As I was saying, the publisher should have a duty to ensure that a game purchased and owned by a consumer remains playable in some way. That is not about burdening publishers or Government overreach.”
“If we fail to act, the future consequences for consumers, especially in the age of digital ownership, could be significant. This is about putting people first—a proud tradition of the Labour party, of which I am a proud member—and ensuring that consumer rights are protected not just today, but in the future. It is very clear that when consumers buy something, it should be theirs to keep, not just until the seller decides otherwise.”
“Our greatest fan across the Atlantic, Elon Musk, has already shown us with Tesla that features in cars can be remotely disabled even after the original buyer has paid for them. The technology already exists to remotely modify products in a way that the consumer may not have been reliably informed about at purchase. What is stopping the progression of those modifications to render purchases totally and utterly unusable? Do we really want to wait until our phones, fridges and cars are affected before we act in this small way, in what is a relatively small area? My ask today is simple: I urge the Government to revisit this issue and meaningfully engage with the asks of the petition. It is not too late to change the law or issue guidance in some way on what should happen with games that go offline.”
“We are not talking about a small, powerless industry; we are talking about publishers that generated a combined total of $455 billion in revenue last year accounting for all types of gaming. By most industry measures, the global video games sector is now larger than the film and music industries combined. Analysts at Forbes say that gaming is now the dominant entertainment industry, so the costs of ensuring long-term playability are negligible when compared with the budgets of these major publishers. We are talking about tens of thousands of pounds—or sometimes nothing at all—set against budgets in the tens and hundreds of millions, and revenue in the billions. To be clear: this is not just about video games.”
“Going forward, the ask from many consumers is simple: if the industry plans to kill a game, it should ensure that consumers have a reasonable option to continue using their products for a single-player experience or on private servers. I promised one of my Leeds South West and Morley constituents that I would raise the fact that they, like other gamers, have waited years for certain games, including the remake of “Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic”, which I am told is one of the greatest games of all time. Saber Interactive plans to release the final version of that game at some point in the future, but let us imagine how devastated those gamers would be if Saber released it only to pull it a year later.”
“I could not agree more. That goes back to my earlier point: the fix in this area could be as simple as there being more transparency. When a consumer purchases a game, it should be crystal clear that the publisher could deactivate it at any point. However, I want to go further—we need to retain something and ensure that publishers make the game playable for consumers long after they have pulled support from it. Going back to “The Crew”, the game did not need to be shut down. Ubisoft could have patched in offline play or allowed private servers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) said earlier.”
“Three days ago, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights stated that “Member States with influence must act urgently to prevent large-scale atrocities” by the RSF and allied fighters. But atrocities have happened: 460 people have died in a maternity hospital. What has the UK done since that statement was made, in conjunction with the Quad and the African Union, to try to help those people trapped in El Fasher? While I know that the Minister cannot comment on future additional sanctions, will he at least consider additional sanctions or travel bans for RSF leaders and their regional backers?”
“It’s partly the bobbing, too. I persevered, and I did so because Morley running club has raised £20,000 for good causes over the past four years. Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to Morley running club, to the firefighters who were raising money for their charity—firefighters in full kit were outpacing me—and perhaps grant a debate on the need to support these running clubs to run more charitable races, but perhaps ones that are less punishing on the knees?”
“I am very grateful to the Minister for his update. I am pleased to report that one of my constituents, the one whom I have been most in contact with the Minister about, has finally been fully compensated, which is a huge relief to him and his family. I spoke with him this morning, and he is watching now. Although he welcomes the improved service from IBCA, and I find it reassuring that the intention is to begin paying the first claims on behalf of estates of deceased infected people by the end of this year, my constituent asks if there is anything we can do to prioritise those close to the end of their life, so that they can get the justice they deserve in life, bearing in mind the valid inheritance tax concerns raised by Members from across the House.”
“My hon. Friend will recall that we in the Education Committee held an evidence session in July about school attendance. One of the witnesses stated that fines are “simultaneously too harsh and too soft”; too harsh, because they damage the relationship between parents and schools, but too soft to move the dial substantially on school attendance. Although, as a former teacher, I agree with the main thrust of my hon. Friend’s argument, does she have any further reflection on the need to look at the fines system again, to replace it or to come up with something more effective?”
“They could speak with our trade union friends too, but whoever they speak to, it is clear to me and to everyone here that families need proper paternity and maternity pay, and they need it now.”
“If a median worker is forced to make that choice, can we even call it paternity leave, especially since it does not encourage dads to take time with their children and support their partners? When my first child, Oscar, was born, he timed it perfectly. I was a teacher at the time and he arrived two weeks before half term, so I got three weeks with him, but even that was not enough. As we all know, babies do not stick to schedules and they certainly do not wait for Government reviews. The Government’s review of parental leave is welcome, but 18 months is a very long time. The Government can already consider Maternity Action’s report, which asks for maternity and paternity pay to be increased in line with the living wage. They could also speak to The Dad Shift, which proposed increasing the length of paternity leave.”
“Working families form the backbone of this country. They go to work, increase our prosperity and raise the next generation at the same time. It is a hard job. It always will be, and it should be, but it should not be this hard. Statutory maternity pay in the UK is one of the lowest in Europe—less than half the minimum wage after six weeks. Maternity Action has reported that half of new mums cut their leave short, with 97% saying that money was a reason for their choice: no choice at all. Dads are not exactly doing better. They get two weeks at the same maximum of £187 a week. One dad in Leeds South West and Morley, a median worker, told me that he would lose £103 a day on statutory paternity pay.”