Tag: Kate Osamor

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kate Osamor on 2015-11-10.

To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what estimate he has made of the proportion of people who are at high risk from carbon monoxide poisoning.

James Wharton

The Department does not make a direct estimate of the proportion of people at high risk from carbon monoxide poisoning. The Department has however published analysis that shows solid fuel combustion appliances have the highest risk of accidental carbon monoxide poisonings when compared to other fuels.

Since 2010, Building Regulations in England have required carbon monoxide alarms when new or replacement solid fuel burning appliances are installed.

From 1 October 2015, the Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarm (England) Regulations 2015 require private rented sector landlords to have at least one smoke alarm installed on every storey of their rental property which is used as living accommodation, and a carbon monoxide alarm in any room used as living accommodation where solid fuel is used.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kate Osamor on 2015-11-23.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what assessment she has made of the effect of the (a) level of provision of spaces in SEN schools and (b) rising number of children with SEN statements in mainstream schools on the educational rights and attainment of children with SEN.

Edward Timpson

Our vision for children with Special Educational Needs and disabilities (SEND) is the same as for all children and young people – that they thrive in their early years, at school and in college, and lead happy and fulfilled lives. We have made extensive changes to the SEND system to improve prospects for these students.

The Children and Families Act 2014 secures the general presumption in law of mainstream education in relation to decisions about where children and young people with SEN should be educated and the Equality Act 2010 provides protection from discrimination for disabled people. The presumption of mainstream education is supported by provisions which safeguard the interests of all children and young people and ensure that the school preferences of the young person or their parents are met wherever possible.

Local authorities must review the educational provision for children and young people with SEN and disabilities in their areas and whether this meets the needs of those concerned. The Department produces national projections for the number of pupils in England, which help inform local authority decision-making over school capacity. Local authorities have the freedom to choose to use some of their capital funding on new places in special schools where that is a local priority and we continue to welcome applications for new special free schools where there is a particular need or demand for new provision.

The proportion of pupils with a statement of SEN or Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan has remained at 2.8% since 2007. There are 236,165 children with statements or EHC plans. Of those children with statements, 57% were in mainstream places in state-funded schools in January 2015. The proportion in special schools was 43% in January 2015.

The educational attainment of pupils with SEND has generally been improving, but a significant gap remains between their attainment and that of those with no identified SEND. At Key Stage 2 for example, in National Curriculum assessments in 2014 38% of all pupils with SEN achieved the expected level in the combined reading, writing and mathematics measure in 2014, compared with 90% of pupils with no identified SEN, resulting in an attainment gap of 51 percentage points. This represented an improvement of 2 percentage points since 2013 (when the equivalent figures were 34% of pupils with SEN and 88% of those with no identified SEN). We will continue to support schools and local authorities in their efforts to support improvement of the attainment of those with SEND.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kate Osamor on 2016-03-16.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what assessment his Department has made of the safety of care provided by North Middlesex Hospital’s A&E department since its receipt of a notification of a risk summit.

Jane Ellison

Patient safety in hospitals remains a key priority for the United Kingdom and whilst progress has been made there is clearly much more to be done.

We understand that on 17 February 2016, NHS England and the NHS Trust Development Authority jointly convened a Risk Summit to discuss issues identified with the quality and safety of care in the emergency department at North Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust.

All organisations present at the Risk Summit have committed to working together to reduce pressure on the emergency department and ensure patient safety.

An improvement plan is now being implemented to address the quality and safety issues raised.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kate Osamor on 2016-09-13.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessment she has made of the effect of narrowing the defintion of torture in the draft guidance on adults at risk on the ability of her Department to meet Stephen Shaw’s recommendation to adopt a wider definition of those at risk.

Mr Robert Goodwill

For the purposes of the Government’s “adults at risk in immigration detention” policy, which was implemented on 12 September, the Government has adopted a definition of torture in line with that set out in the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT). This covers acts of torture carried out by, or on behalf of state authorities and, in guidance issued to Home Office staff, to doctors working in immigration removal centres, and to other staff, it has been made clear that the definition also covers acts of torture or ill-treatment carried out by groups exploiting instability and civil war to hold territory. It does not, however, cover acts of violence carried out in the course of, for example, neighbourhood disputes. The definition employed most accurately reflects the need to protect those who are most likely to be deleteriously affected by detention – that is, those who have been harmed by the state (or by an organisation exercising similar control) and for whom detention is most likely to be redolent of the harm they have suffered. In addition, individuals will fall within the scope of the adults at risk policy if the harm to which they have been subjected causes them to suffer from a condition which also falls within the “indicators of risk” set out in the policy, regardless of whether it falls within the strict definition of “torture” and regardless of the perpetrator of the violence. The policy recognises a broad range of groups of individuals as those likely to be particularly vulnerable to harm in detention without necessarily having to define them as victims of torture.

In making the decision to employ the UNCAT definition of torture, the Government took into account a range of considerations, including the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees guidelines, but concluded that the UNCAT definition provided the appropriate level of protection. The Government believes that this approach is fully in line with Stephen Shaw’s recommendations in respect of vulnerable people. The adults at risk policy as a whole represents a broadening of the scope of individuals considered vulnerable, by virtue of the inclusion within the list of indicators of risk set out in the policy of, for example, victims of sexual or gender based violence (including female genital mutilation), transsexual individuals, and those suffering from post traumatic stress disorder. Overall, the impact of the adoption of the UNCAT definition on different groups of vulnerable individuals will depend on the circumstances of the particular case. The Government does not anticipate that it will have a disproportionate impact on any specific group. In particular, the Government does not see that there are contradictions in applying the new definition of torture alongside the inclusion in the policy, as an indicator of risk, being a victim of sexual or gender based violence. Although the perpetrator of the violence is, by necessity, a key part of the definition of torture, the adults at risk policy focuses as a whole on the impact on the individual and on whether detention is appropriate in their particular case. Home Office caseworkers have been provided with training and communications on the new adults at risk policy, including in respect of the definition of torture. Guidance on the adults at risk policy has been issued, including to the commissioners of healthcare in Immigration Removal Centres.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kate Osamor on 2015-11-10.

To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what steps his Department is taking to raise awareness of the risks of carbon monoxide poisoning.

James Wharton

Building upon the success of the Fire Kills campaign, the Department for Communities and Local Government is running a campaign to raise awareness of the risks of carbon monoxide poisoning in the home. The Department has developed new Public Safety Radio Broadcasts that give advice on how best to avoid the risks and how to spot the danger signs of carbon monoxide poisoning. These are available for broadcasters to download free of charge.

The Department has also published guidance to be given to tenants at the start of new tenancies which includes references to new requirements on private landlords to install and check carbon monoxide alarms in rooms where there are solid fuel burning appliances.

The guidance is available at: www.gov.uk/government/publications/how-to-rent.

“

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kate Osamor on 2015-11-23.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, if he will make representations to his Saudi Arabian counterpart calling for the release of Mr Ashraf Fayadh who was sentenced to death in Saudi Arabia on 17 November 2015 on charges of apostasy.

Mr Tobias Ellwood

We are aware of, and concerned about, the case of Mr Ashraf Fayadh (who is Palestinian). We oppose the death penalty in all circumstances and strongly support freedom of expression in every country. We regularly make the Saudi Arabian authorities aware of our views, and will consider suitable opportunities for raising our concerns over this case.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kate Osamor on 2016-03-15.

To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what assessment his Department has made of the potential effect of the Post Office’s franchising plans on local communities.

George Freeman

Franchising plans for its directly managed Crown post offices is the operational responsibility of Post Office Limited.

The Post Office’s aim in seeking franchise partners for some of its Crown branches is to ensure continued access to Post Office services for customers in local communities on a sustainable basis going forward. Over 97% of the network already operates through agency or franchise branches and the change from a Crown to a franchise branch has been undertaken previously in many locations across the UK and is a successful way of sustaining Post Office services in those areas.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kate Osamor on 2016-09-13.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessment she has made of the effect of narrowing the definition of torture in the draft guidance on adults at risk on people who have been subjected to (a) discriminatory treatment in their community as a result of their sexual orientation, transgender identity, mental or other disability, (b) ethnic, racial, religious inter-communal violence including genocide, (c) political violence at the hand of non-state actors, (d) male rape and sexual violence and (e) human trafficking.

Mr Robert Goodwill

For the purposes of the Government’s “adults at risk in immigration detention” policy, which was implemented on 12 September, the Government has adopted a definition of torture in line with that set out in the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT). This covers acts of torture carried out by, or on behalf of state authorities and, in guidance issued to Home Office staff, to doctors working in immigration removal centres, and to other staff, it has been made clear that the definition also covers acts of torture or ill-treatment carried out by groups exploiting instability and civil war to hold territory. It does not, however, cover acts of violence carried out in the course of, for example, neighbourhood disputes. The definition employed most accurately reflects the need to protect those who are most likely to be deleteriously affected by detention – that is, those who have been harmed by the state (or by an organisation exercising similar control) and for whom detention is most likely to be redolent of the harm they have suffered. In addition, individuals will fall within the scope of the adults at risk policy if the harm to which they have been subjected causes them to suffer from a condition which also falls within the “indicators of risk” set out in the policy, regardless of whether it falls within the strict definition of “torture” and regardless of the perpetrator of the violence. The policy recognises a broad range of groups of individuals as those likely to be particularly vulnerable to harm in detention without necessarily having to define them as victims of torture.

In making the decision to employ the UNCAT definition of torture, the Government took into account a range of considerations, including the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees guidelines, but concluded that the UNCAT definition provided the appropriate level of protection. The Government believes that this approach is fully in line with Stephen Shaw’s recommendations in respect of vulnerable people. The adults at risk policy as a whole represents a broadening of the scope of individuals considered vulnerable, by virtue of the inclusion within the list of indicators of risk set out in the policy of, for example, victims of sexual or gender based violence (including female genital mutilation), transsexual individuals, and those suffering from post traumatic stress disorder. Overall, the impact of the adoption of the UNCAT definition on different groups of vulnerable individuals will depend on the circumstances of the particular case. The Government does not anticipate that it will have a disproportionate impact on any specific group. In particular, the Government does not see that there are contradictions in applying the new definition of torture alongside the inclusion in the policy, as an indicator of risk, being a victim of sexual or gender based violence. Although the perpetrator of the violence is, by necessity, a key part of the definition of torture, the adults at risk policy focuses as a whole on the impact on the individual and on whether detention is appropriate in their particular case. Home Office caseworkers have been provided with training and communications on the new adults at risk policy, including in respect of the definition of torture. Guidance on the adults at risk policy has been issued, including to the commissioners of healthcare in Immigration Removal Centres.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kate Osamor on 2015-11-16.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what proportion of women detained in Yarl’s Wood Immigration Removal Centre in the last year have (a) attempted to or (b) inflicted harm upon themselves.

James Brokenshire

Published statistics for the period July 2014 to June 2015 show that 1,501 women entered Yarl’s Wood immigration removal centre as the first place of detention. Provisional management information for the same time period shows that there were 54 incidents of self-harm requiring medical treatment at Yarl’s Wood that involved women.

These numbers do not necessarily equate to the number of detainees requiring medical treatment. An individual may have received medical treatment on more than one occasion, therefore a maximum of 54 women could have received medical treatment for self harm, the equivalent of 3.6% of the total female population that entered Yarl’s Wood for the specified period.