Mary Kelly Foy MP: speeches

Speeches

• 15 Jun 2026 · NHS Dentistry · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate, and I declare an interest as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for dentistry and oral health. I pay tribute to the British Dental Association, our secretariat, for the work it continues to undertake to keep NHS dentistry in the spotlight. Due to my APPG role, I hear regularly from patients and dental professionals across the country, and the message I hear nationally is echoed by my constituents in Durham: NHS dentistry is becoming harder to access and the current system is not delivering the practical care that patients need. We need to measure access properly. Ministers should publish local data showing which practices are accepting new NHS patients, how many NHS clinical hours are being delivered, whether urgent care is being completed, how many children are being seen, and whether disease is being stabilised rather than left to worsen. One issue raised with me is the NHS Business Services Authority reporting and payments. Recent system changes have led to incorrect payments, and have made it harder for practices to calculate associate dentists’ pay. For practices already operating under serious financial pressure, that creates yet more uncertainty. Another issue is unit of dental activity caps. One local dentist described a practice with the chair, the associate dentist and the patient ready to go, but no additional UDAs were available. The associate dentist was left, in their words, twiddling their thumbs, while patients were turned away or offered private care. I also heard from award-winning Claypath dental surgery, one of the last remaining NHS dentists in Durham city. The practice manager said the practice had “witnessed firsthand the steady destruction of NHS Dental Services over the last 20 years by successive Governments, that have used the demolition of NHS Dentistry as a way of saving money in the NHS”. As part of the cost cutting, the practice’s contract was reduced by 2,000 exams in April. During an attempted appeal, the practice was told to accept the change or lose the whole contract. I ask the Minister: how does cutting contracts like that improve access for patients? I welcome the Government’s recent steps, including the urgent care changes and the beginning of wider reform discussions, but tweaks to the existing system cannot become a substitute for fundamental reform. We need a clear timetable for formal negotiations on a new dental contract, a deadline for replacing UDAs in this Parliament, and proper funding, so that practices do not lose money for providing NHS treatment. The challenge before us is to build a system that allows dentists who want to provide NHS care to do so, and a system that ensures that patients can access that care. The measure of a healthcare system is not how well it serves those who can afford an alternative, but how it protects those who cannot. We must stop treating the collapse of NHS dentistry as inevitable. A generation is growing up with pain, fear and preventable disease. We know the problems. We know the solutions. What we need now is action.

• 11 Jun 2026 · Secondary Breast Cancer · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to work with the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) to secure this important debate. I thank the campaigners who work to ensure that people living with secondary breast cancer are seen, heard and supported. I am thrilled that my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), who has spoken so openly about her diagnosis, is here today: I am sure that her remarks will be invaluable. I speak not only as a Member of Parliament, but as someone who has been through breast cancer. I was fortunate: my cancer was picked up through screening and caught early. I received timely treatment and am now cancer-free, but I am forever grateful to the teams at the QE hospital in Gateshead, the Maggie’s centre and Future Dreams for their support. Whenever I can, I encourage people to attend screening appointments and to check themselves. In fact, on 14 July I will be hosting an event alongside leading breast cancer advocates and sporting ambassadors, focusing on raising awareness of the importance of women prioritising their breast health. I would love the Minister to join us. I know that my personal experience was not that of someone living with secondary breast cancer. For people whose cancer has spread and can be treated but not cured, time is everything. In 2026, it is unacceptable that we do not know with confidence how many people are living with secondary breast cancer. We know that around 60,000 people in the UK are living with it, but that remains just an estimate. More than a decade after data collection was made mandatory, it is still not being consistently or accurately recorded across the country, and if people are not properly counted, their needs are too easily overlooked. The NHS cannot plan the right number of specialist nurses, oncology appointments, palliative care services, mental health support services or clinical trials if the true scale of need is not known. I welcome the work of the national disease registration service, with NHS trusts, to improve data returns on metastatic breast cancer, but I am concerned that no data has yet been published. I also welcome the Government’s commitment to the national cancer plan, to define and count recurrent cancers, starting with metastatic breast cancer, and to ensure that patients have named primary contacts, but patients need delivery now, not just commitment. The NHS must routinely capture data on not only diagnosis but treatment and support needs. That is how we can move from counting people in theory to improving the services available to them in practice. In Durham, trust was shattered when failures were identified in breast services at County Durham and Darlington NHS foundation trust. The concerns went way beyond isolated mistakes, and patients wondered whether the care that they received was truly in line with the standards that they should expect. Patients place their lives in the hands of the system, so they deserve to know that decisions about their care are evidence- based, properly scrutinised and made through strong, multidisciplinary teams. When that trust is broken, it is difficult to rebuild. I pay tribute to those who spoke out, such as my constituent Jackie, who did so on behalf of her sorely missed daughter, Michaela, and Amelia, Cat and Nadeen, who formed the Pink Justice Network. I do also recognise the efforts of the new senior leadership team at the trust, who are working to reform services and repair patient confidence. On access to treatments, everyone living with secondary breast cancer deserves to have access to new, effective life-extending treatments, but there are serious concerns that the way in which NICE currently assesses some drugs limits access for people living with incurable metastatic breast cancer. Campaigners have warned that since the introduction of the severity modifier, some advance cancer treatments have been disadvantaged compared with the previous system. Breast Cancer Now reports that only a minority of end-of-life treatments assessed under the new approach received the same level of priority as they would have before. The clearest example is Enhertu, which could give people with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer more time, yet was not recommended for routine NHS use in England in 2024, as a cost-effective pricing agreement could not be reached. Since then, eligible patients have missed out, and people have asked why a life-extending treatment should be available in Scotland but not in England. The Government’s decision to increase the NICE cost-effectiveness threshold for new medicines is welcome, and I hope it will create an opportunity to reach an agreement on Enhertu. I also welcome the fact that discussions between AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, NHS England and NICE are understood to have begun. More than 50,000 people have signed a petition calling for urgent agreement on Enhertu. They are asking for something very simple: that all parties come together to find a way to give eligible patients more time. I must also mention the work of our hospices, such as St Cuthbert’s hospice in Durham, which are supported by charities such as Marie Curie, in providing people who are living with secondary breast cancer with the services that they need. Marie Curie reports that one in three people do not receive the care and support they need at the end of life, so I welcome the fact that the Government are developing a palliative care and end-of-life care modern service framework. I hope that the framework will address the lack of support available outside of normal working hours, embed palliative care in neighbourhood health and ensure that the palliative care workforce is fit for the future. Will the Minister set out how the Government will ensure three things: first, that secondary breast cancer data is collected and published consistently across every trust, with clear accountability for delivery; secondly, that every patient has meaningful access to a specialist named contact with the time and capacity to support them properly; and thirdly, that people living with secondary breast cancer are not left behind when life-extending treatments become available? Secondary breast cancer is not just a diagnosis. Mothers miss milestones, daughters face uncertain futures, partners become carers and families must live with a clock that they never asked to hear ticking. We do not ask for kind words today, but for action on research, access to treatment, support and giving people more time not just to survive, but to live—because behind every diagnosis is a person who still has dreams, plans and a life worth fighting for.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Animal Testing · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for securing the debate, and I thank the petitioners and campaigners who have brought the issue before Parliament. Many of them are my City of Durham constituents, and I am pleased to represent them today. We often talk in this place about giving people a voice, but today we also provide one to other sentient beings. This debate ought to be about not just more humane treatment for animals but, importantly, better science, better regulation and better outcomes, as well as higher welfare standards. The Government’s “Replacing animals in science” strategy is a welcome step. It recognises that the UK should move towards phasing out animal use in all but exceptional circumstances, and it commits funding for alternatives, including through the UK centre for the validation of alternative methods and a preclinical translational models hub. The question is whether that strategy is ambitious enough. Organisations such as Camp Beagle, Animal Defenders International, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Humane Society International UK and the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments are concerned that, although the strategy has good intentions, it is not yet hard enough on delivery, and lacks clear statutory targets, a firm timetable and proper accountability for whether animal use is falling. That matters, because the scale remains significant. Home Office figures show that there were around 2.6 million scientific procedures involving animals in Great Britain in 2024. That represents a negligible 1.21% decrease on 2023. Animal Defenders International and the Herbie’s law campaign report that 2,646 procedures involved dogs, overwhelmingly beagles, and that most of those procedures were for regulatory purposes. Nearly 2,000 procedures were on non-human primates, a staggering number of which will face lengthy and stressful transportation from Africa or Asia to then endure a life of experimentation. Simply put, that feels unethical. The Government have set targets to reduce the use of dogs and non-human primates in some pharmacokinetic and cardiovascular safety studies by 2030. That is welcome, but it is limited. It does not amount to a clear route to ending unnecessary dog testing, and does not fully address the question of second species testing, in which dogs are still used even though campaigners and researchers argue that the added scientific value can be weak. There is a serious scientific case for moving faster. The Thomas, Chancellor and Micklus clinical development report on success rates from 2011 to 2020 showed an overall likelihood of approval from phase 1 of only 7.9%. Campaigners rightly point to that as evidence that the current system is not delivering as well as patients, researchers and animals need it to. Crucially, animal models do not always translate reliably into human biology. Results that appear promising in animals can fail when they reach human trials, while potentially useful treatments may be delayed or lost because animal data does not accurately reflect how the human body responds. That should not make us less serious about safety. Instead, we should embrace methods that give us better evidence, better predictions and better outcomes. That is why human-relevant science matters. Alternatives in this area are developing quickly, such as organ-on-a-chip systems, human cell models, computational modelling and AI-assisted advanced imaging. Those are not fringe ideas; they are increasingly central to the future of modern biomedical research. The Government should strengthen their strategy by setting clearer annual milestones, publishing the baseline behind their targets, giving regulators such as the MHRA a clear mandate to accept validated alternatives, and ensuring animal welfare organisations and independent scientists are involved in monitoring progress. The UK has a real opportunity to lead in humane, human-relevant science, but that will need more than warm words. It will require pace, transparency, investment and a willingness to challenge outdated regulatory habits. When it is reported that seven out of 10 people in Britain support the introduction of a new law that would end animal experiments in medical research by 2035, it is clear that we must take this topic seriously. We owe it to our constituents and the animals that suffer for our gain. The Government have made a start; they now need to go further and faster.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  There is much in the Bill that is serious and worthy of support. The measures to tackle shop theft, protect retail workers, strengthen the response to exploitation and abuse and deal with knife crime are all important. However, Lords amendment 312 raises a very different prospect. It is not really about violent disorder or intimidation. It is about making it easier to restrict repeated protest. It would require the police, when deciding whether to impose conditions on a protest, to take into account what the Bill calls “cumulative disruption”. That means not just the disruption caused by the protest, but disruption said to arise from other protests in the same area that were held, are being held, or are intended to be held. The organiser does not have to be the same; the cause does not even have to be the same. That should concern every Member of this House, because effective protest is very often cumulative, and democratic campaigning is nearly always repetitive. The campaigners come back again and again. That is true of the trade union movement, true of the suffragettes, and true of the civil rights tradition more broadly. The cumulative nature of protest is not a flaw in our democracy. It is often the means by which democracy speaks, and that is why amendment 312 is so dangerous in principle. It takes something that has always been central to democratic struggle—persistence—and starts to treat it as a problem to be managed down. It turns the repeated exercise of democratic freedom into a reason for state restriction. Once the House accepts that logic, we move on to very difficult ground indeed. Laws like this are never drafted only for the Government of the day. They remain on the statute book. They pass into other hands. We would be naive not to ask how a future hard-right Government might use a power like this. As the TUC has warned, broad “cumulative disruption” tests could all too easily be used against trade union demonstrations, against long-running industrial disputes, against repeated pickets, rallies and marches, and against the kind of organised working-class protest that has been central to the Labour movement and to the winning of rights in this country. That is not alarmism. It is exactly why Parliament should be careful about creating broad powers that can later be wielded by Ministers and authorities with far less respect for civil liberties. Peaceful protest is not an inconvenience to be tolerated only once. It is a democratic right, and one of the clearest tests of whether we truly believe in that right is whether we still defend it when it is persistent, visible and effective. That was true of the Chartists demanding political reform, the match girls and dockers fighting for dignity at work, the anti-apartheid movement that refused to give up, and the suffragettes who were crucial in securing the vote for women.

• 13 Apr 2026 · Social Housing Standards · Hansard source

  More

  In October 2022, a constituent of mine moved into a social housing property and immediately faced issues with extreme cold and damp. The issues went unresolved for so long that he referred his complaints to the Housing Ombudsman in April 2025, but it took until February this year for investigations to begin. Like everyone, my constituent simply wants a dignified life in a safe, comfortable property that he can be proud to call home. What are the Government doing to ensure that housing associations are meeting their requirements under Awaab’s law and that they have the resources to do so?

• 13 Apr 2026 · Social Housing Standards · Hansard source

  More

  4. What steps his Department is taking to help tackle damp and mould in social housing.

• 23 Mar 2026 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I declare an interest: I am proud to be the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health. I am pleased that the Bill has returned from the Lords with minimal amendments. All the amendments before us are either Government amendments or have Government support, so I hope that the Bill can achieve Royal Assent as soon as possible. I understand that the amendments put forward today by the Secretary of State are simply to correct drafting errors, so I assume that they will need only brief consideration by the Lords. I am proud that the Bill will become law under a Labour Government. I hope that this Government will be remembered as the one that began the end of smoking in this country. In a few decades’ time, I hope that people, particularly young people, will look back on smoking with disbelief, and will say, “Can you believe that selling tobacco, a lethal product, with the aim of getting us hooked, was ever allowed?” Before coming to this place, I was a councillor in Gateshead council, where I held the public health portfolio from 2009 to 2019, and I chaired the Gateshead Tobacco Alliance. Tackling smoking was a central part of my work during that time, and it continues to be so today, because it remains the single biggest driver of health inequality in communities like mine and across the north-east. In areas of high deprivation, smoking is not just a public health issue, but a deeply entrenched inequality. It is far more common in disadvantaged communities, where people are more likely to start smoking younger, find it harder to quit, and suffer the worst health outcomes as a result. That means higher rates of cancer, heart disease and respiratory illness, and lives cut tragically short. I have seen that reality at first hand over many years, and it is why action like that set out in the Bill is so important. We should remember that tobacco is the single most harmful commercial product on sale in the world. It is sold for profit, while killing around two thirds of its long-term users and generating enormous returns for the companies that manufacture it. It is highly addictive, and many who start smoking wish they never had. Over 80,000 people die in this country every year because of it, and if it was introduced today, it is unthinkable that it would ever be permitted. This Government are right to legislate for a smokefree generation, because there is a fundamental imbalance at the heart of this issue. Companies are making vast profits from a product that drives disease, kills two in three of their customers, deepens inequality and places huge costs on our NHS and wider society. We know how important it is to work towards a truly smokefree future, and to drive smoking rates down to as close to zero as possible. In the north-east, we have a clear declaration for a smokefree future, endorsed by all directors of public health, our integrated care boards, Fresh, all 12 local councils and all 10 local hospital trusts. That kind of whole-system commitment is vital, not just for improving health but for tackling poverty, supporting a more productive region and preventing the premature loss of loved ones to smoking-related disease. That work is already delivering results. In County Durham, smoking rates have nearly halved over the last decade, reflecting a sustained effort across prevention and support to help people quit. However, rates remain higher in some communities, so we cannot afford to lose focus now. I am equally pleased about the strong cross-party support for the Bill. We saw that clearly in debates in the other place. The APPG on smoking and health is a great cross-party effort, which I am proud to co-chair with the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). There is much to welcome in the amendments. In particular, amendment 80, which requires the Government to review the Act, is an important addition that strengthens the Bill. To be clear, it is not a sunset clause, nor is it a test of whether the smokefree generation policy has succeeded in its health aims—the impact assessment makes it clear that we are playing the long game—but rather it will assess how smoothly implementation has progressed and what burdens, if any, have fallen on retailers. I am confident that it will report positively, and that it will encourage other countries to follow our lead. I note that a similar private Member’s Bill is before the French Parliament, which I hope reassures colleagues about the policy’s compatibility with EU law.

• 16 Mar 2026 · Grenfell Tower Memorial (Expenditure) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The creation of a permanent memorial to the people who lost their lives in the Grenfell Tower fire is deeply important and necessary, and I welcome the Bill before the House today. It is right that Parliament ensures there is a lasting place of remembrance for the victims, the bereaved families, the heroic firefighters and emergency services, and the community whose lives were changed forever on that night. Grenfell was an avoidable tragedy. It was the result of political choices made over many years—choices to weaken building safety regulations and to erode proper inspection and oversight—and a system and culture that allowed cost-cutting to take precedence over the safety of human life. It was a national scandal caused by institutional failings at the highest level. The result was an apartment building covered in flammable materials, allowing the fire to spread rapidly, reflecting with utter shame the decisions that were made, which resulted in the death of 72 people. At its heart, Grenfell exposed the dangers of a deregulatory approach to the economy. When safeguards are stripped back in the name of efficiency or profit, it is too often working-class communities who pay the price. Residents of the Grenfell Tower block had raised concerns about safety for years, as had the fire service. They warned about the risks and about the conditions in which they were living, yet those warnings were repeatedly overlooked. In the same year of the fire, I attended an international workers’ conference in Madrid. One session focused on health and safety, looking in particular at disasters in places where factories had collapsed or fires spread because safety standards had been neglected—places in the global south. When I mentioned Grenfell, delegates from Sri Lanka, the Philippines, Bangladesh and elsewhere already knew about it. They were shocked and horrified that something like this could happen in the United Kingdom—one of the richest countries in the world—and asked how on earth it could have happened. That is why this memorial really matters. It must honour those who died, support the bereaved families, and recognise the deep and lasting impact on the community. I welcome the fact that the community will be involved in all stages of its design. It should also stand as a reminder of the dark and deadly side of capitalism, and serve as a lesson about the catastrophic consequences of neglecting safety regulations and ignoring the warnings of the people whose homes and lives were at risk. The victims have waited long enough for justice. Those responsible must be held to account and must, where necessary, be prosecuted. Remembering Grenfell must mean more than remembrance alone; it should force us to act quicker to ensure that everyone has a decent and safe home, and that tragedies like Grenfell can never happen again.

• 5 Mar 2026 · Palliative Care · Hansard source

  More

  Palliative and end-of-life care is one of the clearest tests of a health and care system. It is about whether people can live their final months, weeks or days with dignity, comfort and choice, and whether families are supported, rather than left to cope alone. It should never be a lottery, yet too often people still experience palliative care as something that arrives too late in a crisis and only after families have reached breaking point. Referrals are delayed, honest conversations are postponed and advance care plans are created at the point when somebody is already too unwell to meaningfully shape them. Families describe repeating the same story to multiple professionals, not knowing who to call at 10 pm on a Sunday evening, and watching distress escalate because there is no rapid response available. That is not what a compassionate system looks like. I will make three substantive points. First, we must confront the reality of variation and fragmentation. Access to specialist palliative care, hospice-at-home services and community nursing support still vary widely between integrated care boards. In some areas, there is a reliable 24/7 advice line and rapid response within hours. In others, support is limited, particularly out of hours, and families are told to ring 111 or attend A&E. Funding arrangements contribute to that variation. Adult hospices, which provide extraordinary care, still rely heavily on charitable fundraising, alongside NHS funding. The balance differs significantly between areas, which creates instability and inequity. Hospices such as St Cuthbert’s hospice in Durham do remarkable work supporting patients and families across our community, but like many hospices it remains heavily dependent on charitable fundraising. St Cuthbert’s has recently had to make difficult decisions, including on redundancies and reducing dementia services, as funding pressures grow. At the same time, much of the Government’s announced support has been directed towards buildings and capital investment, at a time when hospices and organisations such as Hospice UK have repeatedly warned that the real pressure is on staffing and day-to-day service delivery. If we are serious about reducing health inequalities, we cannot accept such stark differences in something as fundamental as end-of-life care. Secondly, palliative care is not simply about the last days of life; it is about quality of life from the point of diagnosis of a life-limiting condition. Early specialist input can provide for symptom control, reduce unplanned hospital admissions and help people to make informed choices about where and how they wish to be cared for. That is why I welcome the emphasis in the NHS 10-year plan on shifting care away from hospitals and into the community, because for many people facing serious illness, the most compassionate and effective care is delivered at home or close to home, supported by community teams. Thirdly, there are practical steps that the Government can and should take. We need a clear, fully articulated national strategy for palliative and end-of-life care, with measurable standards and transparent reporting. Every area should be required to demonstrate that it provides equitable access to specialist advice, rapid response and co-ordinated care planning, so that the ambitions set out in the 10-year plan to strengthen community-based care are genuinely realised for people at the end of life. We should move towards a model where every part of the country has guaranteed 24/7 access to specialist palliative care advice, backed by community capacity to respond quickly when symptoms escalate. Workforce is central. Generalist staff in primary care, acute hospitals, community services and social care must feel confident in recognising when someone is deteriorating, in managing pain and other distressing symptoms, and in initiating compassionate conversations. That requires investment, training and protected time, not simply guidance on paper. We must also recognise that hospice and social care services rely on the contributions of migrant workers. Recent changes to visa rules and the right to remain are making recruitment and retention even more difficult, at a time when these services are already under immense pressure. We must not forget the strain on hospice care for children, as the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) said. Provision in this area remains uneven, and the stakes are extraordinarily high. Recent campaigning on Hugh’s law has also highlighted the importance of ensuring that families caring for seriously ill children are properly supported and not left navigating complicated systems while dealing with unimaginable circumstances. Debates on assisted dying are now taking place in this Parliament. I am clear in my opposition to that proposal. I believe that the foundation of a compassionate society must be strong, universal access to high-quality palliative care and end-of-life care. When people are properly supported, when pain is managed, when families are helped and when the highest standard of care is available close to home, the fear and desperation that often drive these debates are significantly reduced. If assisted dying were to become available on the NHS, it would raise important questions that are already being asked by professionals in palliative care and across the health system about our priorities for healthcare. Access to compassionate and properly resourced end-of-life care should never become the secondary option. I ask the Minister to set out how the Government will reduce the postcode variation, strengthen community and out-of-hours provision, provide stable funding frameworks—particularly for hospices—and ensure that workforce development is prioritised. This is not an abstract policy area. It is about whether, at the most vulnerable point in someone’s life, the system is fragmented and reactive or calm, co-ordinated and compassionate. We owe it to patients and their families to get this right.

• 20 Jan 2026 · County Durham: Cultural Opportunities · Hansard source

  More

  That this House has considered cultural opportunities in County Durham. I am grateful to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to bring this debate to the House. To many, culture is an add-on: a luxury for when times are good or a line item to be trimmed when budgets are tight. In County Durham, we know better. For us, culture is the thread weaving through our communities. It is our history, our pride and our future. It does not just inform what we do; it defines who we are. To understand why culture matters, one must look to the history of the Durham miners. They did not just extract coal; they built entire communities. They created a welfare state long before 1945: out of their own pockets, through subscriptions and solidarity, they built the institutes, the schools and the libraries that stand today as monuments to self-improvement and collective dignity. They knew that a person needs more than just a wage; they need a sense of belonging. They knew that they had to nourish the mind as well as the body. That culture lives on in the newly refurbished Redhills—the pitman’s parliament. My constituency office is in Redhills and I never fail to be struck by the fact that it was built by the pennies of pitmen. It is a beacon of working-class heritage and culture. That spirit is reflected in the continued success of the Durham miners’ gala, the big meeting, which was first held in 1871. It has survived strikes, wars and the closure of pits to remain the largest celebration of trade union culture in Europe. From the blessing of the banners at the cathedral to the brass bands on the racecourse, it is a reminder that although the pits might be gone, our solidarity is permanent.

• 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.