Official portrait of Mary Kelly Foy
UK Parliament, CC BY 3.0

Mary Kelly Foy

Labour Party MP for City of Durham since (elected). An MP continuously since .

Parliament recordVoting recordWritten questionsEarly day motions

Entries on this tracker

142

Each filed under the party they sat for that day

Register entries

0

As currently published

Party affiliation

PartyOfficeAreaPeriodBeganEndedSource
LabourMPCity of Durham – presentelected—Party history

Parliament's party history for this member: Labour ( – present).

Register of interests

Every entry the member has in the Register of Members' Financial Interests, as Parliament currently publishes it. The wording and values are the member's own declarations; nothing here has been assessed by this site.

Totals add only the entries that declare an amount received: payments for work, donations, gifts, and funded visits (register categories 1.1, 2, 3, 4 and 5). Ongoing employment is listed but not added, because its figure is a rate rather than a sum received. Each entry is dated by when the benefit happened, not when it was registered, and placed under the party the member sat for on that date. A member who changed party therefore has a separate total for each.

No entries in the current register. Parliament's register page

Register on Parliament's site

Latest on this tracker 142

  1. ParliamentMary Kelly Foy

    Smoke-free UK

    It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I am so pleased to speak in this debate and to have secured it alongside my APPG co-chair, the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). As co-chairs of the APPG on smoking and health, we will always champion cross-party support for ending the epidemic in the UK. This debate is about what progress has been made towards a smoke-free country and what more we could do. I want to start by recognising just how much we have achieved in the last five years alone, thanks to the actions of both the previous Government and the current one. The Tobacco and Vapes Act became law. Smoking rates have fallen to below 10% across the UK for the first time ever, and rates are falling fastest among 18 to 24-year-olds. The rate of smoking in pregnancy is at a record low of just 4.2%, saving babies’ lives and supporting families to have the best start in life. Record levels of funding are going to stop-smoking services. Co-ordinated action among agencies also means that, despite claims to the contrary from the tobacco industry, official data continues to show that robust enforcement is controlling the UK illicit market. I am particularly proud that smoking rates in the north-east of England have fallen by a staggering 67% since 2005—the largest drop in England. That is great to see, not just for my constituents in the City of Durham but for communities right across the north-east, an area with some of the worst health inequalities in the UK. Much of that success can be attributed to the regional leadership and support of Fresh. The experience of the north-east clearly shows the huge benefits of establishing expert-led, regional tobacco control programmes to support local areas, as we have had in the north-east over the last 22 years. I am sure that all regions would benefit from this approach. There was a time when smoking rates below 10% in the region would have been unthinkable—a pipe dream—but in our mission to end smoking we have achieved many unthinkable things, and we have never stopped pushing for progress. However, we have not called this debate to pat ourselves on the back and think it is job done—far from it. As we have heard, there are still 4.9 million smokers across the UK, and smoking is increasingly becoming an issue of health inequality. The inequality is stark: if current trends continue, people with a degree will reach smoking rates of less than 1%, while people with no qualifications are not expected to reach that same milestone until 29 years later. That gap should concern us all, because it shows that progress is not being felt equally across society. I was pleased recently to bring together stakeholders, on behalf of the APPGs on smoking and health and on poverty and inequality, to host a roundtable on the link between smoking and poverty. Smoking is a well-known health issue, but it is also a direct driver of poverty. It is a preventable contributor to the cost of living crisis for millions of people experiencing tobacco addiction. Smoking pushes 417,000 households below the poverty line. Last year, one in four people who smoke went hungry after skipping meals, and people who smoke are nearly three times as likely to use food banks. The roundtable included some insightful discussions about how we can make support for smoking cessation available in food banks and other community settings— reaching people where they already are and making it easier for them to access support. Moving forward, opt-out support must be the way we work. It would be great to hear from the Minister what progress has been made on the manifesto commitment on opt-out support in routine care. At the event, I was pleased to hear from Gillian and Hannah, who came to share their lived experience and spoke to us so openly. As the hon. Member for Harrow East alluded to, hearing someone say that they would buy cigarettes before buying food for their children, and that they only ever managed to take their children on holiday once they quit, shows how cessation can give not only freedom from addiction, but financial freedom too. The good news is that there is something we can do about it. Smoking is not inevitable. Tobacco addiction can be broken with the right support. That is why it is so important for the Government to publish a road map to a smoke-free country that sets out how we can target support to the right people and build on examples of best practice. We also need a new target. Smokefree 2030 is very unlikely to be met, and a less than 5% prevalence still leaves millions smoking. This Labour Government should be bold and set a date by which we will pledge to see smoking rates below 1% in all groups across society. We can introduce a levy on industry profits to fund programmes to support smokers and still have cash to spare. We can also use the powers in the Tobacco and Vapes Act to ensure that all tobacco products are comprehensively regulated and to take a balanced approach to vapes and other nicotine products. We need to ensure that a variety of cessation aids, such as medication and vapes, are available to smokers to help them on their quit journey. The recent Cochrane review confirmed the effectiveness of vapes in supporting quitting, and we must not forget that, on average, it takes 30 attempts to quit. The regulation of vaping products is necessary to reduce their youth appeal, and the Government are right to be pulling multiple levers to achieve that aim, including a crackdown on rogue sellers through new planning powers for councils, the incoming licensing and registration scheme, and the vaping products duty, which came into effect at the start of this month. A road map that situates vaping policy as part of a wider strategy on smoking and public health would help to enhance this long-overdue regulatory agenda. However, it is a complex area; has the Minister considered convening an expert group of some kind? This Government will be remembered as the Government who signalled the beginning of the end for smoking with the smoke-free generation, but we could be the ones to end smoking for good. I look forward to hearing from the Minister and to working with her to ensure that we do just that.

    Hansard source
  2. ParliamentMary Kelly Foy

    Police Funding: North-east England

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wishart. I congratulate my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst), on securing this debate. The consequences that we see today in our areas in the north-east, which we have heard about already, come as no surprise. Generational de-industrialisation causing regional economic disparity combined with austerity, deep cuts to public services and growing pressure on councils and community services have all taken their toll. We are now seeing those consequences—higher levels of social need, antisocial behaviour, neighbourhood insecurity and addiction. Our officers can often be left dealing with the symptoms of the challenges that begin long before criminality occurs. The reality is that Durham constabulary has had to manage a rising and increasingly complex demand while operating with over 100 fewer police officers than it had in 2010, despite officer numbers increasing nationally overall. It has had a real impact on our communities. Only last week, I received an anonymous letter from a serving police officer outlining their concerns about neighbourhood policing. They told me that despite neighbourhood teams seeming to be adequately staffed on paper, the reality on the ground is that these officers are routinely assigned to cover other duties, leaving PCSOs to cover the majority of neighbourhood work. Alongside that, the nature of policing has changed dramatically. Officers today are not only dealing with traditional crime, they are responding to incidents involving online offending, child exploitation, safeguarding concerns, domestic abuse and mental health crises. Those issues require significant time and resources, but are now a routine part of modern policing. The result is that officers are dealing with huge workloads. In Durham, recorded crime per officer remains above the national average. This has implications not only for the service provided to the public, but also for the wellbeing of officers and staff who continue to serve our communities with professionalism and dedication. Durham Police Federation has highlighted the pressures experienced by frontline officers. It has spoken of officers working hard to meet demand, often at the expense of their own wellbeing and family life, while dealing with uncertainty created by short-term funding settlements. We have already heard about the unfairness of forces with lower council tax bases, so I will not repeat those facts. However, as discussions continue about the future structure and funding of policing, it is important that the experiences of north-east police forces are fully understood. Any assessment of need must reflect not only population but deprivation, rurality and vulnerability. County Durham contains both urban and rural communities, each with their own challenges, and those realities should be reflected in future considerations. We must listen to the views of our constituents, whose concerns often go unanswered for lengthy periods because there are not enough officers to respond to incidents. I met Belmont Guides recently, and heard how deeply antisocial behaviour and low-level crime impacts their local community. Whether that is balaclava-clad youths riding e-bikes, vandals damaging park equipment and green spaces, acts of animal cruelty or intimidating behaviour as the evenings draw in, many of our communities are increasingly having to contend with these issues. These young girls deserve to feel safe in their communities, but they see a distinct lack of police officers on the streets. They want to know why that is. Minister, how do I reassure these young people in Durham that our county will receive the additional police officers we so desperately need and deserve, so that children feel safe enough to enjoy being out in the fresh air with their friends, instead of being attached to electronic devices? It is not just young people. I regularly hear from elderly residents who are afraid to go out alone after dark, from women who have escaped abusive relationships only to find themselves being pursued again, from public transport users dealing with antisocial behaviour and violence at bus stations, and from shop workers and market traders who have repeatedly suffered thefts while seeing little police presence on our streets. This is a real picture that I am painting, and we ignore it at our peril. Recent tragic events in the wider north-east region have served as a reminder of the risks that officers face in protecting the public, and our thoughts remain with those families. My constituents in Durham rightly expect an effective, visible and responsive police service. As future decisions are made about police structure and funding, I sincerely hope that the experiences of forces and residents across the north-east will be at the forefront of discussions, because it is time that the Government listened to them. I hope that it will be this Labour Government.

    Hansard source
  3. ParliamentMary Kelly Foy

    Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    We have heard much today about the legal, medical and ethical questions being raised by this Bill. For me, the idea of ignoring the warnings of the medical professions is absolutely baffling, but my remarks today will focus on poverty, inequality and what dignity really means at the end of life. My daughter Maria has been in my mind throughout my considerations. Maria lived with severe cerebral palsy. She was non-verbal and required round-the-clock care. From the day she was born, we were told that she might have just six months to live, but she defied that and lived for 27 years, bringing immense joy to our family. It is because of Maria that I approach this debate with concern; I fear for non-verbal or vulnerable people, and I worry about those who do not have a trusted person to protect them or speak out for them. I am sure that we all want to see dignity for those at the end of life, but we must ask ourselves what dignity really is. In these circumstances, dignity means being well cared for and supported, receiving the best possible treatment, and knowing that your life is valued. It is not dignified to feel pressured towards death because of the burdens of cost, or the social and economic pressures that accompany serious and terminal illness. When we talk about coercion, we often think of pressure from individuals, but the greater risk may be social coercion driven by inequalities that exist in our society.

    Hansard source
  4. ParliamentMary Kelly Foy

    Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    Briefly, because my hon. Friend has made a few interventions already.

    Hansard source
  5. ParliamentMary Kelly Foy

    Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, but he will find that there are statistics on that. In America, 8% of those who have been deemed to have chosen to end their life have faced huge financial difficulties.

    Hansard source
  6. ParliamentMary Kelly Foy

    Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    I could not agree more—these issues have come to light in similar jurisdictions around the world. We know that there is a greater risk of social coercion driven by the inequalities that people face. Under the current proposals, will the panel of experts be able to adequately assess the impact of the wider pressures of life? The truth is that when we talk about choice, the reality of making such a choice is very different for the wealthy than it is for others. Inequality shapes health outcomes throughout our lives, as well as the options available to people at the end of their life. The choices facing someone who is financially secure are very different from those facing someone on a low income, relying on benefits or struggling to make ends meet. As I say, evidence from other countries starkly highlights that such social and economic factors—including inequality in the provision of healthcare—are significant for those who are deemed to have chosen to end their life. We should not ignore that. For more than a decade, we have seen public services come under strain, disability support reduced, and rising hardship for many families. During covid, we witnessed immense pressures on our health system, and I worry that we risk telling people that we cannot always guarantee the support needed to live well, but we can offer greater choice in death. Real choice can only come with high-quality care, strong support services and access to excellent palliative care. That would provide dignity, and it is our job—and a challenge for society—to deliver the chance of real dignity for those facing terminal illness. The people most exposed to the risks within the Bill are often those who already face disadvantage: older people, women, those living in poverty and those with poor mental health. We live in a very unequal society; the wealthy are better protected from hardship, while others face pressures that can profoundly influence their decisions. I cannot be clear enough in saying that poverty should never be the reason for someone to choose to die. I conclude by returning to Maria. While she will not be able to hear my remarks today, I know she would be pleased that I finally got to make my case, and I urge colleagues to bear in mind people like Maria when they cast their votes. If we are serious about dignity and choice, our first duty should be to improve care, strengthen support and tackle the inequalities that shape people’s lives.

    Hansard source
  7. ParliamentMary Kelly Foy

    Independent Schools: Regulation of Proprietors

    I am grateful for the opportunity to draw the House’s attention to a hugely concerning issue that has recently unfolded in my constituency: the sudden closure of Durham high school. The lack of communication and clarity from its owners, Galaxy Global Education, up until the very final moments of the school year left staff and families heartbroken and in shock. Founded in 1884, the local institution spent 142 years providing an outstanding educational environment rooted in our local community. Indeed, in 2024 it was named independent secondary school of the year for the north-east by The Sunday Times. In early 2026, the school was still issuing marketing material and advertising pupil enrolment opportunities. Pupil enrolment was still being offered as recently as the beginning of June. Parents had parted with significant sums of money to secure places at the school, yet only a few weeks later what seemed to be an assured future in new hands has fallen apart. Members may ask what went wrong. In 2024, the school was acquired by GGE as part of its proposed expansion into the UK independent school sector. The stated mission of the company was to operate independent schools and promote international education opportunities. As Durham high school has found out to its cost, however, the reality has been different. Following the acquisition of the school, which formerly operated as Durham high school for girls, the parent company incorporated a new UK company, Durham Education Ltd, to run the school under the umbrella of GGE. At a meeting on 27 June 2025 designed to allow parents to understand more about GGE, attendees were told that there would be investment in the school for at least five years to help make it financially viable. One of the parent company’s first acts was to mandate a shift to co-education from September 2025, claiming that it would increase the student roll and secure the school’s future. That was resisted by some families as there was no consultation, and GGE actively silenced parent feedback. The school became Durham high school. But, having demanded that shift, the promised investment to fully install male changing facilities at the school did not materialise. GGE also seemingly blocked the senior leadership team’s efforts to make it work. In one specific instance, the school’s leadership proposed a co-educational integration plan requiring only £3,000 of investment from the parent company, but GGE flatly refused. That starved the school of minimal resources while setting a benchmark designed for failure. This is not an isolated incident; there is a clear pattern across the country. We saw warning signs when GGE acquired and closed Malvern St James, but in that case there was at least some notice. Durham and another GGE-owned school in Wales, Ruthin school, have been afforded no such courtesy.

    Hansard source
  8. ParliamentMary Kelly Foy

    Independent Schools: Regulation of Proprietors

    I thank my hon. Friend for the intervention. I completely agree. The way in which the company has acted towards pupils, parents and staff is outrageous. The least it could do is to provide some clarity and support going forward. Later in my speech, I will ask the Minister about some lessons that can be learned.

    Hansard source
  9. ParliamentMary Kelly Foy

    Independent Schools: Regulation of Proprietors

    I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It seems that this overseas company had no intention of educating our children in the UK, and legislation should be strengthened or put in place to stop this happening again. It is as though GGE saw the fallout of their decision to inform Malvern in advance and attempted to hide from any further scrutiny by giving the other schools zero notice. It is abhorrent. When I contacted GGE’s directors to demand answers, they were at pains to point out to me that they have done all they can to support staff and families. They even alluded to the Government’s introduction of VAT on independent school fees. That is nonsense. Since the VAT changes were announced, Durham high school’s roll only dipped from 288 to 281—a net loss of just seven pupils. The school has a physical capacity for 650 pupils, and a financial break-even point of roughly 350. A senior staff member said in their parting message: “Whatever you read, this isn’t a VAT story. It isn’t a falling rolls or unstoppable decline story. The truth is deeper, and more complex, and eventually truth will out.” It seems clear that there was never any genuine effort by GGE to make this school a success. Speaking to union representatives at the school, I am told that repeated requests to see even a basic plan for how the company would secure the school’s future were rebuffed. What do we know about GGE? Very little seems to be the answer. It was only incorporated in the UK in April 2025, and I understand that it has not yet been possible to assess its level of available cash, debt levels, profitability or inter-company lending. The structure of the company seems equally opaque, spread across several companies, school-operating companies and overseas interests. One of those beneficial owners ultimately traces back to the Cayman Islands, with no transparency at that point. What is clear is that one person holds a significant amount of power, and they were the person with overall control of the school until its closure. Shangqin Gao, a Chinese national, holds roughly 75% of GGE’s shares. As I understand it, the school has had no contact with this person. The House may note that this individual is also linked to two other businesses: Shine Space Management Ltd and Galaxy Capital Real Estate. The latter was incorporated only two years before the purchase of Durham high school. All this background leads us to the crux of the situation: more than 280 children have been left stranded without a school, staff have been left without jobs and young women who sat their public exams this summer may not even be able to collect their results in the school where they studied. Local suppliers have been left facing significant losses due to unpaid invoices. Crucially, children with additional needs who thrived in this intimate environment have been thrown into limbo. They must now search for alternative specialist provision potentially miles away from home, or face being absorbed into mainstream settings. Our local secondary state schools that provide top-class education and often win prestigious awards—such as St Leonard’s, Durham Johnston and Belmont—are all just about full. There is not enough capacity to easily absorb these pupils. As well as throwing these families into crisis, GGE has also heaped pressure on the local authority. Will the Minister liaise with Durham county council to ensure that the admissions team is appropriately supported? The conduct of GGE in the final days, weeks and months of the school’s operation reveals the true nature of this business. As the company ran down the school, the financial team carefully managed the remaining funds to ensure they could pay staff salaries for June, despite GGE blocking the school from paying suppliers. Yet days before payroll was due, an unexpected invoice was received from GGE that would have wiped out those payments entirely, and GGE required the massive bill to be paid that same day. Thankfully, the school business manager prioritised the livelihoods of the hard-working staff, paid the wages and ignored the demand. However, in a final blow to devastated staff, I heard just yesterday that the administrators have informed them they cannot claim unpaid salaries for July and August, despite already carrying out their work for the academic year. A cynical mind would look at how Durham Education Limited was put into administration and conclude that it benefits a parent company to position itself as a major debtor upon any future sale, especially when the ultimate ownership of the land is in doubt. Despite assurances from GGE, the entire debacle bears the hallmarks of a land grab. In Durham, the prime real estate on which Farewell Hall sits is estimated to be worth around £10 million. That brings me to the core question: what can the Government do to stop predatory overseas companies asset-stripping our educational institutions and treating our children’s futures as real estate speculation? Schools such as Durham high served as a safety valve for the local authority's overstretched school place allocations. Despite that, entire families have been thrown to the wolves so that an overseas corporate entity can access prime land on the edge of a historic city centre. Section 128 of the Education and Skills Act 2008 rightly gives the Secretary of State for Education the power to bar unsuitable individuals from managing independent schools. Yet with the opaque structure of the business and the fact GGE has been able to rapidly churn through directors at Companies House, shuffling responsibilities and moving its statutory administrative offices to anonymous London addresses, it seems that oversight on such businesses is patchy. How can we ensure in the future that what has happened in Durham, Malvern and Ruthin does not happen elsewhere? To be clear, my key asks of the Minister are as follows. Will the Minister help families in Durham, Ruthin and Malvern get clarity on what steps were taken by the Department for Education, Estyn and Ofsted to ensure the suitability of GGE? Will the Minister commit to reviewing the governance structure of all the affected schools? Will she advise me whether an independent investigation could be called into GGE’s management of Durham, Malvern and Ruthin to establish exactly what happened? Will she advise me on efforts that the Government, the local authority or the school community can take to preserve the Durham high school site for educational use, rather than allow a historical education asset to disappear? Finally, will the Minister take steps to close corporate loopholes and ensure proper regulation is in place for foreign investors in UK schools? We need robust legal mechanisms within the DFE to prevent foreign capital from severing historical school properties from their educational purposes. We need statutory protections that stop predatory owners transferring freeholds out of educational charities into private, for-profit shell companies. What happened at Durham high school will not simply go away. My constituents may be down but they are certainly not out, and they are driven by a desire for justice. Though they understand it may be too late for their beloved school, they wish no other family or hard-working member of school staff to have to go through the pain and uncertainty that they have felt. Last Friday, my team joined families, pupils, staff and trade unionists outside the school gates for a final act of solidarity. The compassion, mutual respect and dignity that was on display is something that GGE would do well to learn from. I am sure that all of us across the House might agree that no matter the nature of the establishment, the education of our children is a public good, not a real estate portfolio. What happened to Durham, Ruthin and Malvern cannot be allowed to happen again. I will close with the words of Mrs Middleton, the acting head for the school’s final weeks, who has been highly commended for the compassion and dedication that she has shown to the entire school community during the most horrendous circumstances: “On the final day we came together. Of course, there was sadness. There were tears. But there was also laughter, celebration, joy, and a deep sense of knowing one another. The hardest words I have had to say over these past few weeks were: “It’s time to go.” No one moved. So I left the stage, and Mrs Rochester and I walked the children out. Senior Leaders had planned to stand outside, greet parents and clap the children out. All the staff joined us. And for over an hour we clapped, talked, cried, hugged and clapped again. In that hour there was no complaining. No anger. Just togetherness. A community to the very end.”

    Hansard source
  10. ParliamentMary Kelly Foy

    Civil Service Pensions

    I have heard from dozens of my constituents across the City of Durham who have been impacted by either delayed or missing pension payments, and the number grows every day. A recent disturbing case centres around a chap who, sadly, has been diagnosed with early-onset Alzheimer’s at just 46 years old. Ill health retirees should never be left without the vital support they need at the most difficult moment of their lives. Will the Minister please reassure the House that Capita will clear the existing backlog as a matter of urgency, prioritising those with ill health, bereaved families and those facing financial hardship?

    Hansard source

2024 General Election: City of Durham

Held . Recorded result: Lab Hold. Majority 11,757. 40,627 votes cast from an electorate of 70,583. Parties are as each candidate stood at the time.

CandidatePartyVotesShare
Mary FoyLabour19,13147.1%
Mark BelchReform UK7,37418.2%
Mark WilkesLiberal Democrat5,92014.6%
Luke HolmesConservative5,22112.9%
Jonathan ElmerGreen Party2,8036.9%
Sarah WelbourneSocial Democratic Party1780.4%

Election result on Parliament's site

Parliamentary career

Seats held

SeatDates
City of DurhamElected 1 time – present
City of DurhamElected 1 time –
Committee memberships 8
CommitteeDates
Social Housing Bill [Lords] – present
Tobacco and Vapes Bill –
Procedure Committee – present
Tobacco and Vapes Bill –
Bishop's Stortford Cemetery Bill –
Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill –
Health and Care Bill –
Northern Ireland Affairs Committee –

Career on Parliament's site

Published contact details

Parliamentary office

House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA

0207 219 3000

[email protected]

Constituency office

Office of Mary Foy MP for City of Durham

0191 374 1915

Only the details Parliament publishes for this member. Contact page on Parliament's site

Profile data retrieved from Parliament on .