Mary Kelly Foy MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 9 Dec 2025 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am pleased to speak about a matter that is so important to my constituents. For too long, our railway has been held back by fragmentation, competing interests, and a lack of clear accountability. By bringing services back into public hands and creating Great British Railways, the Bill gives us the opportunity to plan, run and improve the railway as a single coherent system. For my constituents, a key priority is reliability. People want trains that turn up when they are meant to, connections that they can trust, and information on which they can rely. A unified, public operator, with responsibility for timetabling, infrastructure and service delivery, gives us the best chance of reducing disruption and building a network that works consistently, day in and day out. A strengthened public railway also depends on the people who operate it. The workforce is essential to improving reliability and delivering a better experience to passengers. Staff deserve clarity about how, and if, the transition to GBR will affect their jobs. If we want a well-run railway, we must support the people who maintain the tracks, staff the stations and run the trains. I ask Ministers to continue the constructive dialogue with trade unions, in order to ensure that the employment conditions of their members are protected during the creation of GBR and into the future. The need for a more co-ordinated railway has been brought into sharp focus in Durham recently. London North Eastern Railway’s proposed timetable changes would have removed important morning commuter services on which many local residents rely. I worked closely with local people to challenge those plans, and I welcome the progress that has been made, but the experience showed how vulnerable local connectivity can be when decisions are made in isolation, or via flawed consultation processes. Communities must have certainty that key links will be protected, strengthened, and not placed at risk. The Bill gives us a chance to build a railway that is more reliable, better connected, and more focused on meeting public need. I support it strongly, and I look forward to working with Ministers to ensure that, as it progresses, it delivers the improvements that passengers in Durham expect, and the support that rail workers deserve—including my niece Kate, who has just started her training with Northern Rail. I look forward to her getting me to King’s Cross and back to Durham on time, and safely, in the future.

• 18 Nov 2025 · Warm Home Discount: Fuel Poverty · Hansard source

  More

  8. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of extending the warm home discount on levels of fuel poverty.

• 18 Nov 2025 · Warm Home Discount: Fuel Poverty · Hansard source

  More

  The Government’s extension of the warm home discount to 6 million households to combat fuel poverty was a welcome move. However, the current discount rate of £150 has stalled for a decade, not rising in proportion to energy prices. The average energy debt per person seen by Citizens Advice County Durham is in the region of £500, but advisers have seen several at £2,000-plus recently. Does the Minister agree with me and my colleagues at Citizens Advice County Durham that to truly provide transformational support as well as reduced debt levels in the energy sector, the Government should top up the scheme and reform the warm home discount so that it provides more tailored support?

• 18 Nov 2025 · Gaza and Sudan · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement, and for her ongoing efforts to pursue peace. The rebuilding of Gaza must be Palestinian-led. Civil society and communities in Gaza have led the efforts on the frontline in the face of two years of genocide and decades of Israeli siege, occupation and military violence. They are the leaders, the experts, and the only ones who can determine their future. Does the Foreign Secretary accept that any initiative that bypasses Palestinians in Gaza in favour of externally imposed initiatives will always fail?

• 11 Nov 2025 · Prison Officers: Pension Age · Hansard source

  More

  9. What recent assessment he has made of the potential merits of lowering the pension age of prison officers.

• 11 Nov 2025 · Prison Officers: Pension Age · Hansard source

  More

  The prison officers association recently launched its “68 is Too Late” pensions report, based on the largest member survey in POA history. The report is a heartbreaking read: prison officers describe how unrealistic and, frankly, cruel it is to expect them to walk the landings until they are almost 70 years old and the effect that it has on morale. There are three prisons in Durham, so I often hear support for this important campaign. Does the Minister accept that at the heart of the prisons crisis, there is a crisis in how prison staff are treated by the state, and that resolving the pensions crisis should be a top priority for any Government who are serious about fixing our jails?

• 3 Nov 2025 · Huntingdon Train Attack · Hansard source

  More

  Of course, my first thoughts are with the victims of this horrific attack. The RMT union has called for urgent meetings with the Government, police and the industry to ensure that we have the strongest resources and procedures in place to protect staff and passengers. Can the Home Secretary confirm that the Department for Transport and the Home Office will facilitate those meetings as soon as possible?

• 14 Oct 2025 · Net Zero: Evidence-based Policy · Hansard source

  More

  This Government’s mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower is not only delivering against climate targets, but delivering jobs and investment in places like Durham and the wider north-east, where around 500 renewable energy companies already employ around 17,000 people in good-quality jobs—a figure that is set to rise to 24,000. Those who take a stand against climate action would put that growth at risk. Does the Secretary of State share my concerns that the fearmongering by some in this House about the cost and safety of renewables is not only misguided, but fundamentally against our national interests, and will he work with local teams to provide suitable knowledge and education, as suggested by Retrofit Reimagined?

• 14 Oct 2025 · Net Zero: Evidence-based Policy · Hansard source

  More

  1. What steps he is taking to ensure scientific evidence is used to support his net zero policies.

• 14 Oct 2025 · Child Risk Disclosure Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. Maya’s tragic story has touched many people across the north-east. I am pleased to support the family’s campaign. As my hon. Friend mentioned, one key ask from the family is the disclosure of information about wider caregivers. The recurring theme of serious case reviews into child deaths is that agencies have not worked together as they should. Does she agree that, for this law to be effective, there needs to be a laser focus on ensuring that statutory agencies genuinely work together?

• 11 Sept 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I had the pleasure of meeting Fergus, Freddie and Michael, members of the band Jam Tub, on a recent visit to Framwellgate school in Durham. These musicians are passionate about contributing to Durham’s cultural vibrancy, performing at events such as the much-loved Durham fringe festival. They contacted me after they noticed a distinct lack of venues across the whole of County Durham for young bands to perform and practice in, limiting their opportunities to grow as musicians. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate in Government time on the importance of addressing regional cultural inequalities that are having an impact on the opportunities available to talented youngsters not just in Durham, but across the country?

• 11 Sept 2025 · Regional Transport Inequality · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak in a really important debate on regional transport inequality. For too long, communities in the north-east have suffered the effects of chronic underinvestment in transport and the flawed legacy of privatisation. What should be a public service has instead become a patchwork system that too often fails local people. On the railways, the proposed LNER timetable risks cutting vital stops at Durham. For many that would mean unnecessary changes at York or Newcastle. For older people, disabled passengers and those travelling with children, that creates real barriers and makes our railways less accessible at a time when they should be opening up. Buses tell a similar story. In Brandon, Ushaw Moor, Waterhouses and Newton Hall, people depend on services from Arriva and Go North East, yet complaints reach my inbox every week. The X20 from Langley Park to Sunderland and the 43 from Esh Winning to Durham are both unreliable, and in some villages buses simply do not run at all on Sundays or bank holidays. Too often, our area is left with the oldest buses, prone to breaking down, while the newest vehicles serve the routes in Newcastle and Sunderland. Although funding for new bus stops is welcome, my constituents ask what good they are when the services to go with them are not reliable. There are workforce challenges too. A shortage of engineers causes delays, when our further education colleges could be supported to provide apprenticeships and skills. Locating a depot in Consett, where bad weather frequently disrupts operations, has only added to problems. Another issue is that our drivers in the region are paid less than colleagues in the north-west by the exact same companies—hardly a recipe for recruitment or retention. All that reflects the wider picture of years of underinvestment and inequality. Had the north received the same per person transport spending as London since 2009, we would have had £140 billion more—enough to transform the system. Instead, nearly a fifth of rural bus routes have vanished in just five years, deepening isolation for many.

• 11 Sept 2025 · Regional Transport Inequality · Hansard source

  More

  I could not agree more. Although we may improve our bus services and the types of modern buses we have, they are not accessible in all areas, and that is a huge inequality. The Government’s Bus Services (No. 2) Bill is a chance to put this right. With franchising, fair pay and investment in modern vehicles, we can build a system that works for passengers, supports jobs and meets our climate goals. Reliable and affordable public transport should not be a luxury; it is the foundation of a fair economy and connected communities. My constituents in the City of Durham deserve no less. They deserve a transport service that serves local people, not profit, and Ministers must act to deliver it.

• 11 Sept 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  My constituents have been very vocal about their opposition to the LNER timetable changes from December, including the removal of the 8.22 am commuter service from Durham to Newcastle on weekdays. LNER assured me that it would replace it with a similar service, but reports this week suggest that the service will now take an extra 10 minutes, arriving at 8.44. That is not an equivalent service. Will the Minister meet me and LNER to ensure that commuters leaving Durham are provided with an equivalent service?

• 2 Sept 2025 · Defibrillators · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my colleague and neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth), for securing this important debate. Nearly half the postcodes in my constituency are not within easy reach of a defibrillator. That is not just a statistic, as we have heard; it is the difference between life and death. We know that when a defibrillator is used within three to five minutes of cardiac arrest, survival chances rise from just 8% to more than 70%, yet too often communities in Durham are left without timely access. This inequality is compounded by cost. Community groups, sports clubs and small businesses fundraising for devices face average VAT bills of £500 per defib. That is an unnecessary barrier to saving lives, so I join colleagues in urging the Government to look at abolishing the so-called heart restart tax. One organisation that has done magnificent work in helping to get defibs into key locations across our region is Rotary North East, which has installed more than 100, including in Durham city centre. The work it does, particularly the work of my constituent Tom Sharples, has genuinely saved lives in the north east. Not only has Tom worked to roll out defibs across the region, in conjunction with our brilliant police community support officers for Brandon and Brancepeth, Paul and Dan, but he has invested his time in delivering training sessions for young people in those communities. Following the harrowing scenes during the 2020 Euros, when Christian Eriksen suffered a cardiac arrest on the pitch, I became determined to improve lifesaving equipment. I supported the roll-out of CPR training for young people across my constituency. In 2021, I led a campaign that helped bring about a change in Football Association policy. Since then, all new FA-funded facilities must have a defibrillator as standard. That was an important step forward, but it is only part of the solution. Every day, 80 to 90 people die from cardiac arrest outside hospital, and many of those lives could have been saved. Wider availability of defibs would save lives, reduce pressure on our ambulance service and prevent the devastating long-term impact of brain injury and loss that follows so many of these cases. I urge the Government to act to close the defibrillator gap, end the postcode lottery and give every community, including mine in the City of Durham, the fair access that they deserve.

• 22 Jul 2025 · Orgreave Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  As one who represents a constituency in the heart of the Durham coalfield, I recognise the pressing need for an inquiry into the events that occurred at the Orgreave plant on 18 June 1984, and, like others, I send a huge thank you to the members of the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign, who have worked for decades for this moment. Does the Minister share my frustration at the length of time it has taken the House to invoke such a crucial inquiry, and will she commit herself to investigating the role and involvement of central Government in the planning and instruction on how to allocate resources—financial and otherwise—in the lead-up to, during and after that day at the height of the 1984-85 miners’ strike in Rotherham?

• 16 Jul 2025 · Commemoration of Matchgirls’ Strike · Hansard source

  More

  This is an important debate, and I thank my hon. Friend so much for securing it. The matchgirls’ strike played a really important part in the whole of labour history and the struggles of women. In Durham, we had the Durham Women Against Pit Closures, who sustained the miners in their strike. They joined the picket lines and were key figures in their areas, and they are still around today—we saw them last week at the gala. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is so important that the struggles of women of the past are remembered, and that they empower women of the future?

• 16 Jul 2025 · Commemoration of Matchgirls’ Strike · Hansard source

  More

  Will my hon. Friend congratulate those from Redhills in County Durham, the home of the Pitman’s Parliament—and where I have my office—which has been given money for a huge refurbishment to make it into a living heritage site? The Redhills building will provide young people with an education about what happened in the past, but will also, by showing them how to live out their heritage of the struggles of the mining communities, empower them to go on and fight as the men and women in the north-east did before them. It will be open to the public in the autumn, but I want to congratulate them on the wonderful thing they have done.

• 1 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I speak on behalf of the hundreds of desperate people in Durham and beyond, as well as the dozens of organisations, who have contacted me with concerns about the Bill. I am sure that many Members across the House, not least those of us in areas that have been decimated over the last three decades, will agree that there is a need to reform the social security system and to support people to stay in and get back into work. We have been told that the purpose of the review of PIP is to ensure that the benefit is fair and fit for the future, and that it will be co-produced with disabled people and the organisations that represent them. But what is fair about us being asked to vote on changes when the terms of reference of the review were only announced yesterday? I popped out earlier for a banana, and when I came back in, things had changed again, so I am even more unclear of what I am voting on. As we have heard, the proposals are so unfair. They will create a two-tier system of social security. Someone who fell ill earlier this year will have the support they have always had, but woe betide those who fall ill later this year or next year. How can we be asked to vote for a system that, rather than penalising everyone for being ill, has been tweaked to only penalise people based on when they got ill—or, in fact, they get more ill, as anyone reporting a change in circumstances will be caught up in these changes? Every organisation I have spoken to, including at my recent expert roundtable event in Durham, agrees that the changes to PIP will have a bigger impact on the north-east than almost any other region in the country. This is not a level playing field. The scale of ill health is 50% higher in the north than in the south. The north-east has a higher rate of people living with a disability than any other region. The “Ageing in the North” report recently published by the Northern Health Science Alliance and Health Equity North suggests that in the south, people leaving the job market later on in life overwhelmingly retire; in the north, they leave due to ill health. The impact that these changes will have on individuals, communities and the economy in the north-east will be huge, regardless of any recent concessions. Again, we are being asked to vote on proposals before any meaningful consultation with disability charities and organisations has taken place, and without a regional impact assessment being carried out. Let us remember that PIP is an in-work benefit. For many, it provides them with the support they need to stay in work. If people are caught up in these changes or claim after they are introduced, it will be much harder for them to stay in work. If we vote for this Bill, we will be knowingly leaving vulnerable people without the support they need to live dignified, independent lives, free from poverty, when we should be supporting and championing the rights of disabled people, their carers and their families. As the parent of a daughter, Maria, who lived her life with a severe disability, I empathise with all those who are unlikely to undertake meaningful or secure employment because of their disability and to experience the dignity that so many people in work enjoy. Even if someone cannot contribute economically to society, they still deserve dignity. They still deserve to be treated with respect and to feel of value in society, no matter how they are able to contribute. I joined the Labour party 30 years ago to be on the side of the poor and the weak. This Bill penalises those with the weakest shoulders. That is not what I was elected for, and it is not what this Labour Government were elected for. I plead with colleagues again: pause this process, start again and do it the right way—do it the Labour way.

• 30 Jun 2025 · Road Safety Powers: Parish and Town Councils · Hansard source

  More

  rose —

• 30 Jun 2025 · Road Safety Powers: Parish and Town Councils · Hansard source

  More

  Highway safety is something that I have been working on for a number of years, particularly with the communities of the A167 in Durham, Lowes Barn Bank, Toll House Road and Neville’s Cross. In particular, Shincliffe has 40% of all fatalities and road accidents in City of Durham. People have been told again and again that nothing can or will be done, despite the fact that other areas with fewer road accidents are seeing road improvements. Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the biggest barriers to road improvements in County Durham is the arbitrary and rather baffling decisions of County Durham council highways department?

• 18 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak in support of new clause 25, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter). It seeks to repeal the unnecessary and arbitrary police powers introduced via the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which introduced new powers to seize the homes of Gypsy and Traveller families, and to fine, arrest and imprison them. The powers contained in part 4 of the Act have had a devastating impact on Romani Gypsy and Irish Traveller communities, and on a culture that is not only centuries old but protected by law. The Government have a legal and moral duty to facilitate this way of life, not to legislate it out of existence. As we heard earlier from my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick, in May 2024 the High Court found certain provisions in part 4 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act to be incompatible with the Human Rights Act. The Government have so far failed meaningfully to respond to that, let alone correct it. In issuing the declaration of incompatibility, the High Court recognised the lack of transit provision for Gypsy and Traveller communities across England, and the impact that the Act’s powers have on Gypsy and Traveller families. If there is any doubt in people’s minds about the state of transit provision in England, I refer them to the research published this year by Friends, Families and Travellers, which found that 92% of the 362 local authorities have no transit provision at all. Notably, the introduction of the powers has an effect on the community’s fears of being targeted and sanctioned. I will share the words of someone from the Romany community who has been directly impacted by these powers, which highlight the human consequences of these laws: “This law adds to the knock-on effects we face daily with access to healthcare and education; being moved on constantly has been detrimental to my health, as sometimes I have to drive over 100 miles to see a GP. I could be made a criminal and lose my home, all because I have never known any different.” It is painfully obvious that what we need are not criminal sanctions for families who have nowhere to stop; the answer is, of course, to create laws which ensure there are enough places for people to stop—I might add that the Planning and Infrastructure Bill provides the perfect opportunity for that. As I stand here today during Gypsy, Roma and Traveller History Month, I urge the Government not to delay further. Let us repeal part 4 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act through this Bill, and take a meaningful step towards justice, inclusion and respect for all communities.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Disabled People in Poverty · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 10 Jun 2025 · Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the actions that the Minister has announced today, but we can no longer allow starving men, women and children to be murdered in cold blood while scrambling for food or visiting cemeteries at Eid, or to be burned alive in their houses. Will the Minister please be bolder, listen to the voices here tonight and lead the way by calling for a state of Palestine, just to give hope to those Palestinians who are already working for peace and the right to self-determination?

• 9 Jun 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak to my amendment 134, which seeks to address a long-standing and deeply entrenched failure in our planning system: the chronic undersupply of Gypsy and Traveller sites across England. My amendment seeks to increase fairness in the system and to enable, rather than hinder, the provision of adequate, culturally appropriate accommodation for Gypsy and Traveller communities. For too long the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers have been overlooked by the planning system. Research by Friends, Families and Travellers and Dr Simon Ruston looked at 100 local planning authorities and found that site provision has barely changed since the legal duty to provide them was scrapped in 1994. Of the 149 public sites in those areas, 119 were built before 1994, meaning that just 30 have been developed in the past 30 years—that is only 30 new sites across all 100 local authorities in three decades. Decisions on Gypsy and Traveller sites have frequently been underpinned by prejudice, whether overt or institutional. Too often, proposed developments are blocked or delayed by local opposition that is not met with political will or leadership. Site delivery also suffers from a lack of inclusion at the strategic planning level, where Gypsy and Traveller site provision can be absent from local plans and excluded from land allocations. This absence is not an accident; it is the result of years of structural marginalisation that the Bill must now correct. I acknowledge the positive steps that the Government took in 2024, which work toward addressing some of those failures. However, we must go further if we intend to support provision and address inequality in the planning system. We have seen an increase in private sites, which is welcome, but we often hear about the long, drawn-out, difficult and expensive processes that individual families go through to achieve planning permission. It is crucial to acknowledge that, just as with other communities, home and land ownership is not within reach of many and social provision is much needed. We are still seeing a troubling trend: the number of socially rented pitches is declining. According to the Traveller caravan count live tables, the number of socially rented pitches has fallen in the past five years, with a reduction of 179 pitches. My amendment would ensure that Gypsy and Traveller accommodation needs are explicitly included in strategic planning, which means embedding the site provision in the spatial development strategies under proposed new section 12D to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Those new strategies would help to shape housing across whole regions. Leaving out Gypsy and Traveller sites would repeat the mistakes of the past. Other key planning changes need to be addressed in this Bill, but I will speak with the all-party parliamentary group for Gypsies, Travellers and Roma in due course. Finally, I remind the House that the Government have committed to delivering 1.5 million new homes by 2029. If that ambition is to be truly inclusive, it must include everyone. That means making space—literally and politically—for communities that have been moved on, fenced off and forgotten. I urge the Government to consider these amendments at a later stage, not just for the sake of legislative clarity, but for the future of Gypsies and Travellers across the country.