Mary Kelly Foy MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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.

• 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.

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

  More

  I agree that some protests can feel intimidating. On the Palestine protests, people have never protested outside synagogues, and they do not protest outside mosques. Given the proper police protections that already exist, there is no reason for the Jewish community to feel intimidated. But the fact is that this goes far beyond the Jewish community, for all the reasons that I have outlined. It was said in the past that we should not protest again and again for women’s right to vote, or for trade unions to win their rights against unscrupulous employers. In their name, and in the name of the whole Labour movement, Lords amendment 312 ought to be rejected.

• 13 Apr 2026 · Disclosure and Safeguarding: At-risk Children · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) for securing this debate. I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to speak on this issue and for the petition, which has been signed by more than 110,000 people, as we have heard. That level of support reflects the simple truth that children are still at risk of falling through the cracks despite warnings being raised by family members. At the heart of this campaign is Maya Chappell, a two-year-old girl from Durham who should still be with us. However, in 2022, she was murdered by the partner of her mother. Subsequent medical investigations revealed that she had suffered a host of injuries including severe brain trauma and internal bleeding. She should have had the chance to grow up, to be safe and to be surrounded by the love, care and protection that every child deserves, but that was cruelly taken from her by someone who should have provided that very care. This tragedy occurred despite warnings from Maya’s father and concerns from other relatives. Social services and police both had pieces of the puzzle, yet nobody was able to put those pieces together. Running through child safeguarding reviews is the fact that information is often kept in silos. Whether in the case of Victoria Climbié in 2000, Daniel Pelka in 2012 or Dwelaniyah Robinson, murdered by his mother in my constituency just days after Maya Chappell, agencies were aware of some of the dangers but were not aware that other agencies had concerns. That is the Achilles heel of child protection: it is rarely the case that nobody knows anything, rather that everyone knows a little bit. That is why Maya’s law matters. Too often, our safeguarding arrangements operate in a reactive way. We wait for a threshold to be crossed, or a pattern to become undeniable, but children do not get that time back. In safeguarding, to delay is to increase that risk. The Government’s response to this petition acknowledges that. The response says that “proactive information sharing…is critical” and it points to wider reforms through the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, including a new duty to share information and broader multi-agency changes. I welcome any step that helps agencies work together better and to protect children earlier. The campaigners’ concern, and the concern of many of us in this place, is that those reforms still do not guarantee that risk will be proactively identified, assessed and acted upon. That is the crucial point. The Government say that the system will be better at sharing information. Maya’s family ask harder questions: better at sharing with whom, at what point, and with what urgency, when a child may already be in danger? Maya’s campaign proposes a child risk disclosure scheme, modelled in part on the principles behind Clare’s law and Sarah’s law, but focused on the broader risk history of caregivers. It calls for stronger and clearer multi-agency protocols when child contact occurs or custody is being considered, and for professionals to be mandated to raise alerts and proactively disclose a person’s relevant history of non-sexual child abuse or neglect to a child’s parent or guardian. Any new system must be properly designed. It must make clear who makes decisions, what threshold is applied, what information is relevant, and which agency leads on these matters.

• 23 Mar 2026 · Antisocial Behaviour · Hansard source

  More

  Residents in Langley Moor, Belmont, Esh Winning, North Road, Pity Me and the Sunderland Road estate are seeing growing levels of antisocial behaviour. From yobs on e-bikes to intimidation of shop workers, public disorder and arson in parks and woodlands, antisocial behaviour is getting out of hand. My constituents do not feel safe and, despite the efforts of our police and crime commissioner, Durham constabulary officer levels remain lower than 2010 due to the outdated funding formula used by previous Governments. Will the Minister reassure my constituents that this Government are investing in policing, with a plan to tackle antisocial behaviour? At present, they are not seeing it.

• 11 Feb 2026 · Police Grant Report · Hansard source

  More

  Okay, I will give way.

• 11 Feb 2026 · Police Grant Report · Hansard source

  More

  Before I make my remarks and my plea to the Government, I must respond to the complete nonsense from the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), and other Members on the Opposition Benches. The 14 years following 2010 saw catastrophic cuts to the police service, a rise in recorded crime, unmanageable police force budget deficits, the demise of neighbourhood policing and the near destruction of the Probation Service. No part of the criminal justice system was spared from mismanagement. It is incredible that the penny still has not dropped that when austerity is forced on an area, antisocial behaviour and fragile communities are the outcome. Opposition Members will have to excuse this Government for not taking lectures from them. This debate is crucial as it is about how we fund the services that keep our communities safe and resilient. Safe communities are the foundation of economic growth and local prosperity; businesses invest where towns feel secure, families settle where neighbourhoods are stable, and regeneration succeeds when antisocial behaviour is tackled and police are visible and responsive. Public safety underpins economic renewal and long-term confidence. Our police and crime commissioner, Joy Allen, has raised serious and legitimate concerns about the structural pressures faced in Durham and Darlington under the current funding framework. Those concerns are about not performance—Durham constabulary is highly regarded and delivers daily for our communities—but capacity and sustainability. Durham has one of the lowest council tax bases in England and a very high proportion of band A properties, meaning that each £1 added to the police precept raises significantly less locally than it does in many other force areas. In practice, a 1% increase in the precept in County Durham generates £490,000, while in Surrey it generates approximately £1.7 million. At a time when we are rightly focused on narrowing the north-south divide, the funding framework risks reinforcing it. North Road in Durham is a clear example of why sustained neighbourhood policing matters. It is one of the city’s busiest corridors and has, at times, been a hotspot for shoplifting and antisocial behaviour, particularly drug and alcohol abuse, placing real pressure on local traders and creating a perception of fear for residents and visitors. In response, Durham constabulary has worked with businesses to introduce the Shop Watch scheme, and it now holds regular meetings with retailers to share intelligence, co-ordinate action and improve visibility. That kind of partnership approach is starting to make a difference, but it relies on having the capacity and presence on the ground to sustain it. County Durham also covers a large and diverse geographical area, with dispersed rural communities creating distinct policing pressures in terms of travel time, visibility and response. A prime example is when yobs on e-bikes terrorise our villagers, our football clubs and walkers; people feel scared, but police cannot reach them in time to take action. A single national framework does not, therefore, produce equal outcomes. The same policy decision yields very different resources, and over time that gap is compounded. Between 2010 and 2020, under the Conservative Government, Durham constabulary lost 408 officers—around 20% of its workforce—and officer numbers have still not returned to 2010 levels, meaning sustained pressure on neighbourhood teams and frontline capacity across that wide geography. For three consecutive years, local consultation has shown that residents are willing to invest more when it protects visible neighbourhood policing and community safety. There is democratic backing locally for strengthening capacity. The issue is not willingness, but ability. When funding depends heavily on council tax capacity, areas with lower property values are structurally constrained, regardless of need or performance. Equal percentage increases in grant do not offset unequal precept yield. If we want to see places like Durham flourish to attract investment, support local business and build confident communities, the framework for funding policing must not entrench the inequality between regions that soared during the Conservatives’ imposed austerity measures. Safer communities—

• 11 Feb 2026 · Police Grant Report · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I was happy to take that intervention. To the right hon. Member’s point— [ Interruption. ] If he cares to listen to my response, what he said is exactly what I am doing now: I am urging the Government to look again at the council tax precept. We are playing catch-up for the years of mismanagement and austerity when his party was in government. Safer communities enable growth. The settlement should reflect that principle fairly and consistently across the country if we are ever to repair the damage caused by the Conservative Government’s period in office.

• 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?

• 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?