Lola McEvoy MP: speeches

Speeches

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Would my hon. Friend mind elaborating on the detail of the transferring of medical records? It is my understanding that someone can request their own medical records as a patient.

• 13 May 2025 · Defence Industries: North-East · Hansard source

  More

  This Government are absolutely determined to reset public procurement for SMEs. In places such as Darlington, we have fantastic SMEs that employ local people, drive local growth, have great terms and conditions, and are a source of local pride. For too long, those SMEs have been missing out because they do not have the bandwidth on a day-to-day basis to put in bids for these contracts, let alone to then offer huge incentives and massive savings, as some of the bigger clients and players in the field can. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be great to hear from the Minister about the work that she is doing with the Cabinet Office to strengthen public procurement, and to make sure that public money gets into our communities in Darlington?

• 13 May 2025 · Defence Industries: North-East · Hansard source

  More

  In my Darlington constituency, we have a fantastic engineering firm called Cummins. I recently visited the plant, and I want to bring hon. Members’ attention to the fact that they have automated a lot of their processes and, in doing so, have grown their workforce. They have upskilled, reskilled and hired more on the basis of bringing in new technologies. That kind of employment practice is second to none, and we want more of that across our region. As I am sure my hon. Friend would agree, our values around hard graft mean that we are ripe for more defence and manufacturing investment.

• 6 May 2025 · Parking Regulation · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. The issue we are addressing today is symptomatic of a country where people who have done everything right are being burdened and bullied by a system that is weighted against them. I want to use this debate to tell the stories of some of my constituents in Darlington, and to outline why I am urging the Government to take action to regulate the private parking industry. The reason people are so enraged by this issue is because it is a microcosm of people’s broader experiences. What was once an ordinary, day-to-day, unremarkable occurrence has been allowed, through the incompetence of the last Government, to become a truly unacceptable experience for ordinary people. While many simply pay the fine, for a lot of people in Darlington an unexpected bill of £170 really affects their budget. I pay tribute to the people who have shared their stories; it has helped me greatly in my conversations with Ministers, colleagues and the companies. Each of the 140 people who have reached out to me since I was elected has been treated unfairly, and I am confident that they are just the tip of the iceberg nationally. I am convinced that we absolutely must regulate private parking companies, and that action is long overdue. The car park that the majority of my constituents have complained about is situated right next to the Darlington Economic Campus, which houses the Treasury. While I was visiting that car park in my first week, a man using a wheelchair was trying to use the machine to pay for his parking. It had taken him longer than five minutes to get to the machine, so he had missed the window to pay without a fine. He was rightly shocked and angry about the unfairness of the rule. The fact that I witnessed him getting caught out in real time convinced me, there and then, that this was happening so frequently that something had to be done. Ten months later, the five-minute rule has been stopped, but we need to go further to protect people. We need proper reporting, proper regulation and an independent ombudsman for appeals, and we need it quickly. Many Members will be familiar with the story of Hannah Robinson. She received a staggering £11,000 in parking fines from a single company across 67 tickets. In every case, she paid for her parking. Her only fault was that she did not do it within the five-minute window set by the operator. Often that was not even possible. Machines did not work, phonelines were unresponsive and the internet signal was too poor to pay online. The five-minute rule has now rightly been banned following campaigning efforts by MPs such as my hon. Friends the Members for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) and for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson), whom I have been proud to work alongside. However, Hannah and others like her should never have been charged in the first place, or dragged through legal proceedings or forced to fight ruthless companies to prove they had done nothing wrong. Another Darlington resident, Kim, had her life completely knocked off course for parking in the same facility. Like Hannah, she paid for her parking but was unable to do so immediately because of technical issues. She was sent a £170 charge, but she never received the letters. Completely unaware of the issue, she received a county court judgment. Her credit score collapsed. She and her partner were both working full time, doing the right thing, and were blocked from getting a mortgage. The fact of the matter remains: we must take action on this issue, as it is long overdue.

• 6 May 2025 · Parking Regulation · Hansard source

  More

  On the appeals process, constituents across the country are attending court to find that their hearing has been cancelled by the company at the last minute. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is a waste of their time and a waste of the court’s time?

• 6 May 2025 · Parking Regulation · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that the sheer volume of parking tickets could be having an impact on people’s desire to visit our high streets and town centres, as they worry about parking without getting fined?

• 6 May 2025 · Parking Regulation · Hansard source

  More

  In Darlington, there are car parks with no signal, so people have to go outside to download the app, log into it and then pay for their parking, by which point they have often incurred a charge. Does my hon. Friend agree that in our code, we should include the provision of multiple payment methods in every car park?

• 23 Apr 2025 · Hospitals · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for giving way on his point about how brilliant our NHS staff are. First, will he commend my dad for his 40 years’ service badge as an NHS staff member? That has to be put on the record. Secondly, does my hon. Friend agree that the Government are laser-focused on supporting NHS staff to stay in the NHS, work their way up the ranks and lead a fulfilling career in serving our constituents?

• 22 Apr 2025 · British Steel · Hansard source

  More

  I put on record how proud I am to be sat on the Benches of the Government who are finally taking action to save the steel industry in this country. In my constituency, tens of thousands of people have steel engineering and manufacturing running through their blood. We are proud of that history, and we really want to contribute to a green, clean industrial future. When Ministers have big discussions about investment, and meet great businesses that want a place in which to invest, I ask them to consider Darlington and the Tees valley—a fruitful land full of people who know the value of hard graft.

• 12 Apr 2025 · Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that home-made steel is the fire in the belly of this country’s industrial strategy, and that without steel being made on our shores to the highest quality, we are weaker? Today’s Bill—a Labour Bill—will guarantee the future of steelmaking in our country, which is essential.

• 24 Mar 2025 · Support for Veterans · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister meet me, and other members of the all-party parliamentary group for the armed forces, to discuss rolling out the best practice of some fire authorities to give those who have served our country automatic interviews for relevant roles in the public sector? It is a brilliant idea that would really benefit my constituents, and I think that all those who have gone above and beyond to serve our country should be served by all of us upon their return.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Welfare Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the reforms outlined today and the commitment to make sure that our most vulnerable disabled people are protected from these changes. In Darlington, we know the value of work, but I have come across constituents with learning difficulties who have been out of work for a long time. They have been in work placements and could work, but they were badly bullied and have been scarred by 14 years of rhetoric about how they are workshy. What reassurances can the Secretary of State give that they will be offered safe and secure work placements?

• 17 Mar 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Member knows where I stand and my views on this issue. Will he outline what has changed since February 2024, when he said no to a ban on phones in schools, but reserved the right to issue statutory guidance—

• 11 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend, who has great expertise in this area, is making an eloquent speech. Does she agree that dismissals of pregnant women or new mothers are dramatically under-reported because of the use of non-disclosure agreements in a lot of companies while they are taking action against them?

• 11 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a proud trade union member and in my career, I have campaigned for more rights for support staff and teaching assistants in schools, for better bargaining rights for care workers, for people to have contracts that affect the hours they work and for statutory sick pay from day one. I am proud that the Bill will deliver all those things—and much more—for working people up and down the country. I rise to speak to the issue of parental leave, which has come up in relation to many amendments and in contributions from Members across the House. Since I was elected in July, I have spoken three times in the Chamber about the terrible inequality around dads’ rights and paternity pay, including in my maiden speech during the International Men’s Day debate and again in the debate on this Bill in last October. I therefore welcome the clauses that support dads’ rights and will encourage more men to take their paternity leave entitlements.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the shadow Minister give way?

• 7 Mar 2025 · Protection of Children (Digital Safety and Data Protection) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The online world has lots of moving parts, and it is really hard for legislators to keep up. We are already lagging way behind where we need to be. What we need—I will address this later in my speech—is a dynamic risk assessment, so that when new innovations come online and we see children using them, they will be risk assessed in real time and children will be prevented from coming to harm. On marketing to children, obviously that needs to be kept in line with new societal trends to protect children from being targeted for sales. That is quite clear. I stand by the measures in the Bill, and I am confident that this is not the end of this campaign. My hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington and I first met when, as candidates for the Labour party, we were both shocked at how cross-cutting an issue children’s safety online was for our constituents. When he asked me to be a co-sponsor of the Bill, I said, “Of course,” but I asked him to engage with Bereaved Families for Online Safety, as I had heard about the group’s work and had huge respect for them. He agreed and we invited them to Parliament. The argument that there is a moral panic over children’s online safety is utterly offensive. I cannot overstate how upsetting it is for people in that group and around the country who have serious concerns about their children’s safety online. I want to put on the record in this Chamber my unequivocal support and respect for that group and for parents across the country who have lost their children. Their stories are all the evidence I need to know that we as a Government must go further. Ellen Roome, Jools Sweeney’s mother, has been campaigning for the right of bereaved parents to have access to their children’s accounts in the event of their death, to search for answers. I strongly support a further amendment to the Data (Use and Access) Bill to make it automatic that, in the case of a sudden unexplained death of a child, Ofcom is notified immediately and a data notice is sent to regulated online platforms to freeze the child’s accounts from deletion. That would prevent any other parents from having to go through the awful process that Ellen has had to endure to try to find answers. I urge the platforms that have been contacted by Ellen and other bereaved families: please engage and adhere to their requests for the children’s data. These people have lost their children. Do the decent thing and help them find answers.

• 7 Mar 2025 · Protection of Children (Digital Safety and Data Protection) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister). It has been an honour to work alongside him on this crucial issue. Tackling children’s online safety in our country is a diamond issue—it is rare, it is popular, it is tough—and getting it right will deliver on what is our most precious responsibility: the protection of our children. As a society, we have a duty to protect our children from predators, from each other, from themselves and from harm. The contrast between the reasons not to legislate further and the reasons to take action now could not be starker. The argument is won: we must go further than the current reading of the Online Safety Act to protect our children’s right to a safe and healthy childhood. I am going to use my time on the Floor of the House in this debate to talk a little bit about why I care about the issue, the work that has already been done, and then how we need to go further and act now. A long, long, long time ago, I was 11-years-old and “Titanic” the movie was coming out. I am sure hon. Members all remember that it was a huge box office hit. I was desperate to see it, but it was rated 12 and, as an 11-year-old, my parents told me that I was not allowed. I loved drama, history and Leonardo DiCaprio, and I was incensed at the injustice that I was not allowed to watch it, because of all my friends were—outrageous! I gave my parents hell on the issue. I tried every persuasion technique available and I still was not allowed. Now, I still love history and drama—Leo less so—but the reason I am talking about this is because I was not really upset about not being able to see the film; I was scared of being left out from my peer group. This is the key issue that parents bring up in Darlington. They say to me so frequently that the pressure to give their child a smartphone, when they are not sure if they are safe, is overwhelming. It is time for us to help them to answer some of their questions. They need stronger legislation and guidance from Government about what is safe for their children to do online. Should their children be allowed a phone? If so, when? Should they post pics of them online? Should they be allowed to use the chats on games? Should they be allowed social media profiles? Should they limit their screen time? Those are all questions that require answers and parents want them from us. Parents, as we know, will always know what is best for their children, but children often disagree with parenting styles. That can be a cause of contention in peer groups in schools, and it can be a clash of values, among many other things. That is normal. The issue is not about parenting styles and choices, because, as we have heard today from everybody’s contributions, parents are united across the country that they need more action and guidance from legislators. Over the course of this campaign, I have become convinced, without any reasonable doubt, that more legislation is needed, that the public support that, that Ofcom’s reading of the Online Safety Act is unnecessarily narrow, and that the first iterations of the children’s codes that are coming out are not strong enough to protect our children. It is accepted that even the strongest legislation will take time to bed in and will be imperfect, so let us go further now. I want to lay out the reasons why I still support the measures proposed in the original Bill from my dear and hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington. The first measure is should children have phones in schools? Teachers do not think so, children know they should not, and evidence from schools where phones are banned has seen sickness absence in teachers reduce, attendance in children go up and behaviour improve. When I was elected, I started an online safety forum in Darlington with two children from year 10 in every school in the town. I brought them all together and asked them what the big issues were for them. They said that peer-to-peer bullying, exacerbated by the use of smartphones in and outside of school and their online activity, was far and away the biggest issue. They told me that people were using their phones to film each other and then sending the videos around, attacking and bullying each other, and it was causing a big mental health issue. It is hard to argue against the rationale that schools should be for learning.

• 7 Mar 2025 · Protection of Children (Digital Safety and Data Protection) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It has been very interesting to be part of this campaign, and I think there is a lot more to do. There are other areas that we must urgently take action on, from going forwards with the second iteration of the children’s code to ensure that functionalities are included, to upgrading the requirement for risk assessments to make them more dynamic and supporting bereaved families. To conclude, I am incredibly grateful to all those who have supported the Bill—to my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington for his incredible work, to Ben Kingsley for his excellent expertise, and to my wonderful constituents in Darlington, who have put me here to represent them, improve their lives and help them to protect their children. This Christmas just gone, I was at a carol concert at the Crown Street library in Darlington, and a man tapped me on the shoulder, pointed at his beautiful child, who was looking up at me and beaming, and said, “Keep going on the online safety. You’re doing it for her.” I am, and I will continue to do so. I urge our Government to get on with it and to take as much action as we reasonably can within the timeframe that we have.

• 7 Mar 2025 · Protection of Children (Digital Safety and Data Protection) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  That is exactly the case. Being 14 is hard. Being at school is tough. There has always been bullying, and it is unreasonable and unrealistic to say that we, as legislators, will completely eradicate it. But children used to be able to go home and be protected from what was going on at school, and that is no longer the case. We have to do everything we can to give them some time off their phones in school. I believe there is no case for children to have their smartphones in schools, and I think most teachers and headteachers agree. The next point that the Bill addresses is increasing the age of digital consent from 13 to 16. That is absolutely necessary. Children deserve a right to anonymity throughout their childhood, and a right not to have a digital footprint when they come of age. I absolutely support the lifting of the age of digital consent from 13 to 16—the sooner we do that, the better. I cannot fathom how there is any argument that children should be exposed to addictive-by-design algorithms and content on social media. I do not know who would possibly argue that that was a good idea. Our job is to protect children.

• 26 Feb 2025 · Online Safety Act: Implementation · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I pay tribute to the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) for his exceptional work and for his collegiate approach to this issue. In the interests of time, I will dive straight into the detail of what Ofcom is at risk of failing on in the implementation of its children’s safety codes. As a trade union organiser, I know more than most about risk assessments and how they can be used in practice to protect people. A static risk assessment, as is required by the Act, will be used to assess the risk at that point in time; there will be a legal requirement to update or check that assessment within a year of its first iterance. A static risk assessment will assess the risk broadly, and if the online platforms adhere to the assessment, they will be in keeping with the legislation and will be given safe harbour, as has already been covered. That is not sufficient for the cohort of people using the platform at this time. The protection of children codes that are being published in April must require the use of a dynamic risk assessment. Dynamic risk assessment is used by the Ministry of Defence, the NHS and several other work environments where the cohort they work with is vulnerable or at risk of injury or harm, and/or where the staff are at risk of injury from the work they do. Dynamic risk assessments are updated in real time. If the risk cannot be mitigated in real time, the activity must be stopped. I cannot fathom why these assessments are not being incorporated in the first iterance of the children’s codes. They would require the platforms to act in real time when they see children coming to harm, engaging in harmful behaviours or being exposed to harmful content. We know that myriad problems will arise when the codes are implemented. I believe strongly that if a dynamic risk assessment is included for those who say that they have children on their platforms, children will be safer in real time. This is important not only because a dynamic risk assessment is enhanced, but because it makes sure that there is a point person responsible for that work. A point person at the platforms is already included in the Online Safety Act, responsible for being in touch with the Government and Ofcom and for implementing the measures in the Act. A DRA would mean that there was a responsible point person looking in real time to protect children. That is the first point. I have several other points to make, but only a tiny amount of time. First, it is clear to me that functionalities should be included in the scope of the Act. I have spoken to Ofcom and to the platforms about it. The platforms are already including functionalities in their preliminary risk assessments, so their reading of the Act is that functionalities must be included. If they are going further already, I do not know why Ofcom would not stipulate that they continue to do so. Ofcom’s desire to include a toggle on and off mechanism for some of the functionalities is not sufficient to protect children because, as many of us who have been involved in these debates for a long time know, children will just switch them on. It is not sufficient to have a default off option either. I will also touch on Jools’ law. As we have previously discussed in the Chamber, we need an amendment to make sure that in the tragic event of a child's death, a notice is automatically issued to the regulated online platforms to freeze the child’s accounts to protect them from deletion and to protect the data for the families going through an inquest. I pay tribute to the bereaved families who have worked on this. Finally, on timing, we have heard that any changes to the codes will delay implementation. I do not agree with that.

• 26 Feb 2025 · Online Safety Act: Implementation · Hansard source

  More

  Will the consultation this spring for the next iterations of the codes include consultation with parliamentarians, or is it solely with platforms?

• 26 Feb 2025 · Online Safety Act: Implementation · Hansard source

  More

  On implementation, would the Minister give clarity about the watermark for re-consultation and the point of delay of implementing the children’s codes under the Act? Amendments could be made to the children’s codes and I do not think they would trigger an automatic re-consultation with platforms. Could the Minister elaborate on where the delay would come from and how much scope Parliament has to amend those codes, which will be published in April?

• 24 Feb 2025 · Social Media Use: Minimum Age · Hansard source

  More

  I fully support what my hon. Friend says. Lots of parents in Darlington have said that although the default setting may be that children cannot access chat rooms on games or a more violent version of a game—because it is not just the phones and devices, but what they are accessing on those devices that really matters—they just lose the battle. When it comes to the crunch and their child is arguing that they want to go on the device and they are going to have a tantrum, they just allow them to go on it. Parents need more support from us as legislators, which is basically my point. Children should be able to enjoy games and access safe and engaging educational content. Platforms should not be allowed to target them with suggested content. That is where the problems are coming in—with suggested content, children are exposed to harmful and unhealthy things. Platforms should have children-safe search engines, and features including live location and chat rooms should be designed to be transparent and child-friendly, with their safety at their heart. Accessing certain social media features, such as chatting with adults who they do not know or sharing content, should be solely for those who have been strictly age-verified as over 16.