Free School Meals

Debate between Stephen Morgan and Emma Lewell

Thursday 5th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Morgan]

The hon. Gentleman sets out the current position and what has happened in the past. What we are announcing today will lift more children out of poverty, because more children will be eligible for free school meals. He makes a number of points on breakfast clubs; obviously, we are committed to rolling out the clubs to every primary school in the country. I would be delighted to meet him to hear his particular thoughts and views on how that can make the biggest difference in his constituency.

[Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)]

Hungry children do not learn, so I thank the Government for listening to those of us who have long campaigned for this announcement. This Government’s reforms are starting to put more money into people’s pockets, tackling the root causes of poverty, but they will take time to bed in—time that hungry children simply do not have. The Minister knows that poverty is all-encompassing and extends well beyond the school day. Will he give the 470,000 children affected by the cruel two-child benefit cap some hope today that the Government are seriously considering scrapping the cap, and considering scrapping it very soon?

[Stephen Morgan]

As my hon. Friend knows, this Government are determined to bring down child poverty. This is a complex area that we need to get right, and it is not for me to comment on particular speculation at the moment. Extensive work is ongoing on the child poverty strategy, which will be published later this year, and an update in the House will be provided in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Stephen Morgan and Emma Lewell

Tuesday 10th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

4. What steps he is taking to support victims in the criminal justice system.

[Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)]

20. What steps he is taking to support victims in the criminal justice system.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill (Eighth sitting)

Debate between Stephen Morgan and Emma Lewell

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 8th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 20th October 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Stephen Morgan]

I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I am looking at the transcript of the evidence given by the Royal British Legion, in which it said:

“‘Can we achieve those aims without disadvantaging service personnel?’ If we can do both, both should be done.”––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 8 October 2020; c. 89, Q168.]

It welcomed the intent behind the Bill and believed that it could “be improved.” No Labour Member is against the Bill per se; we are against part 2. We are trying to improve the Bill as the Royal British Legion suggested. I do not understand why the Minister does not grasp that.

[Stephen Morgan]

I thank my hon. Friend for the intervention. She hits the nail on the head: we want to work constructively with the Government to get the Bill right. Sadly, we are not seeing that engagement, and that concerns us. Are Ministers not concerned that the very Bill they claim is devised to help our armed forces is said to be doing the very opposite by an organisation as distinguished as the Royal British Legion?

We heard from other important witnesses. The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, a not-for-profit organisation representing injured serving and ex-service personnel, said:

“This Bill leaves our veterans with less rights than prisoners.”

I will repeat that because it is so important:

“This Bill leaves our veterans with less rights than prisoners.”

That is a damning verdict delivered by lawyers who devote their lives to representing our troops. Our armed forces serve the nation with distinction. They deserve more than to have their rights stripped away.

I say to the Minister: do not dismiss the warnings of the legion and APIL; work with us to address them.

Let us take a closer look at what part 2 means. The Limitation Act 1980 results in the armed forces community and civilians being treated equally in seeking a claim for personal injury. A three-year cut-off point is in place. The courts retain the right to grant an extension to forces personnel. Section 33 provides the court with discretion to override the current three-year limit, but this Bill deliberately snatches courts’ ability to show discretion if the case relates to an overseas armed forces action. It makes a deliberate change to the Limitation Act. That makes no sense. There are already structures in place to ensure that only appropriate claims are brought. Courts routinely manage out-of-time proceedings and frequently throw out cases where delay is unjustified. The detailed criteria set out in the Limitation Act 1980 already address cases that do not have reasonable grounds or are unjustified. Why is the Minister actively removing an aspect of the Limitation Act that offers courts the right to grant an extension in cases relating to armed forces personnel?