Tag: Barbara Keeley

  • Barbara Keeley – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Barbara Keeley – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Barbara Keeley on 2015-12-02.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the Oral Answer of 17 November 2015, Official Report, column 515, on non-hospital care, on what date he commissioned Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies to examine pressures in the care home sector; and if he will make a statement.

    Alistair Burt

    Paul Johnson has not been commissioned to examine pressures in the care home sector, nor are there any plans to commission him or the Institute for Fiscal Studies to undertake such a review.

  • Barbara Keeley – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Barbara Keeley – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Barbara Keeley on 2016-05-26.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many readmissions within 28 days of discharge from hospital there were for patients over the age of (a) 65, (b) 80 and (c) 90 in (i) England and (ii) each clinical commissioning group and primary care trust area in each of the last six years.

    George Freeman

    The information is not held in the format requested.

  • Barbara Keeley – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Barbara Keeley – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Barbara Keeley on 2015-12-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what discussions he has had with his Cabinet colleagues on making additional funding available to local authorities to help fund the introduction of the national living wage into social care from April 2016; and if he will make a statement.

    Alistair Burt

    Over the course of the Spending Review there have been a large number of in-depth discussions at both official and Ministerial level to inform the outcome. These discussions and analysis informed the decision to provide a settlement which means local government has access to the funding it needs to increase social care spending in real terms by the end of the Parliament, including:

    – The introduction of a social care precept, which puts money raising powers into the hands of local areas who understand the need in their area and who are best placed to respond. This could raise up to £2 billion by the end of the Parliament; and

    – From 2017/18, additional funds for social care will be made available through the Better Care Fund. This will rise to £1.5 billion by 2019/20.

    Following this additional funding, we expect councils will be able to increase the prices they pay for care in order to cover costs providers are facing such as the national living wage.

  • Barbara Keeley – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Barbara Keeley – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Barbara Keeley on 2016-09-02.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will conduct an investigation into the ethical basis for the move of Southern Health Chief Executive Katrina Percy to another post at the same salary level; and if he will make a statement.

    David Mowat

    The decision referred to by the hon. Member was taken by Southern Health, as is appropriate, and is a matter for them and the relevant regulatory bodies.

  • Barbara Keeley – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Barbara Keeley – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Barbara Keeley on 2015-12-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what estimate he has made of the cost to the public purse of introducing the national living wage into social care from April 2016.

    Alistair Burt

    These estimates are a matter for HM Treasury.

  • Barbara Keeley – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Barbara Keeley – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Barbara Keeley on 2015-12-14.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what the (a) rates of admission to hospital, (b) total hospital bed-days per population and (c) rates of admission to hospital from a nursing home or residential care home for patients with a secondary diagnosis of dementia and aged over (i) 65 and (ii) 75 years of age for each clinical commissioning group in England were in each month of the last five years.

    Jane Ellison

    Information on (a) the rates of admission to hospital, (b) the total hospital bed-days per population and (c) the rates of admission to hospital from a nursing home or residential care home for patients with a secondary diagnosis of dementia who are aged (i) over 65 and (ii) over 75 for each clinical commissioning group (CCG) in England for the each month in the past five years could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

    We have provided data attached which shows patients with a secondary diagnosis of dementia by CCG of residence for individuals aged (i) over 65 and (ii) over 75, for 2013-14 showing:

    (a) the rates of admission to hospital per age group population,

    (b) the total hospital bed-days per age group population and

    (c) the rates of admission to hospital from a nursing home or residential care home per age group population.

    Please be aware that the 2013-14 data supplied by the Health and Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC) in November 2014 was provisional at the time. HSCIC have since published the 2013-14 data. Further information can found through this link:

    http://www.hscic.gov.uk/article/2021/Website-Search?productid=17192&q=diagnosis+hospital+2013-14&sort=Relevance&size=10&page=1&area=both#top

    Note that some patients who live in nursing homes or residential care may have their source of admission recorded as ‘usual place of residence’ by the hospital staff but we cannot identify these.

  • Barbara Keeley – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Barbara Keeley – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Barbara Keeley on 2015-12-14.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, when Ministers in his Department were first informed about NHS England’s decision to change the data collected in the 2015-16 Winter Daily Situation Reports; when that decision was taken; and who was responsible for making that decision.

    Jane Ellison

    NHS England worked closely with NHS Trust Development Authority (TDA), Monitor (now NHS Improvement) and the Department over the summer to design the approach to winter monitoring. The approach this year is proportionate and risk based whereby trusts who have previously encountered heightened operational pressure are given the most support and are subject to the closest monitoring locally. Less challenged trusts are subject to a lighter touch approach and are required to submit a smaller selection of data items in the daily return. The overall approach was agreed in September by the respective chief executives of NHS England, TDA and Monitor with the Secretary of State for Health.

  • Barbara Keeley – 2022 Speech on the Short-term and Holiday-let Accommodation Licensing Bill

    Barbara Keeley – 2022 Speech on the Short-term and Holiday-let Accommodation Licensing Bill

    The speech made by Barbara Keeley, the Labour MP for Worsley and Eccles South, in the House of Commons on 9 December 2022.

    I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) for her hard work on this issue and congratulate her on introducing the Bill, which Labour strongly supports.

    Short-term letting, facilitated by businesses such as Airbnb, could be positive for our tourism sector and local economies, but short-term letting is only a good thing if it is sustainable and strengthens communities, rather than weakening them, and currently the unchecked prevalence of short-term and holiday lets is causing harm. First, there is a stream of temporary visitors who are not invested in the place in which they are staying; they may not follow rules on noise levels or health and safety. But even more fundamental, as my hon. Friend described, is the problem of what happens to a community when too many residential properties become short-term or holiday lets. Instead of the investment, employment opportunities and strong tourism industries that communities need to thrive, this kind of letting is causing a housing and public services crisis across coastal and rural parts of the UK and her area of Yorkshire.

    Areas such as Shropshire, Northumbria and Cornwall are seeing house prices soar and availability drop as wealthy outsiders buy up second homes to let out. That squeezes the affordability and availability of homes, particularly for local first-time buyers and private renters. It also results in houses left empty for large chunks of the year, reducing permanent populations. That can impact the local community disastrously: schools become unsustainable and close as local families are forced out, transport services are cut, and health and other services disappear as demand drops.

    This Bill would help communities to regain control and is in line with the findings from Labour’s commission on the UK’s future. As we have heard, the Bill proposes to give local authorities the powers to implement licensing schemes for the conversion of domestic properties into short-term and holiday-let accommodation. It would also, importantly, give them the right to exercise appropriate powers over those schemes: issuing fines or removing licences where key conditions are not being met; varying local tax rates in relation to such properties; limiting the number of days a year that short-term holiday lets can be rented; and banning their licensing in certain areas.

    If this Bill becomes law, places will be able to reap the rewards of thriving tourism, without the risk of communities becoming ghost towns when the holiday season ends, and locals will no longer be priced out of their own neighbourhoods. Getting this right quickly is essential, as my hon. Friend has been saying. Our tourism sector is doing all it can to attract visitors, but is doing so while grappling with the slow recovery from covid, a cost of living crisis and rising energy bills and inflation. I urge Government Members not to talk out this Bill today, but to join Labour in supporting it.

  • Barbara Keeley – 2022 Speech on Dormant Assets Funding and Community Wealth Funds

    Barbara Keeley – 2022 Speech on Dormant Assets Funding and Community Wealth Funds

    The speech made by Barbara Keeley, the Labour MP for Worsley and Eccles South, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons, on 6 December 2022.

    It is a pleasure to speak in this debate with you in the Chair, Ms Harris; I think that it is the first time I have done so. I thank the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) for securing the debate and all the hon. Members who have contributed to it.

    The significance of an expansion of the dormant assets fund for our vital civil society organisations cannot be overstated. Currently, charities are being battered financially on every side. Just last week, the Charities Aid Foundation published an analysis of a YouGov survey that showed that more than half of charities are worried about their very survival, because of the rising cost of living. When the same question was asked back in April, the figure was substantially lower, so we know that the problem is intensifying.

    The causes of the problem are manifold. On the one hand, the demand for charities’ services is higher than ever, as people grapple with the devastating impacts of falling living standards. On the other hand, charity income is being hit by rising energy costs, the declining value of grants and a hit to donations being caused by the cost of living crisis. The financial reserves of many organisations had already been stripped by the devastating impact of the covid pandemic.

    For these reasons, it is critical that further funding is released for charities as quickly as possible. However, funds released to the dormant assets scheme must not be used as a substitute for Government spending. After the financial difficulties of the last 10 years, this scheme is a welcome supplementary fund for budgets that have been stripped back—and not a replacement.

    Earlier this year, Labour was pleased to support the Dormant Assets Act 2022 as a delayed expansion of a scheme that a Labour Government put in place through the Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Act 2008. The scheme has been immensely successful, both in returning £105 million in dormant assets to owners, which a number of Members have mentioned, and in distributing £745 million to good causes. Our intention was always to broaden the financial products to which the 2008 Act applies; indeed, a review was scheduled for 2011. But here we are, over 10 years later, with the 2022 Act finally in place.

    The Government’s expansion of the scheme does not go as far as Labour’s expansion would have gone. We would have liked to see the inclusion of pension assets, unclaimed winnings from gambling and other funds that could have contributed to good causes. In the other place, Labour secured a commitment from the Government to consult on the potential benefits of the expanded scheme being distributed by community wealth funds. On Report, the Government repealed our amendment, which would have allowed the Secretary of State to include community wealth funds as recipients of funding in England. The amendment aimed to empower communities and it had cross-party support, so it was disappointing to see it being rejected. It is right that community wealth funds have been included in the consultation launched this summer, as promised.

    Community wealth funds distribute funds to local communities, which in turn decide their own priorities—a matter that Members speaking in this debate have really stressed as being important. These funds are targeted at communities that persistently lose out on grants or that have low levels of civil society infrastructure but high need.

    We know that deprived communities do not benefit from the same level of civil society infrastructure as other communities. Research by the all-party parliamentary group for ‘left behind’ neighbourhoods—I congratulate the APPG for the work it has done in this regard—found that there are almost three times fewer registered charities per 100,000 population in such areas than there are across England as a whole, and these communities also receive fewer grants. I understand this because, like my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), I have a left-behind neighbourhood in my constituency, which is Little Hulton ward.

    Community wealth funds have the potential to boost and empower these communities by enabling them to invest in the facilities and services that would have the most benefit locally. I know that this proposal has strong support from civil society, including an alliance of 400 charities and community groups led by the Local Trust.

    We should recognise and celebrate the successes of those organisations that have distributed the Reclaim Fund until now. Big Society Capital, Access, the Youth Futures Foundation and Fair4All Finance have all done a really good job. We want these organisations to be able to continue to carry out their important work. I would welcome an assurance from the Minister that they have nothing to fear in the event of the Government making future changes to how funds should be spent.

    Labour supports the need for consultation on the distribution of dormant asset funds in England. We want to ensure that it is carried out both properly and promptly. There has been too much delay already and it is now imperative for charities that the Government act as quickly as possible in publishing their decision on the distribution of dormant assets and move to the next stage of this process.

  • Barbara Keeley – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Barbara Keeley – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Barbara Keeley on 2015-10-23.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will make an assessment of the implications for his policies of the findings of the report, A Charge on Caring?, published by the Carers Trust in September 2015, on the level of compliance by councils with their duty under the Care Act 2014 to prevent carers developing a need for support.

    Alistair Burt

    The Government recognises the valuable contribution made by carers, many of whom spend a significant proportion of their life providing support to family members or friends.

    The Care Act guidance is clear about policy on charging carers. The Care Act statutory guidance, at paragraph 8.50 states that:

    “Local authorities are not required to charge a carer for support and indeed in many cases it would be a false economy to do so. When deciding whether to charge, and in determining what an appropriate charge is, a local authority should consider how it wishes to express the way it values carers within its local community as partners in care, and recognise the significant contribution carers make.”

    The Care Act replicates the previous position where charging carers was permissible. It would not have been appropriate to impose a blanket ban on charging for carers services, because in some cases small charges are necessary to the viability of services. However, the Care Act provides additional protection to carers by making it clear that local authorities cannot charge carers for services provided to the person being cared for. This means that carers may only be charged for services provided directly to them.

    Most local authorities (currently only 5%) do not routinely charge carers in recognition of the valuable contribution carers make to their local communities, and the Carers Trust report confirms that this is still the case. We will continue to make the case against routine charging of carers and to monitor the situation closely.

    The Care Act and guidance are clear about the provision of preventative services. Under the Care Act, local authorities have a responsibility to support carers in a number of ways. This includes duties on local authorities to provide information and advice and universal preventative services for carers.

    We continue to support implementation of the Care Act 2014.

    To support implementation of the reform programme, we have established a joint Programme Management Office between the Department, Local Government Association and Association of Directors of Adults Social Services (ADASS). This unprecedented partnership is driving collaborative working with the sector, influencing the local implementation of these changes to support a consistent and coherent approach. This approach was recognised by the National Audit Office as best practice and should be adopted by other programmes.

    The programme includes a series of stocktakes of local authority readiness and the latest, from June 2015, demonstrates an overall positive picture on implementation:

    – Councils’ confidence in their ability to deliver the Care Act Reforms in 2015/16 remains high, with 99% very or fairly confident.

    – 89% of councils say that they are ‘on track’ with their implementation. The remaining 11% report themselves as only slightly behind.

    The Department is also leading on the development of a new National Carers’ Strategy that will examine what more we can do to support existing carers and the new carers.