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.

• 1 Jun 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The NHS needs reform, not least after years of Conservative underfunding, fragmentation and neglect. I strongly support the Government’s commitment to shifting the NHS from sickness to prevention. As co-chair of the APPG on smoking and health, I was proud to support the landmark Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026, but smoking still remains one of the greatest drivers of ill health and inequality. Prevention must be built into the machinery of the NHS, and that must apply to mental health provision too. My constituency office deals with huge volumes of casework involving people waiting too long for support, families in crisis, and vulnerable people being passed between services. On the safety and voices of patients, we have seen the devastating consequences of failures in breast cancer care at County Durham and Darlington NHS foundation trust. I pay tribute to the brave women who have spoken out after unimaginable distress. Their experience was in sharp contrast to the excellent cancer care that I received only 12 miles away at a neighbouring hospital. I hope that clause 4 of the Bill addresses the postcode lottery in quality of care. I think of a husband who lost his wife and two sisters who lost their mam after tragic failings in what should have been routine care. Their fight for justice continues. The Bill must not weaken independent scrutiny or make it harder to raise the alarm when things go wrong. I briefly raise dentistry; as co-chair of the dentistry and oral health APPG, I know that access to NHS dentistry is one of the clearest examples of where the system is failing constituents. Dentistry is public health, and Ministers must explain how ICBs will be held accountable for NHS dental care. Finally, on the single patient record, there is real potential for better joined-up care, but patients must have confidence that their information is safe, confidential and used in their interest. That means safeguards on NHS data, including the role of private technology companies such as Palantir, and transparency around access by private providers and consultant partnerships, including limited liability partnerships. The point of reform is not to move boxes around Whitehall; it is to ensure that when people in County Durham and across the country need care, they can access it, trust it and be listened to.

• 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.

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

  More

  I totally agree with my hon. Friend. We must keep in mind the fact that it is smoking that causes harm and death, not vaping, which can be a very successful cessation tool. I hope that the Bill will continue to push that. Powers in the Bill cover marketing, display, packaging and product design, as well as flavours and their descriptions. However, there is a crucial balance to strike: reducing youth appeal without limiting access or effectiveness for those using the products to quit smoking. We must keep the harms of smoking firmly at the forefront of our minds. A review after four to seven years feels appropriate to assess how the regulations are affecting usage and the market, and whether we are striking the right balance. This should be considered alongside the disposable vape ban and the forthcoming vape excise tax. I would welcome reassurance today that the review will place the harms of smoking and the needs of smokers at its centre. Many of the other amendments are technical in nature. I welcome the comprehensive definition of tobacco coming into force on Royal Assent, through Lords amendments 89, 90 and 91, as there is no need for a transition period. The exemption for vape-vending machines in Lords amendments 3 and 4 is also welcome, as others have noted, because we must ensure that vulnerable smokers are supported as much as possible to quit. As my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) has recently taken up her role, I welcome her to her position as Minister for Public Health. I look forward to working with her as this Bill, soon to be an Act, progresses, so that we can continue our work, and hopefully set out a road map for a totally smokefree country and to look again at introducing a polluter pays levy. Finally, as someone who has spent many years advocating for a smokefree future, free of death and disease from tobacco, I know from speaking and listening to many people affected by smoking just how much the public want and need this action. We have already shifted the social norms around smoking and now, thanks to the work of organisations such as Action on Smoking and Health and Fresh, and the work of colleagues across the two Houses, a smokefree future is now possible. That is truly something to celebrate.

• 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.

• 2 Feb 2026 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. This debate is necessary because it goes to the heart of fundamental fairness. The petitions before us reflect the deep sense of betrayal felt by the people who came to this country legally, followed the rules, contributed to their communities and are now being told that the goalposts are to be moved. The Government’s proposal to double from five years to 10 years the qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain is not just a technical policy change. It represents a broken promise to people who did exactly what was asked of them. We are talking about people who have come here and chosen to make our country their home. Indeed, they have been asked to come here by successive Governments to support our public services. In the city of Durham, these are our neighbours, our teachers and the care workers and NHS staff who keep vital services running, day in, day out. Last summer, I attended a Unison migrant workers event at which care workers spoke to me directly about the uncertainty caused by the proposed changes. Migrant workers, particularly in social care, are too often trapped by sponsorship rules that tie their legal status to their employer.

• 28 Jan 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q2. Elemore Hall school is a fantastic multi-site provision, supporting more than 200 of County Durham’s vulnerable young people with social, emotional and mental health difficulties. Its personalised alternative curriculum centre in Durham caters for 20 key stage 4 pupils, but special educational needs provision in Durham is at crisis point. With an extra school site and PACC extension, Elemore could offer more young people opportunities to thrive locally, saving thousands in costs for alternative provision and taxis. Will the Deputy Prime Minister arrange for a Department for Education Minister to visit the PACC site, and will the Government work with me to support the urgent need for additional school facilities and PACC accommodation, so that young people in Durham can access the education they deserve closer to home?

• 13 Jan 2026 · Universities: Statutory Duty of Care · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) on securing this important debate. As the Member for the City of Durham, I am immensely proud to represent a world-class university. For many students, coming to a city like Durham is not only a period of excitement, discovery and personal growth, but one of vulnerability. They are away from home for the first time, facing academic pressures far beyond A-levels and dealing with situations that they may not have had to deal with before, from problematic landlords to issues with utility suppliers, difficulties getting medication under shared care agreements and loneliness. They face situations that can pile on the pressure and exacerbate existing anxieties. For some, that vulnerability is even greater. Just yesterday, the Unite Foundation reported that well over a quarter of care-experienced and estranged students face financial concerns that directly damage their mental health. That number is over and above that of their peers who do have a family support network in place. We are witnessing a crisis of scale. Higher Education Statistics Agency data shows that the number of students disclosing a mental health condition has increased by 480% since 2011. Office for Students statistics show that 25% of undergraduates in their final year have experienced sexual harassment, and we know that that is a tragically under-reported figure. Some argue that because students are adults, a legal duty would make universities risk-averse, but I disagree. There is no need for a duty of care to be in loco parentis, where every move is monitored. It would be a duty to provide a professional standard of care, at the same level that we would expect from an employer or healthcare provider. If a student stops attending lectures for weeks on end, or their work shows signs of severe distress, a clearly defined process outlining how the university can and should support the student would potentially help with pressure points before they turn into emergencies. Currently, student safety is a postcode lottery, and support varies widely between institutions. A statutory duty would replace this patchwork with a single national baseline and would help to give consistency, providing a floor below which no institution can fall. It would provide clarity on data to empower pastoral teams to involve emergency contacts without fearing that they are breaching GDPR, and integration to ensure better data sharing between the NHS and universities. Alongside that, we must be mindful of the concerns raised by the University and College Union. Although a duty of care would be a huge step in the right direction, we need to be aware of the context in which this new responsibility would be introduced. A statutory duty of care would help to close gaps in accountability and would lead to earlier intervention, but there is already a funding crisis in higher education. Imposing a duty of care on universities will not work if already overstretched staff and underfunded pastoral teams are expected to pick up the pieces. In fact, there is a risk that introducing a duty of care and thinking that that is job done could lead to more problems for students. If a duty of care is to be introduced, it must also come with the resources and funding to ensure that universities can deliver the training that their teams will need and that they can dedicate their own resources to already creaking mental health support teams. Of course, they need to ensure that their own staff are working in a safe environment. A student’s safety should not rely on the terms and conditions of their specific university, but we cannot rely on passing legislation without the proper funding to allow universities to deliver the best support for their students. We owe it to every family to ensure that when a young person leaves home for higher education, the sector and the Government work hand in hand to ensure that they are protected by a properly funded, well-regulated and easy-to-understand statutory standard of care.

• 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.