Foreign Interference in UK Politics

Mark Sewards Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Samantha Dixon]

Any company that wants to donate into British politics will have to substantially prove that it is able to do so by being headquartered in the UK and having persons of interest from the UK. We will end the way in which shell companies have been used to channel illegitimate funds into our political system.

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

I very much welcome the Minister’s statement today and the incorporation of the Rycroft review recommendations. I also welcome the changes to the “know your donor” rules, particularly in respect of location; political parties must be forced to include location in their considerations before accepting a donation. I was going to submit that as an amendment to the Representation of the People Bill, so job done on that. Does the Minister agree that political parties should also be forced to consider politically exposed people and the source of the wealth being donated before accepting donations?

[Samantha Dixon]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. We will be working across the Benches to develop a donor declaration that will set out where exactly money has come from. We need to proceed on that with care and collaboration to ensure that when a donation is given, it is clear where exactly it is coming from. I agree with him entirely.

Elections: First Past the Post

Mark Sewards Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Turner. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) on securing this vital debate. Like many colleagues, we have both been vocal, proud advocates for political reform. This debate builds on the important work of my hon. Friend in the previous session, when she won a vote on the Second Reading of her Bill to bring PR to elections for national and local government in England. That was a clear sign that the demand for reform exists across the House and continues to grow.

In her excellent opening remarks, my hon. Friend mentioned the newly re-elected right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) whom I have told I would mention. He is not alone in his support for proportional representation. The right hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), the deputy leader of the Labour party, has said that she has always supported electoral reform. From a different side of the political spectrum, the Conservative London Assembly member Emma Best has said her party should start thinking seriously about proportional representation. She speaks compellingly, making a strong Conservative argument for PR.

When voices across the political spectrum are saying the same, the Government should listen. I am proud to sit as vice-chair for the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections, which is the largest APPG and shows clear cross-party support for replacing first past the post with a proportional system. It is good to see several members of the APPG here today. We have heard from a number of them, so I will reflect on some of their comments. My fellow vice-chair, the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns), reminded us that PR is fair. We are in a multi-party political system and first past the post, which was set up for two parties, is no longer fit for purpose.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) talked in detail about his experience on the city council, and how PR in Scotland works. My constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison), said that despite being elected on a minority of votes, he represents well his whole community. That is an urgent issue, to ensure that people have trust in our system. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) talked about how the voting system shapes the way we campaign, focusing on a core number of marginal seats and a group of voters in them. My hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) reminded us that PR is not a panacea—he is absolutely right to do so—but it is a fundamental step in the right direction towards a fairer, better system.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) reminded us how PR shapes how we campaign and what we choose to do and not do with our resources. My hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover)—while doing an impression of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle—gave us examples from overseas and of parties working together in local government. He also reminded us that sorting out the voting system would better enable us to sort out our country.

I know that objections are made to reform. We are told that PR means weaker coalitions, constant instability or Members who answer to a party list rather than the people they serve. To those who have those concerns, I point to the weakness, instability and chaos, frankly, that we have seen over the past decade. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made his case, as he often does; he had a very good go at making arguments that I disagree with, but I am sorry to say that he failed to convince me on this occasion. Seven Prime Ministers in 10 years is not what a well-functioning system looks like.

Our current system is failing, and we have such a great opportunity to push forwards and make positive reforms. Some may look at each change of Prime Minister as a story about one person, one party or one bad week in Westminster, but that just does not cut it. When a pattern repeats again and again, it stops being about individual issues, personalities or failures and starts reflecting the system that produces them. First past the post manufactures large majorities out of modest vote shares, and those majorities are built on such shallow foundations that they can collapse as quickly as they were built. Instability is not a glitch in our multi-party system; it is a feature of it.

There are various forms of PR. I will not try your patience, Mr Turner, by ranking them in order of my preference—I will save that for the Lib Dem conference—but, suffice to say, the Liberal Democrats support the single transferrable vote. It keeps a strong direct link between Members and the place they represent. Constituents have local MPs to turn to, but they would have a real hand in choosing them. That is the price of different voting systems.

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way, especially as she is my friend on the armed forces parliamentary scheme. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I am sorry I was not here at the beginning of the debate; I was at a really important statement on Nottingham maternity services in the main Chamber. Does the hon. Lady not agree that, even if some commission came forward and said that STV was absolutely the way to go and that we should adopt it in future, this country should adopt it only if the electorate validates that through a general election where a majority of the parties making that promise win a majority in Parliament, or through a referendum?

[Lisa Smart]

I am not personally a fan of a referendum. They can be quite divisive and they return one of two answers, so I would not support one. The Liberal Democrats have had a fairer voting system in our manifesto since the foundation of our party. I believe that the current Government, whose party the hon. Member is a member of, have put forward some other suggestions that were not in their manifesto in 2024, so it is possible for situations to change. It is possible for the world to move on, and for people of good will to work together for the betterment of our country.

Single transferrable votes for the House and for local councillors in England would mean that communities would not be written off because they were a safe seat, and nobody would feel that their vote was wasted. We could also introduce more nuance into a debate than can be delivered via the medium of bar chart. Consider the previous general election: the Labour party won about two thirds of the seats in the House on roughly one third of the vote. A system that can hand near-total control of the Commons to a party that two in three voters did not vote for cannot honestly claim to speak for the country.

The Liberal Democrats have argued for fair votes for decades, because a democracy in which every vote counts is a better democracy. I do not want to spend my time today just listing what is broken, because the more important point is that we have in front of us a genuine opportunity to put it right. The appetite for reform is no longer confined to the Liberal Democrat Benches; it is growing across the House and across the country. We need to fix our politics so that we can fix our country. An amended Representation of the People Bill could be the vehicle to deliver it and to give this country a voting system worthy of the people it serves. I hope the Minister will tell us today that the Government are ready to take that chance.

Foreign Financial Influence and Interference: UK Politics

Mark Sewards Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point, and of course I am more than happy to look at that.

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State’s announcement of a cap on donations from overseas electors and a moratorium on cryptocurrency donations from today is extremely welcome. What criminal penalties will be incurred for breaking these rules? After all, we need an effective deterrent to dissuade those who might seek to circumvent them.

[Steve Reed]

We will lay the details before the House so that Members on both sides have access to the relevant information. It was important that the provisions in these two circumstances were brought forward to today, because of the risk of a window for evasion had we not done that. That retrospective change will be subject to the legislation going through Parliament successfully.

Funeral Premises: Environmental Health Inspections

Mark Sewards Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

I will call Mark Sewards to move the motion. I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with the prior permission of the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. That does not apply to interventions, which are in order. There will be no opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention in 30-minute debates.

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for environmental health inspections of funeral premises.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. At the outset, I will say that we must keep firmly in mind the needs of grieving families: people who, in their most vulnerable moments, deserve dignity, clarity and the reassurance that they can trust that their loved ones’ remains are being cared for.

[Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)]

A grieving family in my constituency contacted me last year. They said that their deceased father, who had been left in the care of a local funeral home, had been stored in such a way that his body had decomposed to the extent that it was “covered in maggots” by the time it was sent to the coroner. That was reported to the family by the coroner. I understand that the funeral home was not regulated. Does my hon. Friend agree that the case in my constituency highlights the case for further regulation and a more rigorous inspection regime for those who work in this industry?

[Mark Sewards]

I absolutely agree. There have been too many cases in recent memory of people not being cared for with the dignity that they deserved.

This topic first came to my attention when my constituents Cody and Liam Townend contacted me, along with another mum, Zoe Ward. They lost babies in different circumstances and went to the same funeral director, an organisation called Florrie’s Army. To their horror, their babies’ bodies were taken to the private home of the person in charge of Florrie’s Army, and they were not treated with the care and respect that they deserved. I will not repeat the shocking details here, but the BBC report can be found online. Cody and Zoe asked what I could do to help, because although it was reported to the police, they found nothing actionable.

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate. I know that he is deeply passionate about our shared work in the all-party parliamentary group for funerals, coroners and bereavement, where we have learnt about the cases he described. Does he agree that the Minister would benefit from meeting our APPG to discuss the funeral sector and how it can develop the clear standards, robust oversight and proper enforcement it so desperately requires?

[Mark Sewards]

I concur; the Minister is very welcome to come to our APPG.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. I always try to be helpful by talking about what we do in Northern Ireland. Issues around funeral service premises are sensitive and people must be treated with care when they are dealing with the death of loved ones. In Northern Ireland, funeral premises operate within general health and safety frameworks rather than a dedicated inspection programme. There is also no published fixed frequency for routine environmental health inspections. Does he agree that more must be done to create clearer regulation? I believe that the code of conduct in Scotland would be helpful to ensure industry standards and oversee premises and services more consistently.

[Mark Sewards]

The hon. Gentleman is right to point out the example of Scotland, which I encourage the Minister to consider. I think the Government should consider everything the hon. Gentleman set out, which I will come on to.

This debate is about a fundamental issue that many of us find difficult to talk about—death. The treatment and dignity of our dead is not typically a subject for dinnertime conversation; those who have experienced bereavement, which is most of us, know how complicated and emotionally overwhelming it can be. At such a vulnerable time, one of the few sources of comfort should be the reassurance that a trusted funeral director is caring for a loved one with dignity, professionalism and respect. The vast majority of funeral directors live up to and often exceed such expectations. People’s trust has been betrayed by a very small number of rogue operators. Each stunning revelation about a rogue operator —in some cases, they have even desecrated remains—has a compounding effect on the public’s consciousness. People used to believe that the funeral sector was regulated, but they now know that it is not regulated, and they worry about the consequences of that for their families.

There are a variety of options open to the Government to solve this problem. Empowering local authorities to carry out environmental health inspections, which I will get to, is one of them; introducing a national standard is another; and empowering trade bodies should also be considered. Ultimately, however, we have to establish an independent statutory regulatory regime. I want to be clear that inaction is not an option that we should consider. I firmly believe that statutory regulation should be introduced for this sector. However, that will take time and primary legislation to achieve, so we need to consider our options for such regulation and what can happen in the interim.

Environmental health inspections could act as a stopgap before full regulation, or become the statutory regime itself, or both. However, there are differing opinions. I have spoken to representatives of the funeral service industry, including from the two largest trade bodies: the National Association of Funeral Directors, or the NAFD; and the National Society of Allied and Independent Funeral Directors, or SAIF. I have also had discussions with Co-op Funeralcare, having visited its premises in Leeds. I am also very pleased to serve as the vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on funerals, coroners and bereavement, which brings together many organisations from across the sector, as the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) said in his intervention.

Every person and every operator who I have spoken to about this situation is appalled by the cases they have seen. They know how vital public confidence is to the funeral profession. They want the reassurance that a statutory regime will come into place, although views on what it should look like definitely differ.

Environmental health inspections could help to build back trust, but only if there is a unified national standard that funeral premises must adhere to. But that is precisely what we do not have right now: there is no statutory inspection regime in relation to the services provided by funeral directors. My constituent Cody put it best when she said that it is harder to set up a burger van than it is to set up a funeral home. Shockingly, she is right about that.

There are no routine checks or minimum standards of funeral homes outside those established by the trade bodies. The Government are still considering the Fuller inquiry’s recommendations on funeral sector regulation and inspections. I am very grateful for the engagement that I have had on this issue, particularly with the Ministry of Justice, including with the Minister for Victims, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones). She met me and some of my constituents towards the end of last year, and she was phenomenal in that meeting.

However, I will take this opportunity to ask the Minister who is here today: what assessment has her Department made of the Fuller inquiry’s recommendation to establish a statutory regulatory regime for funeral directors in England? I appreciate that that is really a question for the Department of Health and Social Care, but given that it also affects her Department, I hope she has a view on it.

That question matters because of the steps that the Government have taken in the past. In May 2024, the Ministry of Justice and the then Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities wrote to all councils in England to strongly encourage them to inspect funeral premises. The letter said that this was to reassure the public that the sector as a whole is safe. That was a welcome step at the time, both for the public and the sector, but those visits were never intended as technical deep-dive inspections. Instead, they were conducted to check whether everything was generally in order.

The NAFD supported those visits, and it encouraged its members to co-operate and demonstrate the high standards required of them. It advised the environmental health officers on good practice and hosted webinars to help members to prepare for their visits. However, most of those EHOs had limited experience of visiting funeral premises. It is also unclear the extent to which local authorities communicated their findings back to the Ministry of Justice and to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. Has the Minister’s Department collated the information that was collected through those 2024 inspections? If it has, will it use that information to inform any position that it might take in relation to funeral sector regulation?

In my view, it is concerning that those inspections failed to identify the problems that came to light when my constituents needed help. Leeds city council participated in those inspections, but to my knowledge it did not inspect Florrie’s Army or identify it as a provider of concern at the time.

That also highlights a wider issue. There is scope for environmental health inspections to be carried out by local authorities and EHOs, but that approach would probably be best employed as a short-term or interim option. It must not act as a shield against wider regulation of the funeral industry. Environmental health officers may not have the relevant sector-specific experience, but they have the skills in overlapping elements, such as infection prevention, premises hygiene and safety. The benefit of utilising EHOs is that a move to expand their remit would not necessarily require primary legislation in the short term. It would be the quickest route to ensuring some sort of Government-backed regular inspections regime, but the issue of national standards would still be outstanding.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

We need regulation. One story of the mismanagement of a loved one is one too many. Does the hon. Member agree that in certain faith communities—and especially in the Jewish and Muslim communities—the expediency with which people wish to bury their loved ones must be taken into consideration within that regulation?

[Mark Sewards]

I could not agree more. Any regulatory regime introduced nationally needs to take into account how different faiths and cultures bury their dead.

In order for environmental health officers to conduct their work properly, they would need the backing of the Local Government Association, but it recently indicated in comments to the BBC that it would prefer the Ministry of Justice to take on the responsibility for a national scheme rather than leaving it at a local level. It would appear that the LGA has no desire to take on the responsibility for inspections on a permanent basis. Does the Minister agree with the LGA’s position?

There are other options available. Both the NAFD and SAIF require their members to undergo inspections, but they have no enforcement powers and there is no requirement for members to register with them as trade bodies—although about 80% of the sector’s players do. These bodies can expel a member, but they cannot stop them operating, and that is the gap that, in time, statutory regulation must fill. There is a strong argument for backing those trade bodies in relation to inspections. They have the respect of the industry, and with Government support and the possibility of placing their inspection regime on a statutory footing, they could play a central role within any future regulatory system. The Government may consider advising consumers to use only funeral directors who are members of the NAFD and SAIF to add an extra layer of protection.

Although this falls under a different Department—the Department of Health and Social Care—it would be remiss of me not to mention the Human Tissue Authority. Expanding its role so that it becomes the sector’s regulator is another option. The HTA has considerable experience and expertise, and expanding its remit may be more time efficient than establishing an entirely new independent regulator from scratch.

Where does this leave us today? In the medium to long term, the inspection of funeral premises undoubtedly needs to come through a statutory regulatory regime and a national standard. That is what the Fuller inquiry recommended, what the majority of the public would back and—importantly for me—what my constituents want. In the short term, the Government must move at pace and come to a decision that can reassure the public and maintain confidence in the funeral sector. That may mean utilising local authorities or the existing capacity of trade bodies to bridge the gap before regulation in the ways that I have described. I do not have all the answers, but any conversation must include the families and victims of these horrific crimes. I use the word “crimes” even though my constituents found nothing actionable when they contacted the police, because what happened to them was abhorrent. They have borne the greatest burdens, and any proposal must work for them.

I want to acknowledge the tireless work of Members from across the House, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), who has worked relentlessly on behalf of her constituents to ensure that the voices of the bereaved remain at the centre of every discussion of this topic. Action must be taken as soon as is reasonably possible, both to reassure the public and to recognise the good work of those who operate in the profession and the funeral industry. As everyone in the House knows, introducing primary legislation can take a long time. If we cannot act quickly, we need to consider every non-legislative solution outside of full statutory regulation.

What assessment has the Minister’s Department made of the need for environmental health inspections at funeral premises? What conversations, if any, have taken place between her Department and the Ministry of Justice, the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Business and Trade on statutory regulation of the funeral sector? Will MHCLG, through local authorities, be supporting environmental health inspections at any point, now or in the future, and will the Minister commit to wider engagement with the funeral sector ahead of proposed implementation of any kind of inspection?

Families deserve dignity, transparency and peace of mind; the sector deserves Government support in reassuring those families; and Cody, Zoe and Liam, and all the affected families, deserve the peace of mind that what happened to them will never happen to anyone ever again.

Chinese Embassy

Mark Sewards Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

I note the right hon. Gentleman’s concerns, and the Security Minister and other Ministers will have heard them too. However, the case is specifically a planning decision to be made in accordance with the propriety rules and other considerations that Planning Ministers have to take into account as part of the quasi-judicial process, but all material considerations will be taken into account as part of that process.

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

My constituent, Chloe Cheung, has to live with the fact that she has a £100,000 bounty placed on her head under the national security law in Hong Kong. She walks around every day knowing that anyone here could claim that bounty by taking her to the Chinese embassy and handing her over to the authorities. Now she is worried that she might find herself locked away in one of the secret rooms shown in the new embassy plans. What exactly are the Government going to do to ensure that Chloe is protected and kept safe, and that that never happens to her or anyone else with a £100,000 bounty on their head, if the new embassy is approved?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I recognise my hon. Friend’s frustration and anger on behalf of his constituent. We will not tolerate transnational repression of the kind that he is concerned about. Specifically, the counterfactual here is not that the Chinese do not have an embassy; they have seven diplomatic premises in the UK already. Again, I come back to the fact that we will make a decision on this case on the material planning considerations that pertain to it.

National Plan to End Homelessness

Mark Sewards Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the use of taxpayers’ money. As she will have heard me say in previous responses, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is leading some cross-ministerial work on value-for-money questions on the provision of support for homeless people. That is important, because we cannot afford to waste a penny in this mission. I would be delighted to visit her constituency.

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

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?

[Alison McGovern]

My hon. Friend makes his case well. If he would care to send me some details of the case, I will of course meet him.

Pride in Place

Mark Sewards Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I remind Members to keep questions short so that we can get try to get everybody in. I would not want Members to miss out on the opportunity to speak about their constituency because other Members had taken so long.

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

I warmly welcome the £20 million for Old Farnley, but now is the time for action. Hundreds of people have already completed my survey. I have more than 100 volunteers for the neighbourhood board alone—it will not be that big—and we have plenty of ideas that we want to spend the money on. Given that we are ready and impatient to deliver, will the Minister empower my residents to crack on and spend this money and deliver the change that we know they deserve?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his work and the huge progress he has made, both in reaching out across his community and in convening and galvanising people to join his neighbourhood board. We want communities to run this. We want pace and we want impact, and we are committed to working alongside him and his community to drive the change that they want to see.

Indefinite Leave to Remain

Mark Sewards Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) on his opening remarks, and I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to his place.

Earlier this year, I held a surgery with Hongkongers living in my constituency, alongside Alison Lowe, the deputy mayor of West Yorkshire, who is responsible for policing and crime. While I was so pleased to see the room absolutely packed out—standing room only—it was clear from the questions I was being asked that the No. 1 concern was the immigration White Paper and its potential impact on Hongkongers and their families—people we invited to live here.

I need to make it very clear that we must take extremely strong action on immigration—the British people demand it—and that having functioning borders should be a basic function of the state. The level of immigration to the UK, both legal and illegal, has been too high, and the White Paper is a decent package of measures to try to bring the numbers down, which should be welcomed. However, we do not want to unfairly penalise those who we have invited here, or who make a huge contribution to the UK.

When the BNO visa scheme was introduced in 2020 by the previous Government, it was in response to the imposition of the national security law on Hongkongers, to help them escape political repression. To change the rules now, when the first BNO visa holders are just months away from qualifying for settled status, would be a devastating blow to the Hong Kong community. It would constitute a broken promise. These people have come to the UK under a set of conditions that we determined, and at our request. At the very least, even if we were to change the rules, they should never be applied retrospectively.

What would happen if we did change the rules? First, extending the indefinite leave to remain period for BNO visa holders would have very little impact on immigration figures. Government data shows that most BNO visa holders arrived in the first two years of the scheme, between 2021 and 2023, and, since then, the numbers have been falling. Currently, BNOs represent about 1.65% of total visa grants, so changing the rules in this area will do very little to change immigration trends.

More importantly, the Hong Kong community make an immense contribution to the UK, even though they are often prevented from giving their full talents to society because of the limitations they face without settled status or citizenship. Take university-age students, for example, who we have heard about today: without settled status, they will not qualify for home fees, making university unaffordable for most of them. Delaying that settled status for a total of 10 years would have a hugely detrimental impact on those young BNO visa holders. They will still go on to contribute to the UK throughout their working lives, but why would we not want to increase that contribution as much as we can?

It is also true that a huge number of Hongkongers in the UK are working far below their qualification or training levels, or are potentially unemployed entirely. There are accountants, journalists and engineers, for example, working in roles that do not necessarily match their skills. We have heard that there are some practical steps that the Government could take to alleviate some of those problems, which would be in our interests, but extending the ILR route for Hongkongers to 10 years—further delaying their access to further education, training, citizenship, Government support and integration into UK society—will obviously make the problem worse. Despite all the obstacles they face today, they are still making a huge contribution to the UK.

With one eye on the time, I will draw my remarks to a close. I urge the Minister to exempt BNO visa holders from any changes to the ILR route or other qualifications for settled status. This country made a promise to the people of Hong Kong, and we should honour it.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Chinese Embassy Development

Mark Sewards Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

The right hon. Gentleman’s views on China are well known, and he knows my views on China, too—we have discussed the matter in the past. He raises two distinct issues. On sanctioned parliamentarians, let me take this opportunity to make it clear that the sanctions are completely unwarranted and unacceptable, and this issue will remain a priority under this Government. The Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor have raised their case at every meeting with their counterparts, including with President Xi at the G20 in November and Foreign Minister Wang Yi in February. The right hon. Gentleman tempts me to comment on the Chinese planning system. I am very glad that we have a different and more robust system than the People’s Republic of China.

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

I appreciate that the Minister cannot comment on individual planning applications from the Dispatch Box, but when I speak to Hongkongers in my constituency, they are seriously concerned about the risks that come with transnational repression and that might come along with the creation and construction of this embassy. When I was speaking with Hongkongers in my constituency last week, on the 36th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre—something that can be commemorated in Leeds, but not in Hong Kong—they were seriously concerned that those with £100,000 bounties on their heads might be more at risk now because of the construction of this embassy. I appreciate that the Minister’s portfolio does not necessarily cover this, but what assurances can he give on behalf of the Government that if such an embassy is built, we will do everything in our power to protect those from Hong Kong who have made the UK their home?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I hope hon. Members will appreciate why I will not comment on hypotheticals, again, on a decision that has not been made on a case that is not before the Department. I have made it very clear that we stand with the Hong Kong community. The Minister with responsibility for Asia and the Indo-Pacific, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West), met members of the Hong Kong community in this country, along with my hon. Friend the Security Minister. We will stand by them.

Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (changed to Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers) Bill)

Mark Sewards Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 25th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My right hon. and learned Friend makes a very good point. These are difficult times. As she knows, I was in business for 30 years, and we go through some difficult times. Many people think that business is easy, but it is not, particularly at times like this, when confidence, including consumer confidence, has gone so low. It means that people are not coming through the door. My advice to businesses is to batten down the hatches and get through this where they can, but inevitably the consequence of these choices will be less employment, lower salary increases and higher prices in shops, public houses and other places. That is the consequence of the choices that this Government have made. The real-world effect of this historic drop in confidence is a 20-year high in business closures. Over 220,000 businesses closed their doors in the last three months of 2024.

When considering the Lords amendments, it is important to remember that the Labour party promised to abolish business rates—another broken promise. The Minister, for whom I have a great deal of time, talks about the art of the possible; what he is saying is that a promise that he and his colleagues made to the electorate in the run-up to the election has been broken. In its manifesto, Labour promised to

“replace the business rates system, so we can raise the same revenue but in a fairer way. This new system will level the playing field between the high street and online giants”.

That is not what the Bill does, so that is also a broken promise. The reason I challenged the Minister a couple of times during his remarks is that I do not understand how the Bill can be both a first step and a permanent change. That makes no sense, and if I were one of the business people for whose rude health we are all responsible, I would like to know exactly what the Government have planned beyond these changes. That is not clear.

I turn first to Lords amendment 14, which would require the Secretary of State to review

“the merits of a separate Use Class and associated multiplier for retail services provided by fulfilment warehouses that do not have a material presence on local high streets”—

in other words, online giants. It is worth noting that the rates regime proposed by this Bill will mean that only around 10% of businesses paying the higher rate will be the warehouses of online giants. In reality, shops, restaurants, cafés, pubs, cinemas, music venues, gyms and hotels will all see their business rates rise as a result of the higher multiplier. We would support a rates regime that would genuinely level the playing field between online retailers and the high street, but this Bill does not deliver that. We therefore support amendment 14’s requirement that the Secretary of State conduct a review on introducing a higher multiplier for fulfilment warehouses. Such a multiplier would mean that important anchor stores for high streets would not be punished.

That brings me to Lords amendments 1, 5, 8 and 11. We all know from our constituencies how important anchor stores, such as supermarkets and department stores, are for attracting footfall and supporting local economies. When people come into the town centre to use an anchor store, they might stop for lunch in a local café or pop into an independent business. Key anchor stores in the Secretary of State’s constituency will be hit by this Bill: Sainsbury’s in Ashton-under-Lyne has a rateable value of £1.24 million, while Marks and Spencer next door has a rateable value of £770,000. These decisions have real-world effects on companies that are not online giants.

We have seen the impact on our communities when anchor stores leave a town. For many anchor stores, being dragged into the higher multiplier by this Bill could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back; those shops have already been hit by the jobs tax, and will be tied up with even more red tape through the Employment Rights Bill. In fact, the British Retail Consortium has warned the Government that

“The sheer scale of new costs and the speed with which they occur create a cumulative burden that will make job losses inevitable, and higher prices a certainty.”

That contrasts with my party’s proud record of supporting businesses, including small businesses, on the high street by cutting business rates, as well as providing billions of pounds of support throughout the pandemic.

While we are talking about high street businesses, can I once again push the Minister on a very important point—the retention of small business rate relief? Many businesses’ livelihoods depend on that relief, so will he say at the Dispatch Box that it will be continued? I have not had clarity, and clearly I will not get clarity today. Is that relief also on the chopping block, maybe at the Chancellor’s emergency Budget tomorrow? Let us see what that brings; we may get clearer answers then. Tomorrow’s last-gasp attempt to go for growth comes after GDP falling by 0.1% in January. That was largely attributed to a 1.1% fall in manufacturing output.

That brings me briefly to Lords amendments 3, 4, 9 and 10. They would make manufacturing hereditaments eligible for the lower multipliers when it comes to local ratings lists. That comes at a particularly important time for our manufacturing sector, which is a crucial part of our economy, whether we are talking about automotive manufacturing, aerospace manufacturing or precision engineering. As we boost capital defence expenditure, it is important that we have a strong and resilient manufacturing base that can supply our brave armed forces. I urge the Government to reflect carefully on the impact of the new rates system on manufacturing, and we will listen carefully to the Minister’s responses on this issue.

Turning to Lords amendments 1, 6, 7 and 12, given that the Government are raising taxes to invest in the NHS, it seems perverse for them to levy higher business rates on the hospitals and GP practices that provide the services that so many of our constituents rely on. It is just weeks since the Government shamefully voted to impose a jobs tax on hospices, pharmacies and GP practices—another double whammy. Labour is giving with one hand and taking with the other.

Before we get to the real sting in the tail of this Bill, I will speak briefly to Lords amendments 13 and 16. Like Members of the other House, we have concerns about the cliff edge that the Bill will create in the business rates system, which the Minister referred to. A business crossing the £500,000 threshold, even by £1, could see a near 20% increase in rates payable. For instance, a business with a hereditament of £495,000 invested in their property—just enough to push them over the threshold—would potentially see an increase in rates from around £175,000 to £325,000 as a result of this Bill. The legislation will stifle investment and growth even further.

Finally, Labour’s education tax—the spiteful and ideologically driven decision to remove the charitable rate relief from private schools that are charities—sits alongside the utterly wrong-headed policy of charging VAT on private school fees. Regardless of people’s views on private schools, it is the view of the Opposition that we should never tax education. We are already seeing the gates of independent schools being locked indefinitely. That pushes more children into state education, increases class sizes and puts more pressure on the public purse, and on councils trying to find placements for students with education, health and care plans. Lords amendment 17 would retain rates relief for private schools in England, sparing them part of a cumulative burden that would otherwise send many of them beyond the brink.

It is not just education that is affected. Since the introduction of this Bill, we have learned that the Government will also levy business rates on nursery schools and sports facilities used by the general public if they are on the site of a private school. That regressive decision will jack up the cost of swimming lessons, and the costs for Sunday league clubs and cadet units. During our time in government, England became one of the top-performing countries for education in the western world. That is a record that this Government seem determined to trash. Years down the line, Government Members will regret having voted for this Bill as they walk down the high street, passing boarded-up shops, school gates locked shut and a local that called last orders for the final time years ago. I urge the Government to consider and agree to the amendments from the Lords to safeguard businesses, schools and communities across the country from more business-damaging and job-destroying tax hikes.

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

The Bill is necessary to support our high streets. It strikes a fairer balance between small businesses and large, and I am pleased to have contributed during most stages of its progress. I rise to address some of the amendments put forward by the other place, which would reduce the effectiveness of the Bill.

Amendments 2, 5, 8 and 11 seek to exempt anchor stores from the higher multipliers, thus reducing the revenue raised by the Bill overall. By reducing that revenue, the amendments reduce the support available to smaller retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, when providing that support is the entire purpose of this legislation.

I also fear that the definition of an anchor store could create problems for our high streets and town centres. During the debate in the other place it was said that the Treasury could decide what constituted an anchor store, but it was also admitted that it would be a difficult term to define. It is not uncommon, and not untrue, to say that several shops in a high street can indeed lay claim to that title, and I foresee difficulties in this regard if the amendment is passed.

It is also true that anchor stores are often the largest stores in town, usually part of a big chain, supermarkets being an obvious example. The effect of this amendment would be to exempt those larger businesses from the higher multiplier, again reducing the support available to smaller businesses. The entire purpose of the Bill is to support our smaller retail, leisure and hospitality businesses, paid for by that higher multiplier on larger businesses. Unlike the Opposition, we like to ensure that our numbers add up.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

What would the hon. Gentleman say to businesses that are trying to make their numbers add up? In its manifesto and previously, the promise—the commitment—of the Labour party was to level the playing field between online giants and small businesses, but, as the hon. Gentleman can see, that is not what is happening here. Many different premises, including manufacturers and large bricks-and-mortar retailers, are being hit by these increases. What would the hon. Gentleman say to those businesses, given that while there is currently no sign of any increase in their rates, that is exactly what they will see as a result of the Bill?

[Mark Sewards]

The Bill is designed specifically to revive our high streets. The hon. Gentleman will remember, because his party was in government at the time, that our high streets were struggling and suffocating, and it is incumbent on this new Government to revive them. That is why it is so important for us to pass the Bill today. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman mentioned manufacturing, and his hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) chirps from a sedentary position—[Interruption.] I mean “chunters”. I think it important to recognise that the Government are supporting manufacturing too. There are other mechanisms for doing that, but the Bill we are pursuing today, and passing today, is all about supporting our high streets, and I am very proud to support it.

Queen Street is in Morley, in the centre of my constituency. You are welcome to visit it any time, Madam Deputy Speaker. There is a lot on offer, almost of all of which comes directly from small businesses. The Lords amendments to which I have referred do not prioritise them; nor do they prioritise the smaller parades of shops in Farnley, Drighlington, Gildersome and Wortley, and they do nothing for the shops and businesses in Ardsley, Tingley, Robin Hood and Lofthouse. That is why I cannot support them. I back the businesses in Morley high street, along with all the other small businesses that I represent.

Lords amendments 15,17,18 and 19 would, in effect, reintroduce the tax break for private schools. We have had this argument about private schools at the general election, in the House, in Bill Committees and again today, but as a former maths teacher at a state school in Leeds, I am more than happy to cover old ground to reinforce my own argument. The proposed amendments seek to remove an integral part of the Bill that generates the revenue that we need to support our plans in government. I will make no apologies for supporting the 94% of children who attend state schools. We all—and I include everyone in the House—want children to have the best opportunities in life, with the highest-quality teaching and schools to match. It should be a basic function of the state to provide well-funded, excellent state school places for all students, whether their parents choose to take advantage of that or not.

On the Labour Benches, as we have proven over recent months, we are prepared to take the action necessary to ensure that all children can access through the state the education they deserve. The £70 million raised by the measure in the Bill, alongside the other revenue-raising measures we have taken in the Budget, will result and do result in a real-terms increase in per pupil funding for the 94% who attend our state schools. I am very proud to support that. We will never make any apologies for properly funding state schools by ending the tax breaks that were previously enjoyed by private institutions. That is why I will not be voting for the amendments.

To conclude, I am pleased to support the Bill in its current, unamended form. I will support our high streets. It will give confidence to small businesses and it will give state schools the funding they desperately need.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

I, too, begin by putting on record my thanks to the noble Lords in the other place for all their work on the Bill, in particular those on the Liberal Democrat Benches: Baroness Pinnock, Lord Shipley and Lord Fox.

Business rates reform is long overdue and, while we welcome the proposal to permanently reduce business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure, in the meantime many businesses across my constituency, and indeed the country, are reeling as they see the impact of the reduction in rates relief in bills landing on their doormats. I have heard from a number of businesses just in the past few days. I am really concerned about pubs, restaurants and cafés in my constituency who are wondering how, with the national insurance rise and the reduction in rates relief, they will continue.

The Liberal Democrats would like to see a fundamental overhaul of the business rates system, not just the sticking-plaster solutions proposed in the Bill that tinker around the edges. As I said, lower business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure are a step in the right direction, but there are countless small businesses outside those sectors that need their tax burden reduced too, for example manufacturing businesses. We tabled amendments on Report to improve the Bill and to ensure it gave consideration to whether there should be provision for manufacturing facilities, which can be big and built on expensive land but sometimes produce relatively low-value goods. Lords amendment 4 sought to do the same, whereby manufacturing premises would also pay new lower business rates under the Bill. Without that, light engineering and printers, among other businesses in our town centres’ mixed economies, could be priced out.

A recent report by Barclays bank concluded that the words “made in Britain” were worth an additional £3.5 billion to UK exporters, so it is important that something is done to support the manufacturing sector. We have learnt the hard way in recent years, with the pandemic and wars, that we need to be much more self-sufficient as a country, yet there has been a big drop in confidence in the sector since autumn, with an increase in manufacturers’ costs and orders in general reported to be smaller in size. That comes on top of the additional Brexit red tape that those businesses have to contend with to export. Therefore, we support retaining this amendment in the Bill.

As I have said, we want fundamental reform of business rates so we can boost small businesses and our high streets. We tabled an amendment on Report to require a review of the impact of the Bill on businesses, high streets and economic growth, so we support retaining Lords amendment 13, which would require the Secretary of State to review the impact of the Bill on businesses whose rateable value is close to £500,000 and so will be caught by the new higher business rates.

Turning to our NHS, yet again we see the Government giving with one hand and taking with the other. As with national insurance contributions, so with the business rates changes: there are unintended but significant consequences for our health service. Lords amendment 1 sought to exclude hospitals and other healthcare settings from paying new higher business rates for properties with a rateable of £500,000 or more. Without the amendment, 290 local hospitals will be caught by the rates, an unacceptable new burden when the NHS is already struggling. As my noble Friend Baroness Pinnock pointed out in the other place, without the amendment the likes of Great Ormond Street hospital for children will have an additional burden of £600,000 per year on business rates alone, the John Radcliffe hospital in Oxford has a potential business rates increase from £3.4 million to £4.1 million, and the Hull Royal Infirmary could see its bill rising from £1.8 million to £2.1 million. Those are typical figures for hospitals across the country. I do not believe it is the Government’s intention to reduce hospitals’ abilities to drive down their waiting lists, yet that is exactly what the impact of these changes and the consequent higher charges will be, so we support the amendment.

The Bill also levies a tax on education by removing the business rates exemption for private schools that are charities, a measure that will be compounded by the Government’s move to levy VAT on private school fees and the increase to employers’ national insurance contributions. As I have said many times since the general election—and indeed before—the Liberal Democrats are opposed, in principle, to the taxation of education, as it is a public good. We strongly support and champion parents’ right to choose, on which both those tax measures are an assault.

[Mark Sewards]

Does the hon. Lady not accept that this Government won an election on the basis of a promise that we would introduce VAT on private school fees, so it is incumbent on us to deliver that manifesto pledge?

[Munira Wilson]

I am very grateful for that intervention, because I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that his party won the election with less than 34% of the vote. I cannot remember what the turnout was, but—

--- Later in debate ---

[Munira Wilson]

There we go—basically, not many voters voted for Labour’s manifesto. I will happily let the hon. Gentleman continue to plough that furrow, because I have had that argument made to me before—for instance, in the petitions debate on VAT on private school fees just last week.

[Mark Sewards]

I am incredibly grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way again. The simple fact is that we have the electoral system we have, and it is incumbent on whomever wins a majority to deliver their manifesto pledges to govern the country. She may take issue with the electoral system, but it is the one that we have, and we must deliver our manifesto pledges.

[Munira Wilson]

I respectfully say to the hon. Gentleman that a rise in employers’ national insurance contributions was not in his party’s manifesto, nor was a cut to the winter fuel allowance, nor was the farmers tax, yet these are all things Labour is implementing.

[Mark Sewards]

rose—

[Munira Wilson]

Unless the hon. Gentleman wants to make a different point from his party’s manifesto, which was not voted for by many people, I will not give way, although I will pick up on another point he made earlier.

Clause 5, which implements the removal of charitable rate relief for private schools, undermines the principle that I referred to: we should not be taxing education, and we should respect parents’ right to choose. The clause will undermine the ability of independent schools to undertake the brilliant partnership work that they do in our communities and with state schools. I have talked many times in this place of Lady Eleanor Holles and Hampton schools in my constituency, which have done amazing work with underprivileged communities in the Feltham area, such as with Reach academy, and helped to transform the life chances and outcomes for young people in that community. The measure will also limit those schools’ abilities to extend bursaries to children from more disadvantaged backgrounds.

--- Later in debate ---

As a result, many state schools across the country, which are already feeling the pinch, will have a shortfall in funds. Schools in my constituency already run Amazon wish lists for things such as glue sticks, whiteboard markers and tissue boxes. They are relying on Parent Teacher Associations to buy new furniture. Our state schools are already struggling, but the money that the hon. Member says will be raised will not go to them; they will not be funded sufficiently. Therefore, this nirvana of state schools that he claims we will have simply does not exist.

[Mark Sewards]

The hon. Member has been very generous with her time. On the points that she made about funds for state schools and about the other difficult decisions that this Government have had to make, does she not accept that when we came to power, we found an economy that had been absolutely ruined by the Conservative party? We found every Department in reserves and a £22 billion black hole that had to be filled, because we are the party of economic responsibility.

[Munira Wilson]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. Where we can make common cause is over the absolute mess in which the Conservatives left both our public services and our economy. I have no quibble in agreeing with him on that point. We Liberal Democrats set out a whole series of tax measures—actually we were the only party that was not afraid to put forward revenue-raising measures—but his Government are choosing not to accept any of them. They included taxing our big tech giants that are ruining the mental health of our children and young people—[Interruption.] Yes, in fact, they are planning to slash that tax altogether. We also suggested reversing the tax cuts that the Conservatives gave to the big banks, so that we can continue putting free school meals on the table for children, which, again, his Government are thinking of cutting. Then we suggested reforming capital gains tax—